U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. National Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration c/o EPA Office of Site Remediation and Restoration (HIO) 5 Post Office Square, OSRR-07-1 Boston, MA 02109 26 May 2011
Mr. Bob Cianciarulo U.S. EPA Office of Site Remediation and Rest. 5 Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109
Dear Bob:
Below is a nearly identical copy of the 20 December 2010 version of my Revised Corrective Measure Study Report that I sent to Susan Svirsky. Please pass this on to the EPA National Remedy Review Board. NOAA’s interest in this site since settlement of the Natural Resources damages is modest, nevertheless a few comments are provided below mostly general in nature with an attempt to find a final remedy compromise between EPA and GE.
Concerning the Addendum: Given that the second paragraph of the Introduction states that “GE has a fundamental disagreement with EPA regarding whether exposure to PCBs at environmental levels causes adverse effects on human health and the environment” it is immediate to the reader that GE subscribes to a different set of peer-reviewed literature and furthermore has ignored past remedial measures in the US. Nevertheless, I did find their discussion concerning the benthos and fish IMPGs technically fair but find that the GE assumptions move to far afield from the precautionary principal. For example, GE states that their higher IMPGs for the benthic invertebrates are more scientifically sound that those of EPA. But it is EPA’s calculation of 3-10 mg/kg that is better supported by past work in this field. Nevertheless, rather than pounding their chest that their calculations are better, an attempt to compromise with EPA likely would result in a sediment concentration amenable to both parties (7-10 mg/kg that overlaps both GE and EPA’s concentration range?). Similarly, concerning Fish Protection on Page 5, both EPA and GE make use of assumptions due to the uncertainty inherent in this two phase study. I prefer the more conservative approach advanced by EPA but some compromise – although closer to EPA’s fish tissue concentration – by both parties could resolve this disagreement. For example lowering the number of meals from 55 to 14 for human health impacts from fish tissue exposure.
Concerning the Revised Corrective Measures Study: Given NOAA’s very indirect natural resource trustee concerns at this site, I thought it best not to debate Section 2 (Description of Evaluation Criteria) or address the issues concerning the model (Section 3.2) or remediation impacts and the complexity of restoration (Section 5). The regulators and other stakeholders with more direct and local interests certainly will cover this. Rather I thought it best to provide an opinion that Sediment/Floodplain Alternative #3 is the best alternative for reaching consensus. This remedy provides the most river and floodplain habitat improvement for the least amount of cost given the relatively limited dredging and capping. Of note, this is the alternative highlighted by GE during their initial CMS presentation in Pittsfield in March 2008. Although not a complete cleanup of the “Rest or River” this remedy goes a long way in improving the general health of the river ecosystem. That because most of the PCB mass is removed or covered. Most importantly, this remedy reaches well into the 90th percentile for decreasing PCB loading, considerably higher than its closest analogue SED 10/FP 3 yet much less expensive than any of the more comprehensive remedial measures. As stated in the Executive Summary on Page 21:
The model results indicate that, under SED 10, the mass of PCBs passing both Woods Pond and Rising Pond Dams would decrease by 62% relative to current levels, while the PCB mass transported to the Reach 5/6 floodplain would decrease by 68%. Under SED 3, the modeled total decrease in these three PCB loads (i.e., mass transport) would be 94%, 87%, and 97%, respectively. For alternatives greater than SED 3, the modeled reductions in all three loads level off, and are generally greater than 95%, achieving little additional reduction. . .
Similarly, remedy SED 3/FP 3 potentially reduce PCB concentrations in the fish fillets by as high as 100%, considerably higher than the 50-80% reduction when using SED 10/FP 9.
GE spends much time promoting SED 10/FP 9 explaining that this option does not result in the substantial and widespread long-term, and in some cases permanent, adverse impacts on the ecosystem of the river that they claim will occur using any of the remedies encompassing SED 3/FP 3 thorough SED 9/ FP 8. However, when comparing SED 3/FP 3 with SED 10/FP 9, Table ES-1 through ES-5 show that the former removes less cubic yardage despite complete cleanup of highly contaminated zone 5A and the bank soil. Granted thin layer capping of Woods Pond and part of Zone 5C only enhances the SED 3/FP 3 remedy but the capping is likely as effective as the partial removal of the Woods Pond sediment used in SED 10, and thereby eliminates the dredging (of Wood Pond) that GE has frequently railed against.
Under the SED 3/FP 3 cleanup plan, it will take ten years for completion, not very distant from the 5 year estimate for SED 10/ FP 9. Other more invasive remedies take more time for construction complete - up to 51 years for SED-8. Nevertheless, it will take 20 years for the CT fish to reach a concentration that results in unrestricted fishing. Under all scenarios, the MA fish never do in the 50 year time period modeled.
Given the text above, I trust that EPA and GE can reach a consensus concerning the IMPGs and the selected remedy. Compromise must be made by both parties and I believe that SED 3/FP 3 may be the remedy that allows both sides to meet the demands of environmental cleanup without unmanageable habitat destruction, both while keeping costs reasonable. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Finkelstein, Ph.D
CC: Bob Cianciarulo (EPA) Ken Munney (USF&WS) J~ MassAudubon Protectifr.J tlt& Nai:un ofMMsaclmoetts
June 22, 2011
EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912
Dear Mr. Cianciarulo:
On behalf of the Massachusetts Audubon Society I submit the following comments rega rding the proposed remediation of PCB contamination in the Housatonic - Rest of River area. As the seco nd largest landowner within the Primary Study Area (PSA) we have appreciated the extensive out reach and public engagement process conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) and the thoughtful manner in w hich EPA is approaching this remediation.
The following is a summary of the key points raised in our comments:
1. Mass Audubon ha s a direct and substa ntial interest in the proposed cleanup both as the second-largest affected landow ner within the PSA and as a conservation organization whose mission is protecting the nature of Massachusetts for people and for wildlife. Mass Audubon strongly supports the remediation of the Housatonic River in order to reduce PCB concentrations to acceptable levels for humans and wildlife. Mass Audubon does not support monitored natural recovery for Rest of River as an acceptable method of addressing the contamination of the River. We also beli eve that GE should be required to compensate affected landow ners for the short- and long-term harm to public recreational use of lands and waters that will be affected by the remed iation as well as for any direct financial impacts which will result.
2. To date, there ha s been insufficient information prese nted through the public review process rega rding the proposed approach to restoration of remediated areas. Given the hi gh diversity and ecological sensitivity of the habitats along the Housa tonic River and its floodplain, GE must be held to appropriately high standards for this remediation, which should begin with avoidance and minimization of adverse impact s to critical habitats. W here active remediation is necessary, EPA must require functional restoration of all critical habitats affected by remediation activit ies. This requires the establishment of restoration goals, a plan to achieve these goals, and a commitment to pre- and post-remediation monitoring and enhancement as needed until those goals are
208 South Great Road · Lincoln. Massachusetts 0 1773 . tel 781 .259.9500 • fax 781 .259.8899 • IN'NW.massaudubon.org 2
met. We believe that the success of th is project w ill ultimately be measured both by the amount of PCBs removed from the Housatonic River system and by the success of habitat restoration measures.
3. Permanent armoring of the riverbank in Reach 5 will have long term sign ificant and unacceptable impacts on critical habitat features such as wildlife dens, nesting sites, and mature trees, and will fundamentally alter the eco logica l functioning of the riverine/floodplain system. This is one of the most challenging aspects of this remediation. In sofar as feasible, natural ri verin e geomorphologica l processes must be allowed to continue along the river.
4. EPA should require long-term restoration monitoring on a timescale appropriate to the type of habitat being restored and require that appropriate financial and institutional mechanisms (e.g. escrow or other gua ranteed funds) are in place to ensure that all restoration activities are fully implemented and monitored until restoration goals are ach ieved .
5. Adaptive management principles should be applied to the Housatonic River remediation, w ith flexibility to adjust c1ean up and restoration methods over time based on experience and evolving techniques. EPA should give consideration to permitting a "demonstration phase" of the remediation south of the conflu ence that would employ state of the art restoration techniques and provide time for evaluation of the results before proceeding with the remainder of the clean up.
6. W hile we do not recommend a single alternative, we offer specific comments and suggestions regarding the design of any proposed remedy.
7. We recommend that disposal of contaminated sed iment occur in an ex istin g, approved disposal facility that is permitted to accept such material. We do not support the creation of a new PCB landfill in proximity to the Housatonic River. The use of rai l lines for transportation of material may be helpful in reducing the impact of the remediation on the affected communities in the Houstatonic River Va lley.
1. Mass Audubon's land Interests within the Primary Study Area
Mass Audubon ha s a long-standing presence in the Berkshires. Mass Audubon owns and operates the 262-acre Canoe Meadows Wildlife Sanctuary, located in the City of Pittsfield within reach SA, approximately one mile downstream from the confluence of the East and West branches of the Housatonic River. Mass Audubon's property is located primarily to the south of the Holmes Road Bridge, although a sma ll portion of the sanctuary is located north of the bridge along the River. Canoe Meadows contain s approximately 3,000 linear feet of frontage on the Housatonic River and includes approximately 2.6 acres of land under the Housatonic River. 3
Since its establishment in 1975, Canoe Meadows has been dedicated to wild life habitat conservation and public education. Trails in the sanctuary, including the Sacred Way Trail, which is located partially in the floodplain in proximity to the Housatonic River, are used extensively by the public for passive recreation and wildlife appreciation, and for group programs. Mass Audubon regularly conducts canoe programs for children and adults along the River. Because of concerns about PCB contamination in these areas, Mass Audubon has posted signs at the sanctuary that warn visitors about the presence of PCB contamination and provide advice about limiting exposure to PCB contamination.
The ecological characteristics of Canoe Meadows Wildlife Sanctuary are unusual in Massachusett s, but typical of Reach SA. The calcium·rich bedrock underlying the Housatonic Va ll ey has given rise to especially fertile floodplain so ils that support a high concentration of rare or uncommon species. The sanctuary provides habitat for at least seven state· listed rare species, including American Bittern (Endangered), a breeding population of Wood Turtle (Specia l Concern), Bristly Buttercup (Threatened), and White Adder's·mouth (Endangered). Canoe Meadows also contains several certified vernal pools, and the uncommon Northern Leopard Frog occurs there. Approximately 25% of the sanctuary's acreage, including the majority of the rare species habitat, is within the 10·year floodplain directly affected by PCB contamination. In addition to these rare species, there are also significant archeological resources located at Canoe Meadows.
The Upper Housatonic River Va lley that includ es Canoe Meadows Wildlife Sanctuary has also been designated by Mass Audubon as an Important Bird Area (IBA), underscoring its significance as bird habitat and as a migratory corridor. With app roximately 1,300 acres of riparian woodland, oxbow ponds, marshes, beaver swamps, grasslands, and upland woods along the meandering Housatonic River, this ISA represents some of the finest riparian habitat remaining in central Berkshire County. The designated IBA comprises Canoe Meadows Wildlife Sanctuary in Pittsfield at the northern end; the 816·acre George L. Darey Housatonic Va ll ey Wildlife Management Area, south of Canoe Meadows, extending from Pittsfield to lenox and Lee; and the 200-acre Post Farm, the site of a former Lenox town dump, currently managed by the Lenox Conservation Commission and abutting the Wildlife Management Area at its southern end. More than 200 species of birds have been recorded on these lands since 1970. These characteristics led to a successful effort in 2009, led in part by Mass Audubon to designate the Upper Housatonic River Va lley as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, bringing public attention and enhanced protection to the area.
Up to several pairs of the state·endangered American Bittern breed in the Upper Housatonic River Va ll ey IBA annually. A specia l concern species, the Common Moorhen is an uncommon though regular breeder in the area. Other high conservation priority species represented by at least 25 breeding pairs include: American Black Duck, American Woodcock, Hairy Woodpecker, Eastern Wood·Pewee, Alder Flycatcher, least Flycatcher, Great Crested Flycatcher, Eastern Kingbird, Veery, Chestnut·sided Wa rbler, American Redstart, In digo Bunting, and Rose·breasted Grosbeak. Although numbering fewer than 25 pairs, one of the few Cliff Swallow colonies in 4
Berkshire County is located under the New Lenox Road bridge. In addition, the following spec ies with more than one percent of their entire breeding population w ithin Massachusetts breed in the area: Eastern Phoebe, Wood Thrush, Gray Catbird, Blue-winged Warbler, Scarlet Tanager, and Baltimore Oriole. Riparian Forest is present along this portion of the Housatonic River. Characteristic breeding bird species of this vanishing habitat incl ude: Wood Duck, Hooded Merganser, Warbling and Yellow-throated Vireos, Veery, and Blue-gray Gnatcatcher. Rare and/or declining species representative of extensive freshwater marshlands that breed in the area include: American Bittern, Sora, Virginia Rail, King Rail, and Common Moorhen. The site is a migration corridor for the Common Nighthawk. All of these species are currently exposed to ecologically harmful levels of PCB contamination, and their future in this area will largely be dictated by the remediation and restoration efforts.
Mass Audubon has a direct and substantial interest in the proposed cleanup both as the second largest affected landowner within the PSA and as a conservation organization whose mission is protecting the nature of Massachusetts for people and for wildlife. Mass Audubon strongly supports the remediation of the Housatonic River in order to reduce PCB concentrations to acceptable levels for humans and wildlife. Mass Audubon does not support monitored natural recovery as an acceptable overall method of addressing the contamination in Rest of River.
The Revised Corrective Measures Study (eMS) states that any remediation alternative other than monitored natural recovery would seriously and irreparably harm the ecological functions of the ri ver and its associated wetland and floodplain habitats. This statement is inconsistent with the resu lts of EPA's peer-reviewed Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments, w hi ch conclude that PCBs are seriously harming or have the potential to seriously harm the river's human and ecological communities. In addition to the Housatonic-specific Risk Assessments, state, national, and international health-related agencies link PCBs to t oxic responses in humans and wildlife. These toxic responses include carcinogenicity and effects on the immune, reproductive, neurological, and endocrine systems. EPA classifies PCBs as probable human carcinogens. Given that PCBs are persistent co mpounds, the decisions made about remediation w ill potentially affect the health and well -being of human and ecological co mmunities in the Housaton ic River watershed for hundreds of years or more.
Although none of the alternatives presented to date would allow for unlimited consumption of fish from the river, this is not the only outcome that should be considered. l evels of cleanup that sign ificantly reduce risks to human health and the environment may be quite beneficial, especially if ca rried out in a carefully phased manner over time, with adjustments based on emerging technologies and lessons learned during initial phases.
At the same time, we recognize that this remed iation is occurring w ithin a highly co mplex ecosystem area w ith extraordinary sce nic, wildlife habitat and recreational attributes including the gently meandering river itself, as well as the rare species habitat, floodplain forest, diverse wetlands, and ve rnal pools the river ha s influenced over time. The cleanup, as envisioned in the 5
CMS, will result in significant short- and medium-term adverse impacts on Mass Audubon's land as well as on land owned by the Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, including the potential construction of access roads and staging areas, closure of the most heavily visited recreational areas during the remediation, and alteration of critical habitat areas. As such , it is essential that GE be held to standards commensurate with the area's extraordinary natural attributes. The plans for remediation must begin with avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts to critical habitats by carefully targeting work. Where there is no alternative but to destroy habitats, EPA must require functional restoration of affected areas. The goal should not be creation of habitats that are merely aesthetically pleasing, but the restoration of high quality wildlife habitats that are functionally equiva lent to those that will be altered by the remediation. We believe that restoration of the scope and nature that we envision is likely to add significantly to the cost of all of the remediation alternatives presented in the CMS. Yet, regardless of cost, it is very important that functional restoration, follow up monitoring, and additional work as may be necessary to achieve functionality goals be included in the plans. We also believe that the success of this project will ultimately be measured both by the amount of PCBs removed from the Housatonic River system and by the success of habitat restoration measures.
We believe that the affected landowners should also be compensated by GE for the short and long-term harm to public recreational use of lands and waters that w ill be affected by the remediation as well as for any long term resource damage that w ill resu lt from the remediation of river and floodplain resources. For example, Mass Audubon derives program revenue from activities at Canoe Meadows that will be lost during the period work is ongoing at the Sanctuary. In addition, we anticipate that Mass Audubon's st ewardship and science staff, and co nsu ltants w ill be required to devote significant time to ensuring that all restoration work is designed and carried out in an appropriate manner as part of any agreement to allow access to our property for this proposed remediation work. We expect that the cost of this staff time and related expenditures will be covered by General Electric as part of the design and monitoring process. We understand that EPA may have limited ability to require such compensation, but want to be on the record as stating that we believe that this is an important component of the remediation for Mass Audubon in its role as a large landowner in the Primary Study Area.
2. Insufficient Information has been Provided on Post-Remediation Restoration
In Mass Audubon's comments throughout the CMS preparation and review process, we acknowledged the importance of the Housatonic River remediation to improving the overall health of this river system, despite the fact that it will result in some relatively severe short term alterations of critical habitats. During the CMS scoping process, we noted in the importance of restoration of affected habitats in our comments, stating:
"... it is absolutely essential that the restoration of areas disturbed by remediation be very carefully planned, implemented, and monitored. This should include strong provisions to prevent establi shment of invasive species in disturbed areas, and 6
restora tion of important habitat features such as bank habitat and veget ative structure and dive rsity to as close to 'na tural' co nditions as possi ble."
To dat e, we believe that insufficient in formation has been prese nted about restoration of affected habitats, and note that such information is required by Co ndit ion #4 of EPA's Conditional Approval letter for the eMS Proposa l d~ t ed April 13, 2007.
In documents to date, we believe that GE has overstated the t ech nica l challenges in vo lved in restoration, suggesting that it is impossible t o do so, and therefore arguing for a much-reduced remediation. GE should not be using the sensitivity of the habitat along the rive r as a justifica tion for a lower st and ard of remediati on of the Ri ve r. EPA should insist on t he appropriate level of cleanup and an extremely high standard for habit at restoration, even if this raises the cost of the selected alt ernative con siderably. To do otherw ise would have the unintended co nse quence of "rewarding" polluters for da mag in g the most significa nt hab itat s as less remediation would be required in such se nsitive locations.
The degree to which the restoration of re mediated areas is possible is dependent on a va riet y of fa ctors including ca reful and det ailed documentation of existing and desired future habitat chara cteristics for objective evaluatio n of restoration success. As noted, we believe that the eMS contains a large number of ge nerali zations rega rding the likelihood of restoration failure to make the case that restoration is not feasible. For exa mple, GE has repeatedly pointed to the experi ence with one remediated vernal pool t o suggest that adequ at e ve rnal pool rest oration is not poss ible. Sin ce limited information on pre-remediation t opography and hydrology was documented at that ve rn al pool, it is im poss ible to eva luat e the ext en t to w hich preex isting physical conditions were matched during restora tion. Furthermore, the timeframe required for a reasonab le degree of restoration of ve rn al pool habitat is on the order of decades not one or two years, so cu rrent results may not necessa rily reflect the ultimat e outco me.
Th e remediation plans should not only describe meas ures to phys ica lly minimize habitat destruction and fragmentation and design it in a way that maintains habit at connectivit y, but should also provid e det ail ed plans for restorat ion of each habitat type and location, includ in g the identification of restoration goals and objectives based on pre- remediation co nditions. Th ey should include methods such as ca pture and release of rare spec ies, propagation of rare pl ants, and reloca tion of appropriate plants and animals to remediat ed are as, and det ailed measures to minimize the likelihood of introduction of invasive species.
As it develops the propose d remedy, we request that EPA give consideration to the following questions w hich are key t o the design of successful restoration initiatives fo r the affected habitat s along the ri ver: What kind of da ta will nee d be co ll ected prior t o remediation with regard to on-s ite speci es and ecological processes? How will this dat a be co ll ect ed? How will restoration goals be set ? How w ill landowners and st akeholders be involved in rest oration planning and design. What is the sequence of st eps that will occ ur? How w ill restoration occur? How will the rest oration areas be monitored? What kind of dat a will be co ll ect ed and w hat are 7
the measures of success? What is the timeframe for evaluation of succe ss in each kind of habitat? What steps may need to be taken post-restoration to ensure that restoration goals are met? How will invasive species be monitored and controlled? How witl information rega rding restoration success or failure be factored into subseq uent years of the project? EPA may want to consider an independent science review panel that can playa role in assessing restoration success. Many of the habitat types along the Housatonic will be difficult to restore, but the potential for success will be improved if the above questions are answered w ith specific information and monitoring parameters before the work takes place.
3. Bank Stabilization and River Dynamics
One of our most significant concerns about the various remediation alternatives relates to the proposed river bank remediation work in Reach 5. As ha s been noted throughout the CMS review process, the bank stabilization and "restoration" work that has been completed upstream in the 1 ),s; mile section of the River in Pittsfield is wholly inadequate to restore the functional values of the river bank. We concur with the comments made by the Massachusetts Division of Fi sheries and Wildlife in the eMS scoping process that the upstream work, replicated in the Primary Study Area, would be "a disaster and a complete ecological failure." The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) also weighed in expressing its concern about " hard engineering" of erodible banks:
"Mass DEP has a number of concerns relative to the widespread use of hard structures as bank stabilization structures in areas of the river below the confluence. The 2-mile stretch of river w here these structures have been used is a relatively straight section of channel (compared with the tight meanders in downstream sections) that is located in a highly urbanized area w ith minimal significant w ildlife habitat and lower recreational and aesthetic va lue. By contrast, downstream river sections are undeveloped, provide significant habitat and experience significa ntly greater recrea tional use by the public. Widespread use of hard structures in this section of the river is likely to meet with considerable community opposition. Existing wildlife habitat function s will be lost and plantings to restore lost riverine characteristics can be problematic and not all that effective. In addition, the use of hard structures along the banks of the ri ver will affect river flow dynamics by deflecting flows to dow nstream sections of the channel (particularly important in areas with meanders) and banks, and may also affect channel carrying capacity and the extent of flooding. In order to remain effective in preventing exposures and recontamination, long-term monitoring and potentially frequent maintenance of these structures (as evidenced by observations in the D.S ·Mile Reach) will be required. Considering the many rive r miles that may be impacted, such monitoring and maintenance may be a monumental task."
Throughout the eMS review process, Mass Audubon has expressed concern about proposed armoring or permanent st abilization of riverbanks. Despite the presence of PCBs in riverbanks along Reach 5 of the River (in particular), we continue to believe that the permanent 8
stabilization of riverbanks proposed under essentia!ly all active remediation options in Reach 5 is problematic. In several pa ssages in the eMS (e .g. P._531), GE describes the effects that stabilized banks would ha ve on bank erosion and channel migration, and properly concludes that permanent bank stabilization would adversely affect va rious important wildlife habitat features, including undercut and vertica l banks. Hov:,ever, there are deeper problems w ith permanent bank stabilization.
First, a stabilized bank is impossible over any reasonably long length of time. Eventually, the river's erosional forces w ill cut through or under the. stabilization structures (whether bioengineered or traditional), lead ing to the exposure and transport of se diments and associated PCBs intended to be left in place. To preve nt this, GE or its successo rs would ha ve to maintain the entire channel within the reach in perpetuity, an unlikely sce nario. The CMS glosses over this problem by including the phrase " if successful" in its prese ntation of the possi ble effects of permanent bank stabilization. NQw here in the CMS is there a discussion of w hat the outcome would be if bank stabilization were not successful, nor, beyond a vague description of long-term monitoring, does the CMS c'ontain a commitment t o ensuring that bank stabilization would be successful over the long term. In our view, permanent bank stabilization cannot be achieved as described in the CMS.
Second - and more importantly-stabilizing the banks would eliminate one of the primary ecological processes that shapes this portion of the Housat onic, fundamentally altering the structure and function of the floodplain. At least over the term that the stabilization structures would be effective, perhaps decades, the Housatonic would be frozen in its current configuration. In addition to eliminating vertica l and undercut banks, a lack of lateral movement would, over t ime, prevent the formation of backwaters, oxbows, and other features that reflect the dynamism of an active river channel, which in turn would affect the vegetation and w ildlife communities that depend on this dynamism. Perhaps more than any other effect of the va rious active remediation options, the elimination of this basic ecological process would impair the long-term vitality of the Housatonic. We believe th~t a remediation approach that does not depend on the unrealistic goal of permanently ha lting the Housatonic's lateral movement in order to achieve remediation goa ls is necessa ry. Su~h an alternative ha s yet to be presen ted in the eMS.
For the reasons described above, we do not support approaches to bank remediation within the upper reaches of the River (particularly Canoe Meadows Wildlife Sanctuary) that would permanently "armor" the bank with stone, rip rap. or other "hard" material in a manner that prevents future bank erosion or the planting of mature trees that will shade the river, as these methods would have significant, permanen(adverse impacts to habitat values for avian and mammalian bank-dwelling species and adversely affect water temperature in the River. Such stabilization methods are also likely to result in downcutting of the river channel, exposing deep PCB-contaminated sediment layers and could result in lowering the water table. More creative bio-remediation or alternative approaches need to be identified by GE in the Supplemental eMS for this section of the river bank. Examples of alternatives that should be eva luated include deeper excavation followed by rep la ce ment w ith clean material of 9
sufficient depth to allow growth of mature trees; or leaving significant sections of bank unaltered; or fully cleaning and restoring to a more natural condition some sections (Le. through more locali zed testing and different treatments of some sections of the bank).
4. EPA Should Require a Commitment by GE to Long Term Monitoring
As we have previously noted, EPA should require that GE monitor and evaluate field conditions (and ad just as necessary) until the restoration goals are achieved. Depending on the ecologica l communities affected, and additional plantings or other work needed to meet restoration goals, this will likely take far longer than five years to determine. We believe that it is critical that EPA define the elements of this long-term eco logical monitoring and factor the cost of this long-term monitoring into its evaluation of alternatives. For this reason, we continue to believe that five years of post-construction monitoring is completely inadequate. Rather than setting an arbitrary monitoring period across the entire rem~diation area, the restoration monitoring timeframe should be consistent w ith the type of remediation employed and maturation of the restored communities. Five years of monitoring is inadequate, for example, to assess the success or failure of a floodplain forest restoration, which could take decades to mature, but might be adequate for an herbaceous community. EPA should put a monitoring protocol in place that reflects this reality. • , We also believe that GE should be required by EPA to escrow sufficient funds to ensure that all restoration activities in Rest of River are fully carried out and monitored. GE should be reimbursed from the fund as the restoration is completed and demonstrated to be fully functional by post-construction monitoring. This is necessary to ensure that the long terms funds are in place to ensure that restoration and monitoring occurs properly. In addition, EPA should establish a long-term funding mechan ism to ensure that some forms of very long term monitoring will take place to ensure the integrity and success of the remediation and restoration. Without such long-term monitoring, natural processes will eventuall y result in changes to the river system and the likely release of any PCBs that remain in the river system and floodplain. One only need examine the changes in the river course over time to see that the Housatonic is a dynamic river system, prone to changing its course.
5. The Proposed Remedv must be Adaptive to TeGbnological Advances and Dynamic Site Conditions
The proposed remediation w ill occur over many years. There is an opportunity throughout the duration of this cleanup to apply new technologies a~d creative thinking to addressing the issue of PCBs in the Housatonic River system. Mass Audubon believes that EPA shou ld recommend an approach to remediation that is designed to recognize that technological advances in PCB remediation are likely to occur during this time period and require GE to employ them as the project progresses downstream. Therefore, we support the concept of a phased remediation. This has two components;
" • 10
a) We would su pport using a portion of Reach SA as a model or demonstration area for sound ecological restoration prior to the rerlJediation proceeding along the remainder of the River. In this manner, GE would have the opportunity to demonstrate to the community and to regulatory agencies that the hi ghest standard of rest oration can be carried out following remediation activities. However, such an ap proach would req uire a pe riod of study prior to and following the remediation and restoration work in order to provide time to ga uge the effectiveness of the work and whether any modifications are needed in terms of the approach being taken. We have previously expressed a willingness to work with EPA and others to explore the feasibility of Canoe Meadows as such a demonstration and reiterate that offer here. Put sim ply: we shou ld be learning as we go, and building into the permit a requirement to eva luat e and revisit the remediation and restoration techniques, even if this means that the remediation will ext end over additional years. Given the timeframe in volved in any proposed remediation, we believe that such a "pause" would not significan tly affect progress toward the goals of the project, and would likely serve to better inform the remainder of the project.
b) The remediation planning and implementation process will be ongoing for a number of years. While alternative in-situ treatment t echnologies may not be presently available for utilization, the remediation plans should ~ e flex ible enough to enable new t ec hnologies to be co nsid ered if and w hen they become ava ilable during further phases of planning or implementation. This is part of an adaptive management approach, and appropriate for such a complex project of mC'!ny years duration.
Phasing is also important in relation to maintaining as much viable habitat and connect ivity of habitats during remedi ation as possible. Defining the total amount of disturbance allowed at anyone time, setting minimum revegetation st andards before additional areas ca n be disturbed, and making provisions for leaving so me of eac h habitat type undisturbed at all times w ill all contribute to retention of the full range of native speci es and better restoration outcomes.
6. Additional Recommendations for Selection of Proposed Remedy at Canoe M eadows and Beyond
In this letter, Mass Audubon does not recommend a specific remediation alternative. While the SED lOj FP 9 alternative moves in the direction of a more target ed cleanup than previously presented altern atives, M ass Audubon beli eves th ~ t a more positive res ult ca n be accompli shed by a phased, adaptive management approach combined with ca reful planning and restoration for eac h specific area affected by remediation as described in this letter.
However, there are a number of considerations w hich we believe should be built in to the proposal: 11
• We have serious concerns about any proposals for thin la ye r capping of co ntaminated aquatic reso urces at Ca noe Meadows including Oxbow Pond and West Pond . Both West and Oxbow Ponds are important habitats on the sanctuary, supportin g populations of plants, fro gs, turtles, wading birds and waterfowl, and in sects not found elsewhere on the site. Thin laver capping - which would deposit a thin la ye r of material directly over existing sed iments, w ithout removing contaminants, would make these ponds shallower and change their substrate characteristics, making them less suitable habitat for many organisms. These ponds are already quite shallow due to siltation over a period of decades. It would also result in significant alteration of re so urces without any remova l of contaminated so il s. In the area of West Pond, the floodplain remediation options would impact portions of an old field, a Ph%ris meadow, a wet meadow and a sedge marsh. Th e wet meadow in particular, host ~ diverse plant, mammal, bird and insect co mmunities and would be affected by FP 2). 3,4 and 7. We beli eve that these resou rces requi re ve ry careful co nsideration during remedy se lection and des ign so that any remediation is accomplished in a manner th.at w ill have the least impact on these reso urces and ensures the greatest likeliho.od of restoration success.
• We request that there be ad ditional site-s pecific analysis at Oxbow Pond in Reach SA . This is a forested floodplain area that would be significantly altered by the proposed remediation. This area is likely to host rare s1!lecies including wood turtles, mustard w hite, and purple milkweed, as well as Wat ch list ed species including butternut. Restoration of the forested areas affected by the remediation activities w ill take many decades, even in a best-case sce nario. This floodplain forest is an area w here a finer sca le of analysis is nee ded with regard to PCB contamination levels to determine the most appropriate remediation remedy.
• We continue to believe that the periodic dredging of Woods Pond should be seriously co nsid ered and evaluated as a component "f the propose d remediation - allowing the Pond to act as a sed iment and PCB trap. We underst and that information has been prese nted that questions the efficacy of this concept, but believe that it wa rrants further exploration.
• We believe that GE should be required to evaluate the feasibility of removing material from the project site usi ng the existing railroad line.
• We are particularly concerned about the proposed ve rnal pool work w hich would alter 14 acres of vernal pool habitat, encompassing portions of 60 different vernal pools, and require the construction of extensive access roads and stagin g areas in some places. As noted on Pages 6-35, 36 and 39 of the CMS, there are no known locations w here vernal pool work of this magnitude and extent ha s been successfully undertaken . We do not beli eve that there is a "one size fits all" approach to the remediation of ve rnal pools. In so me cases it may be appropriate to choose monitored natural recovery for those pools that are distant from ex isting access points, and to ensure that breeding populations of 12
vernal pool specie s are not entirely displaced as a result of remediation activities. Th e trade off might be more ext ensive rem ediation in an other location.
• We note that the analys is of applicable regulations (ARARs) must include the provisions relevant to re cent designation of the Upper Housatonic as an Area of Critical En vironmental Concern by the Commo nwea lth of M ass achusetts. In designating this area, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs not ed that the des ignation is intended "t o promot e [PCB] remediation w hile avoiding and minimizin g adverse environmental impacts," and to "enco urage mitigation and rest oration of crit ical reso urces. .." Give n that t his deS ignation w as prompted in part by a desire t o en sure that the rem ediation of the River is done is a manner co nsistent w ith its ecologica l and environmental significance, we would request that EPA give significant weight t o these additional ARARs.
• Mass Audubon generally concurs w ith con cerns that the Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game has made rega rding the need for avoidance, minimization and mitigation of work within Priority Habitat areas as well as compliance with the performance st andards of the M assachusetts Endangered Species Act (M ESA). The se issues will need to be addresse d co mprehensively as part of the design of the proposed remedy.
• GE should be required to limit the ext ent of staging areas and access road co nstruction t o the ext ent feasible. For example, roads co uld be built narrower than 20 feet and stagin g areas should be as narrow as possible. One lane roads w ith pUIl -offs should be more than adequat e. Full restorat ion of any areas disturbed for access and st agin g must be req uired with monitoring and revegetation to ensu re that invasive species do not take hold in these areas.
7. Di sposal of Contaminated Sediments
Mass Audubon has reviewed the options for disposa l of co ntaminat ed sediment and offe rs the follow in g comments:
Confined disposa l within wat erw ays is an una cceptable alternat ive under any sce nario, as it both destroys important aquatic habitats and pl aces the material in loca tions w here it will be highly susceptible t o erosion during fl ood eve nts. We are strongly oppose d t o construction of a Confined Di sposa l Facility within riverine wetland areas and co ncur w ith GE that this altern ative is in appropriate.
All of the propose d loca l upland disposa l optio ns ha ve unacce ptably high environm ental risks and we request that further study of treatment and disposa l alt ernatives be required. Two of the upland disposal sites prese nted in the eM S (the Woods Pond and Ri sing Po nd sites) are located adjacent t o wa t erways and also prese nt unacce ptably high ri sks of the mat erial reentering the ri ver environment through flooding or high water t ables. Th e effect s of cl imat e 13
change, including predicted increases in intensity of storms and flooding events make this issue an even greater concern. Th e third upland alternative (Forest Street) is a steep (up to 45%) wooded hillside with sha llow bedrock. This site presents serious engin eering constraints to construction of a material disposal area, and is also unacceptable.
Mass Audubon recommends that further analysis of material treatment and disposal be required. Emerging technologies for treatment of PCB-cont aminated soils may become more viable in the near future, and currently avai lable technologies may be feasible for treatment of sma ll er amounts if the remediation starts by targeting a few locations first, then applying adaptive management for further phases. Absent such an approach, we recommend disposal in an existin g, approved disposal faCility that is permitted to accept such material, rather than the creation of a new PCB landfill.
Conclusion
Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments to the National Remedy Review Board on this project. We want to again reiterate our strong support for the remediation of the Housatonic River for both its human health and ecological benefits and believe that this project has the potential to serve as an excellent model for remediation and restoration in a highly ecologica lly significant setting. As EPA develops its proposed remedy, we urge further refinement of potential alternatives for remediation, habitat restoration, and treatment or disposal, and the appli cation of a phased approach, involving adaptive management principles, to the selection of a preferred remedial alternative. Ultimately, as noted above, we believe that the success of this project must be measured by both the amount of PCBs that are able to be removed from the Housatonic River system as well as by the successful restoration of functional ecological habitats and processes. We look forward to continuing to work with EPA and GE, as well as with community leaders and our co lleagues in the environmental community to achieve both of these important goals over the coming months and years.
Laura A. Johnson President
cc:
Susan Svirsky, EPA Jeff Porter, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Pop eo, P.e. (for General Electric) Kevin Mooney, Remediation Project Manager, Genera l Electric Mary Griffin, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game 14
Ken Kimmell, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection Wayne F. MacCallum, Director, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wi ldlife Berkshire Natural Resources Co uncil Housatonic Va lley Association Housatonic River Initiative Berkshire Environmental Action Team Green Berkshires
•
June 23, 2011
EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Mr. Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912
Send by Email on June 23, 2011 to [email protected]
Thank you for providing me an opportunity to provide additional comments on the GE- Housatonic Rive Site Rest of the River Project in MA and CT.
My comments reflect my personal interest in this project as both a resident of Sheffield and as a community leader, presently Chairman of Sheffield’s Board of Selectmen, member of Sheffield’s Board of Health, Sheffield’s Alternate Delegate to Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC) and member of BRPC’s Executive Committee. The comments made in this letter however are my own.
I submitted comments back in January 2011, attended each of the recent EPA mini workshops and the public charrette and have tried to stay informed. The EPA presentations and charrette were extremely helpful in further understanding this complex matter and the governing consent decree.
As a member of a downstream town, it is important to note the Town of Sheffield was not included in the consent decree discussions, nor were any of the Rest of the River towns. I also understand why discussions with GE will not be reopened.
My comments, not necessarily in order of importance, are:
There should be an economic development financial component to the Rest of the River settlement.
I find a contradiction in the EPA stating the consent decree governs the Rest of the River solution, but that it has no authority to assess monetary damages/payments from GE payable to the impacted communities. Financial compensation was provided in the initial river cleanup.
I respectfully ask the EPA to review the initial settlement and how monies were set aside for community development (Sheffield received a canoe launch on the river) and provide a similar arrangement for the Rest of the River communities. The Southern
Page 1 of 4 Berkshire towns of Great Barrington, Lee, Lenox, Stockbridge and Sheffield met with Regional Administrator Spalding earlier this year at which this matter was discussed.
Downstream river sites should be retested before upstream remediation begins and downstream air and river monitoring done during the remediation process.
After hearing and questioning several presenters at the EPA workshops and charette about the natural movement of PCBs in the Housatonic River, especially when upstream dredging and floodplain disturbance takes place, all agreed PCBs would move downstream. I did not hear any discussion of technologies used during remediation to “catch” or prevent PCB movement downstream. Reaches 9 – 17 and beyond require more attention regarding this matter than provided to date. More needs to be done to understand the impacts upstream remediation will have on downstream areas of the river.
While Short-Term Effectiveness is a Selection Decision Factor, I believe it is a major omission not to include long-term effectiveness and impacts.
A significant portion of the Rest of River area in MA is an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), so declared to recognize the quality, uniqueness and significance of its natural and cultural resources. I am not aware there has been discussion of the long-term impacts of various remediation options on the ecosystems in the ACEC, though I have been following MassDEP making its case in the local papers.
While a selected subset of its trees and plant life may be successfully replicated after remediation, EPA speakers carefully avoided discussion of remediation impacts on smaller living organisms in this area. Much discussion was made of mink, otter and a few other mammals but we know these ecosystems depend on creatures from microorganisms to other animals than those named. I have concerns that the many ecosystems in the ACEC may not be receiving necessary attention and may be lost with the selection of several remediation options.
I hope the EPA and MassDEP, as well as officials of the municipalities impacted by the Rest of River solution, will still meet and talk. While I understand the EPA has the decision authority, I do have hopes of more inclusively embraced remediation solutions.
NO economic impacts are specifically listed, not even in the short-term effectiveness factor, other than cost.
The majority of the impacted Southern Berkshire communities depend on tourism, ecotourism and second homeowners as significant contributors to their economies. The economic profile of this area is markedly different than Eastern MA. Yet no economic impacts are specifically listed, not even in the short-term effectiveness
Page 2 of 4 factor, other than cost and it is unclear if cost refers to GE or to the impacted communities.
While the creation of jobs from several of the remediation options would have a short- term positive economic impact on the area, especially if a percentage of jobs were awarded to local companies through set asides, are the long term health impacts of PCB remediation on workers, as well as on those living by or using the River for recreational purposes, known? It is not unreasonable to expect significant short-term and long-term negative impacts on property values and tourism. It is prudent to ask up front what the impacts might be on existing or future business location or expansion in these impacted remediation areas.
As I do not believe any work has been done to understand the possible negative economic impacts of remediation. I again urge the EPA to engage the MA Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, MassDevelopment, the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission or other qualified group to study and report on this matter.
All PCB materials should be taken outside of the Berkshire area for secure storage. No PCB hazardous waste site should be created in the Berkshires.
GE should be required to set up a secure, dedicated fund to: 1) fund EPA to implement and study a Monitored Natural Recovery area and 2) fund economic development in impacted communities.
If the EPA were to select the Monitored Natural Recovery alternative for a portion of the river, it would have a working laboratory in which to track the natural recovery process; evaluate food chains and organisms; consider and recommend uses for impacted floodplains; conduct specific core testing; etc.
Such a fund would enable the EPA to evaluate new technologies, such as those recently presented by Biotech Restorations and Genesis Fluid Solutions, as well as test and evaluate remediation alternatives in situ. This fund would not limit the ability of the EPA to require future remediation or other actions by GE. The immediate and long-term knowledge gained should assist both the EPA and GE with remediation decisions at PCB sites still requiring attention.
The second part of the fund would be used to assist impacted communities. The fund would guarantee an income stream to impacted communities to be used for purchase of lands impacted by the PCBs, such as floodplains, to assure that such lands are appropriately used, as well as funding to mitigate the potential economic loss of commercial or private development of land contaminated by PCBs.
This third-party managed fund would look 25 years or more into the future and would need to be secure from re-appropriation by either federal or state legislatures.
Page 3 of 4
In my initial comments of January 2011, I wrote of what I thought was the best way to proceed in the Rest of the River cleanup. By attending the EPA events in April and May of this year, I was able to gain an appreciation of the complex balancing act required to implement the consent decree. As such, I have no specific remediation comments other than the above general comments that I trust have applicability to any EPA decision.
Should you wish to discuss any of my comments, I may be reached at 413-229-3534 or [email protected] .
Sincerely,
Rene C. Wood
Rene C. Wood PO Box 1177 Sheffield, MA 01257-1177
Page 4 of 4
June 27, 2011
EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912
Dear National Remedy Review Board,
On behalf of the Housatonic River Initiative (HRI) and community members of the greater Housatonic water shed in Massachusetts, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our perspective and comments on the plans for cleaning up the PCB contamination of the Housatonic River. HRI has participated in this process from the very beginning, bringing all the expertise and on-the-ground experience, history and knowledge of an engaged and involved citizenry.
An effective remedial alternative selected to address contamination at the GE/ Housatonic River site must acknowledge that PCBs are a real and continual threat to human and ecological health. Based on GE proposals and text in the Housatonic River – Rest of River Revised Corrective Measures Study Report (CMS), it seems that GE continues to deny the scientific evidence that PCBs cause cancer and other adverse health effects in humans, or that PCBs cause any harm to ecosystems and ecological receptors. The CMS does not cite independent scientific research, but instead relies on the work GE scientists or scientists funded by GE. The international scientific community long ago recognized the dangers and toxicity of PCBs, and current literature continues to recognize PCB exposure related health hazards.
PCB Impacts on Human and Ecological Health
The scientific community and regulatory agencies have long recognized the dangers to human health and the environment from PCB exposures. GE continues to assert that PCB toxicity is in question or that health and environmental impacts from PCB exposures in the Housatonic watershed are minimal or absent. The communities reject the GE claim and count on EPA to do the same.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), EPA, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) PCBs are probable human
1 carcinogens (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2010, 44 (8), pp 2749–2751). Humans exposed to PCBs have an increased risk of developing cancers like non-Hodgkins lymphoma (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/DT/pcb007.html). PCBs also cause non-cancer health effects, such as reduced ability to fight infections, low birth weights, and learning problems (http://www.epa.gov/hudson/humanhealth.htm). PCBs have been classified as endocrine disruptors (EDs), which are defined as “exogenous agents that interfere with the synthesis, secretion, transport, metabolism, binding, action, or elimination of natural blood born hormones that are present in the body and that are responsible for homeostasis, reproduction, and developmental processes” (Risk Analysis, 1996, 16(6), pp. 731-739). Adverse health effects include liver damage, skin irritation (chloracne), reproductive dysfunction, and cancer (Rahuman et al., Destruction Technologies for Polychlorinated Biphenyls, 2000). Research has shown that babies born to mothers with high levels of PCB contamination show abnormal behaviors such as problems with motor skills and a decrease in short-term memory (Tox. and Indus. Heal., 2001, 16(7-8), pp. 305-333). A 1996 study found that, “a slightly higher than average intrauterine exposure to PCBs may cause deficient, reduced, or lowered fetal and postnatal growth, retarded psychoneurological development, and reduced cognitive ability” (The New Eng. J. of Med., 1996, 335(11), pp. 783-789).
Effects of PCBs in animals include changes in the immune system, behavioral alterations, and impaired reproduction. PCB exposure may also affect hormonal functions in animals, causing numerous problems, including complications in development and sexual differentiation (Neuroendocrinology, Feb. 2011, 152(2), pp. 581-594). According to the EPA, the “Rest of the River” region of the Housatonic River is one on the most biologically diverse regions in all of New England. The region contains five different types of forest communities and is home to more endangered and threatened species than most other bioregions in Massachusetts or Connecticut (USEPA, Eco. Risk Assess. Fact Sheet “Rest of River,” 2003). Therefore it is of greatest importance to protect these sensitive areas through a comprehensive cleanup effort, which effectively removes the threat of PCB exposure on endemic species. A thorough remediation plan must recognize the dire human and ecological health problems associated with lingering PCB contamination.
Ten Principles for a Better River Clean Up
The Housatonic River Initiative promotes a list of ten principles created by the Housatonic Clean River Coalition, which, if recognized by EPA, GE and affected communities, will help produce a comprehensive and collaborative cleanup effort. The principles, which are listed and described within this letter, express our remediation priorities and favored planning methodologies. We feel that an open and communicative remediation process will ultimately produce the most satisfactory option, leaving the Housatonic River as a restored, functional, and aesthetically beautiful environment.
Principle 1: Long-term health and environmental goals for the project should be described clearly and simply at the beginning of the clean-up
2 The communities along the Housatonic River have goals for the cleanup: fish that are safe to eat, waters and habitats safe for human use and supporting wildlife and a watershed that is vibrant. The citizens expect the PCB cleanup to be thorough, careful and comprehensive.
Remediation goals should be clearly presented in a form that allows for understanding among all of the concerned parties, including affected community members. Additionally, language describing remedial options or technologies should be clearly stated.
Incomplete remedial alternative descriptions and language ambiguities should be remedied before choosing an appropriate cleanup option. As an example, the Housatonic River – Rest of River Revised Corrective Measures Study Report (Oct. 2010) lacks a site-specific description of the processes involved in the monitored natural recovery (MNR) option. The CMS repeatedly refers to MNR as a viable option, but does not specify the natural processes upon which this option relies. An MNR remediation method’s success depends upon a variety of factors, such as the specific molecular structure of the PCBs present, the abundance and type of microorganisms present, the amount of sunlight reaching the affected area, temperature, and available nutrients. The CMS does not effectively account for any of these factors or explain particular MNR methods and mechanisms. The MNR description also fails to specify what impact the method will have on PCB bioavailability or toxicity. Without a full method description, the likelihood of a method’s remedial success cannot be reasonably projected or supported.
Principle 2: Areas of contamination should be attacked a few at a time in phases rather than all at once
The Housatonic River Initiative supports an adaptive management approach to the GE/Housatonic River Site remediation. An adaptive management approach should address the site as a series of unique ecosystems. The overall remediation effort will continually be modified as new information is gained from small-scale efforts. A large- scale cleanup approach fails to recognize the different remediation needs of sensitive ecosystems. Ecosystem characteristics such as species assemblages, habitat areas, and hydrology need to be considered to produce the most effective and low-impact cleanup solution.
Principle 3: Each phase should include pilot projects to test new technologies
To create a tailored and comprehensive plan, small-scale pilot projects should be conducted to assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of emerging remediation technologies. HRI and community members support a cleanup option that will effectively remove contaminated sediment altogether where feasible. Therefore, technologies that remove contaminated sediment/ soil through the least intrusive and most cost-effective methods will, in most areas of the site, be the favored remedial methods. Additional methods that treat contaminated sediment/ soil without requiring removal should be
3 considered as well, to be used in areas where sediment/ soil removal is not a feasible or appropriate method.
Listed below are some technologies or methods that we feel should be considered for testing on a small-scale preliminary basis and further considered for implementation as part of a remedial option. Additionally, potentially applicable new technologies/ methods should be continually considered for remedial use.
Genesis Rapid Dewatering System
The Genesis Rapid Dewatering System (RDS) should be considered for use as part of the site remediation where appropriate as an alternative to traditional dredging operations. Like traditional dredging operations, the RDS process actively removes contaminated sediment from hydraulically dredged areas. The RDS, however, includes a unique four-stage rapid dewatering process, which removes contaminants (PCBs & heavy metals are isolated/contained in fines) and significantly reduces nutrient (phosphorous & nitrogen) volume while leaving no residual polymer toxicity issues. The process quickly processes river water and sediment, removing and preparing sediment and solid materials for disposal or reuse. The resulting effluent is returned to the waterway, meeting or exceeding all regulatory requirements at trace to < 20 mg/l tss and < 30 NTU. The RDS has the potential to work quickly (processing 2000 to over 5000 gallons of water per minute) and relatively quietly, while occupying an area of 150’ x 150’. The RDS method is less intrusive than traditional dredging because it works more quickly and requires less area, therefore inflicting a lesser impact on the natural landscape. Additionally, the Genesis RDS is able to sustain a 1:1 (dredge time to dewatering time) operating ratio with a dredging operation allowing for projects to be completed in 1/3 of the time required by other dewatering processes. The portability and operating ration allow operational costs of the Genesis system to run 30% to 50% less than traditional dewatering techniques. The RDS has been successfully implemented as part of the Santa Cruz Inner Harbor restoration project, and has been acclaimed by several clients such as Black and Veatch, the Port District of Santa Cruz, Halcrow, and TKW Consulting Engineers.
BioTech Restorations Biotechnology
BioTech Restorations’ biotechnology remediation method, coupled with soil removal, should be considered as a technology to address contaminated floodplain areas. Additionally, the method should be considered for use in floodplain areas where soil removal is not feasible or appropriate. The technology is a low cost bioremediation method which can be implemented to breakdown persistent organic chemical pollutants into innocuous by-products, such as salt, carbon dioxide, and water. The treatment is effective in breaking down contaminants which are usually immune to bacterial breakdown, such as PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Biotech Restorations’ method entails a treatment application to polluted soils which stimulates
4 the “indigenous bacteria’s capacity to produce the enzymes necessary to reduce the target compounds to component organic carbon” (biotechrestorations.com).
The treatment has been applied at a variety of sites, and in every case the cost was at least 30% less than previously proposed remediation methods. In all cases, this biotechnology has ensured that treated sites have reached mandated cleanup goals. In a 2005 California Environmental Protection Agency press release, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced the successful completion of the Borello Property in Morgan Hill remediation. The site was formerly used as an apricot and cherry orchard, and was left polluted by elevated levels of pesticides, including toxaphene and dieldrin. The site cleanup included an application of the BioTech Restorations’ bioremediation technology “that enabled cleanup to residential standards within two months at a relatively low cost.” After remediation, the site received an “unrestricted use” certification, which is the CA DTSC’s most health- protective standard and which allows for future residential use of the site (CAEPA Press Release 10/31/05). More examples of the efficiency of decontamination using this method can be seen in Table 1. Because of its proven remediation success and cost- effectiveness, HRI encourages and supports the use BioTech Restorations’ biotechnology in floodplain areas in conjunction with soil excavation or in areas where soil excavation is not appropriate.
Table 1. Illustrates the results of the four Factor Treatment tests. Each test involved a single Factor Treatment incorporated into the test soil as a dry powder (http://www.geosolve-inc.com/biotech.html).
Activated Carbon
Activated carbon should be given strong consideration as an amendment to other remedial options addressing contaminated sediment (i.e., dredging, capping) as an alternative remediation strategy in areas where sediment removal is not feasible or appropriate. HRI suggests that contaminated sediment, otherwise left to monitored natural recovery, be treated with activated carbon. Additionally, HRI supports “capping with an active barrier” (combining capping with activated carbon treatment). The supposed effect of activated carbon is “that adsorption of contaminants to the active
5 material will significantly reduce the contaminant transport from the capped sediment” (Chemosphere, Apr. 2008, 71(9), pp. 1629-1638). PCBs and heavy metals bind to activated carbon, reducing the amount of PCBs and heavy metals available for biological uptake (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43(10), pp. 3815-3823).
The effectiveness of activated carbon’s ability to reduce PCB availability was tested in the shipyard at Hunters Point in San Francisco. The area is a Superfund site that is contaminated with PCBs from the shipyard landfill. It was found that clams located in areas treated with activated carbon contained lower amounts of PCBs than clams located in untreated areas. Efficacy of activated carbon treatment was found to increase with both increasing carbon dose and decreasing carbon particle size. Average reductions in bioaccumulation of 22%, 64% and 84% relative to untreated Hunters Point sediment were observed for carbon amendments of 0.34%, 1.7% and 3.4%, respectively. Average bioaccumulation reductions of 41%, 73% and 89% were observed for amendments (dose = 1.7% dry wt) with carbon particles of 180 to 250 µm, 75 to 180 µm, and 25 to 75 µm, respectively, in diameter. The present results demonstrate that adding activated carbon to sediment from Hunters Point can reduce PCB uptake in clams by almost one order of magnitude (Environ. Tox. & Chem., 2007 26(5), pp. 980-987).
The cost of activated is relatively cheap. 5% AC by dry wt in the top 4” equals six lb/sq. yd or 30,000 lb/acre. This amount is equivalent to 2 mm sedimentation. The material cost for AC is currently at $1/lb. Therefore one acre of AC will cost $30,000. The application cost will depend on the method utilized. Additional application of small increments over multiple years to incorporate into new annually deposited sediments will help ensure further efficiency for long term remediation. The use of activated carbon reduces the amount of offsite disposal, which also accounts a reduced cost (Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Stanford University, 12/5/05).
Overall, activated carbon appears to be a high-quality remedial alternative that is also cost-effective. The use of activated carbon has shown to significantly reduce the bioavailability of PCBs, which is one of the primary concerns associated with PCB pollution. Dredging followed by backfilling with activated carbon mixed with clean sediment would provide an effective strategy, removing the sediment with the highest concentrations as well as adsorbing any PCBs not removed during dredging.
Phytoremediation
Where appropriate, phytoremediation should be considered as a remediation technique in lower polluted floodplains soils. Phytoremediation has been investigated and is currently being used in the field for a variety of organic and inorganic pollutants. Phytoremediation is the use of plants and its related enzymes to decontaminate soil, groundwater, air, sediments, and surface water by extracting and breaking down contaminants while supporting and using native bacteria (Russell. The Use and Effectiveness of Phytoremediation to Treat Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2005). An
6 established rooted vegetation has the ability to stabilize soil thereby preventing wind erosion and adsorption of contaminants to soil that transports into water streams (EPA/540/S-01/500, 2001). Phytoremediation is most suitable for remediating sites or portions of sites with widespread, low-mid level contaminants that are often too expensive to remediate by traditional means. Plants have shown to decrease PCB soil concentrations by a few parts per million in a single harvest cycle in soils with low initial PCB concentrations (less than 5 ppm) (J. of Hazard. Materials, 2009, 172, pp. 1671 1676) and over 90 ppm in much higher initial soil concentrations (Environ. Sci. and Poll. Research Int., 2009, 16(7), pp. 817-829).
Phytoremediation does not have the destructive impact on soil fertility and structure that some more vigorous conventional technologies may have, such as excavation followed by acid extraction, soil washing, and thermal desorption (Int. J. Phytoremediation, 1999, 1(2), pp. 115-123). Aggressive engineering methods such as excavation are suitable for areas with high concentrations (hot spots), but less-expensive containment and treatment technologies can be used for surrounding areas where contaminated levels are low. The costs for decontaminating a site with phytoremediation can be a fraction of the cost of traditional methods such as excavation followed by incineration or landfilling (EPA/540/S-01/500, 2001). Depending on the site, phytoremediation can be used alone or in conjunction with other remediation methods to help decrease the amount of contaminated dust in the air.
Phytoremediation may be used alone or with other technologies and when time is an important factor, excavation can be used with phytoremediation to restore the land and remediate areas excavation was not able to due to inaccessibility or cost reasons. In this case, phytoremediation will enhance MNR.
Based on available PCB phytoremediation research, pumpkin (C. pepo cv Howden), zucchini (C. pepo cv Senator hybrid), tall fescue (F. arundinacea), sedge (C. normalis), Squash (C. pepo cv Goldrush), and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) appear to be the top candidates for phytoremediation based on PCB uptake and concentrations within the plants. The cucurbits, tall fescue, and sedge showed consistency in having higher plant concentrations accumulation rates. Site-specific small scale pilot studies would be beneficial to understanding the potential applications of phytoremediation within the Housatonic floodplains, especially in areas that will not receive further remedial attention until a later time.
Stream Bank Restoration
Stream bank erosion increases the movement and deposition of sediments and, therefore, is a large source of pollution in many riverine environments (USGS. Water- Resources Investigations Report 99-4156, 2009). Some stream bank erosion naturally occurs as water flows. Human development and activities, however, have greatly increased natural erosion processes and necessitated the implementation of stream bank erosion controls. Because some stream bank erosion is naturally occurring, the erosion can never be completely eliminated. There are, though, a variety of methods
7 that may be used to control and restore stream banks. A variety of factors, such as vegetation cover, topography, bank material, weather cycles, river morphology, channel stage, and watershed area should be considered during stream bank restoration efforts (J. of the Amer. Water Resources Assoc., 2006, 42, pp. 83-97).
Housatonic River channel stabilization could reduce pollutant loading into urban tributary streams and also balance the impact on the ecological system. Many traditional hard stream bank erosion control techniques rely on large quantities of riprap and/or concrete and steel structures (USGS. Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4156, 2009). Although hard methods have proven effective in mitigating erosion, the unnatural materials used under these methods do not provide suitable habitats for fish and other riverine species (USGS. Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4156, 2009). Other bank stabilization/restoration practices provide more natural solutions for combating stream bank erosion and sedimentation than harder methods.
Different bioengineered stabilization treatments may be used depending on the amount of erosion occurring in a particular section of a bank. Planting vegetation along the bank will usually suffice in areas that need less stabilization. Bendway Weirs, stream barbs, rock riffles, and stone toe protection are methods commonly used in areas that require more bank stabilization to reduce erosion. Bendway Weirs are low rock structures placed in a stream to direct water away from the bank to lessen stream impact on the bank (www.wq.uiuc.edu/Pubs/Streambank.pdf). This method has been highly effective and widely used by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2010, Streambank stabilization and restoration studies). Stream barbs are similar to Bendway Weirs, but stream barbs are placed at a more severe upstream angle to more aggressively direct water away from the bank. Rock riffles reduce bank and stream bed erosion by creating a step-like structure which slows stream water velocity. Stone toe protection involves placing stones parallel to the bank. The stones provide protection to bank-stabilizing vegetation growth. Several treatment methods are commonly combined to provide the most effective treatment for stabilization (www.wq.uiuc.edu/Pubs/Streambank.pdf).
Bioengineered methods are often less expensive than hard methods. Riprap and concrete or steel structures generally cost between 50 to 300 dollars per foot, while bioengineered bank stabilization methods cost approximately 15 to 25 dollars per linear foot (www.wq.uiuc.edu/Pubs/Streambank.pdf). Generally, bioengineered methods also provide a more natural functioning ecosystem and a more aesthetically-pleasing landscape. Vegetation, which is almost always planted streamside as part of bioengineered erosion control treatments, provides shade, rebuilds a riparian buffer, regenerates a natural habitat, and is much more visually pleasing than large concrete structures (Sneeringer, B., 2001, The Narrows Stream Bank Restoration and Protection Project).
These more natural and innovative methods are being implemented with great success across the country and have been embraced by the Army Corps (USACE, 2010). Cost- effective bioengineered methods should be considered to reduce erosion and to return areas to more natural habitats in and around the Housatonic River.
8
Principle 4: Plans should be reviewed and revised at the end of each phase
An adaptive management plan calls for the constant review and revision of plans in order to incorporate relevant knowledge gained during the cleanup process. The community is fully aware of the difficulties faced at other sites where PCB contaminated sediments are under remediation. The Hudson River is one of the more well-known and problematic sites that face such issues. The contamination has occurred over a vast stretch of river (more than 130 miles) for many decades and with a documented plan that shows how the situation came to be. Thus, surprises and unexpected conditions will be the norm in the remediation. Therefore, the process must be reviewed and evaluated periodically and at each steep, to determine if the planned work is still the best remedy, to assess the availability of new methods and determine the effectiveness of recently completed remediation.
Principle 5: The community should have a formal and substantial role in planning each new phase
Throughout the site remediation process, EPA should provide the community with all available information about the site cleanup progress and new information gained from pilot-studies and small scale restoration efforts. Community members should be allowed sufficient comment periods on specific technical documents and on general and specific cleanup progress. Relevant data and access to a Technical Advisor should be kept available to community members to aid community understanding on the level of cleanup phase successes.
The EPA should continue to hold informative events, such as the Housatonic River Public Charrette, during which community members and the EPA are able to freely communicate and exchange ideas and feedback concerning the Housatonic River – Rest of River cleanup.
Principle 6: Planning for each phase should be guided by limits on environmental disruption and cost established at the beginning of the process
It is essential to protect sensitive habitats in regions containing high biological diversity and endangered/threatened species. An environmental impact statement should be included with all remedial strategies. The estimated cost should be included in order to choose a method that is effective in both clean up and cost.
Decision making regarding PCB contamination based on "cost effectiveness," must include the following issues to fully reflect true costs: the long term impact on the health of the community and the environment, the amount and nature of untreated PCBs and/or byproducts associated with their treatment/destruction, the economic loss to property owners and communities stigmatized by the presence of toxic waste, even if it is temporarily contained, the additional, potential liability faced by government and private industry if ongoing research reveals that current levels of protection are
9 inadequate, and the long term monitoring and additional remedial measures that containment facilities may require.
Principle 7: A comprehensive health study should be conducted by an independent body, and the results of that study should influence planning and priorities
Rather than relying on data and analysis performed by GE or GE supported scientists, an independent body should conduct comprehensive human and ecological health studies. An independent body can present an unbiased, straightforward evaluation of health effects associated with contamination. A comprehensive site evaluation may also identify particular areas of concern. This information should be considered when establishing a remediation plan and identifying cleanup priorities.
Site, Source, and Waste Evaluation
Principle 8: The entire river, including areas downstream in Connecticut, should be evaluated for remediation in each phase
A more comprehensive site characterization is needed in the downstream areas located in Connecticut. HRI feels that sampling efforts in the Connecticut reaches are inadequate to provide a reflective site description. More site evaluation is necessary to determine full extent of PCB contamination and to identify contamination hot spots which may need immediate remedial attention.
Additionally, we feel that none of the remedial alternatives presented in the CMS sufficiently address PCB contamination in the Connecticut reaches. These areas are simply left to “natural recovery” or “monitored natural recovery.” As stated previously, these remedial options are not fully developed and do not describe the mechanisms on which their remedial success relies. Any proposal for less than active remediation in Connecticut must include a detailed set of measures for progress and criteria for continuing to not clean up the Connecticut portion of the river.
Fish studies conducted in the Connecticut reaches of the Housatonic River have revealed that stocked trout contained measurable levels of PCBs within two weeks after their introduction into the system. PCBs are present in Connecticut wildlife, but it remains that the fate and transport of PCBs has not been adequately studied. Even though ducks affected by PCB contamination in portions of the Housatonic within Massachusetts contain PCB levels over 200 times over the national tolerance limit, duck tissues in Connecticut remain untested (http://1.usa.gov/mrv0pt). A lack of site and wildlife sampling has left the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River poorly characterized. Without a more thorough characterization, it is not possible to coordinate an acceptable cleanup effort.
The Connecticut reaches of the Housatonic River contain a number of dams, including the Stevenson Dam, the Lake Housatonic Dam, and the Bull’s Bridge Dam. The
10 potential effects of remediation in the upstream river reaches have not been sufficiently addressed by any remedial alternatives. Remediating areas upstream will likely cause increased turbidity contributing to a buildup of sedimentation behind dams. Therefore, throughout cleanup efforts, contaminant levels should be monitored and adjustments to the processes should be made as needed. Sediment that has accumulated behind the dam may need to be removed or remediated otherwise.
Principle 9: Sources of continuing contamination of the river should be identified, evaluated, and remediated
Re-contamination is an issue that needs more attention. An exhaustive evaluation of potential contamination sources must be made. The sources will need to be addressed and remediated specifically. Source remediation should be a considerable effort within the larger remediation effort. If sources continue to pollute, the overall success of any remediation effort will be considerably compromised. One of the issues that the community has investigated at other sites, especially active Superfund sites, is the relationship between sources, source control and in-water remediation. We recognize that EPA is attentive to recontamination in remedial designs that proceed from up-river to down-river and address land based source control.
The community expects EPA to take the same approach here on the Housatonic and insist that PCB contamination sources from the plant site in Pittsfield are all identified and addressed. Stormwater discharges, leaching from silver lake and runoff from the plant all have to be addressed and the PCB sources eliminated.
Principle 10: If the EPA mandates dredging, lined, upland landfills should be utilized only as purely temporary measures
Any landfills constructed in the area should only be temporary and removed after the completion of the cleanup. Contaminated materials should be removed from the floodplain and upland areas to remove the threat of site recontamination and also to protect human and ecological health in the area. Constructing a landfill on Hill 78 is not at all acceptable, as this location lies within close proximity to an elementary school.
Similarly, any staging or temporary areas used during site remediation should be fully restored after the completion of that particular remediation phase. The community understands that the remediation will take many years of active “construction,” requiring heavy equipment and moving materials such as dirt, rick and sediment. Any staging areas, storage sites or similar places used during the remediation phase need to be included in the restoration effort and returned to their original condition.
In conclusion, we recognize that the NRRB has specific issues to address in examining the submission from the EPA Regional office, and that the input from the community is an important part of the total picture. After all, once the remediation is done and GE has left town, when EPA has removed our river from a list of contaminated sites, we will be
11 here. We look forward to taking our grand children fishing and swimming in the Housatonic.
Sincerely,
Peter L. deFur, Ph.D. President, Environmental Stewardship Concepts, LLC TAG Advisor to the Housatonic River Initiative
12 BERKSHIRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 1 FENN STREET, SUITE 201, PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201 TELEPHONE (413) 442-1521 . FAX (413) 442-1523 Massachusetts Relay Service: TTY: 771 or 1-800-439-2370 www.berkshirep1anning.org JAMES MULLEN, Chair NATHANIEL W. KARNS, A.I.C.P. SHEILA IRVIN, Vice-Chair Executive Director GALE LABELLE, Clerk CHARLES P. OGDEN, Treasurer
June 29, 2011
EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912
RE: Housatonic River - Rest of River Revised Corrective Measures Study (CMS) Report (Octob~r 2010)
Dear Mr. Cianciarulo:
The Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC), which is the official sub-state district representing the thirty-two cities and towns in Berkshire County, submits these comments regarding the Housatonic River Revised CMS for consideration by the National Review Board. These comments focus on three general observations: 1) the Revised CMS is inadequate in that the GE has not adequately evaluated the full spectrum of mitigation technologies that might be used for Rest of River; 2) there has been no consideration given to the cost impacts to the affected individual property owners, communities or the region as a whole and an insufficient analysis of the health impacts of removal options; and 3) we believe that an extensive public informational program must continue to be conducted to enable local residents, officials and the regulatory agencies to fully analyze the short and long-term impacts of remediation to public health, the environmental and the local .economy prior to EPA approving any specific clean-up action.
The Revised eMS is Inadequate
The Revised CMS is inadequate in that it does not seriously consider employing a mix of conventional and alternative technologies. We are disappointed that the only remediation technique for floodplain soils, with the exception of FPl (no action) include excavation, transportation and/or storage of excavated material, and backfill of soil. Excavation has the obvious environmental impacts of long-term clearing of vegetation and destruction of existing habitat. It also comes with significant transportation and storage impacts. The only technologies considered and evaluated for remediation of river sediments and erodible banks, with the exception on SED 1 (no action) and SED 2 (MNR), are excavation or capping. All in-situ or other alternative technologies were dismissed, ostensibly because they have not been tested on "full-scale" projects as extensive as the Rest of River.
In general, when discussing alternative techniques, such as in-situ, the document focuses on what cannot be done, not on what might be done with some creative thinking. Stated often, and summarized on p. 3-18, "In situ biological, chemical, and thermal treatment processes were eliminated during initial screening because none of these technologies has been applied full scale for soils containing PCBs at a site similar to the Housatonic River floodplain ...." However, the Revised CMS further notes that for several promising technologies, further pilot and/or full-scale field tests are needed to further assess their appropriateness or effectiveness.
We suggest a paradigm shift for remediation of the Rest of River. First, remediation plans for Rest of the River must not be static; instead plans should remain flexible enough to include new developments in technology and accommodate changes in field conditio.ns where they are found. A strategy of active adaptive management must be accepted by all parties and employed throughout the remediation process. Second, the river is made up of several different aquatic and terrestrial ecological communities and, where applicable, promising less invasive mitigation techniques to minimize the long-term ecological effects of vegetation removal and soil excavation must be sought out and considered in a more serious manner than has been done in the Revised CMS. For example, in situ technologies could,be considered for small discreet pilot sites, such as small plots of floodplain, wetlands and one or more vernal pools. Although in situ technologies may result in some ecological damage, reducing the amount of excavation may reduce the hydrologic impacts and thus improve the short and long-term success rate of wetland replication efforts. Avoiding large scale excavation to maintain vernal pool viability would reduce the rare species concerns that are such a focus of GE's Fate of a River video.
Remediation must consist of a combination of techniques that will remove and, if possible, destroy PCBs once and for all. Transporting and storing PCB-contaminated soils today transfers the responsibility and expense of containing or destroying PCBs to future generations and other communities.
We call upon GE and the EPA to work cooperatively with developers of emerging technologies to conduct the field tests in the Housatonic River and floodplain that are stated so often throughout the study as a need. The results of these tests may actually permanently remove and destroy PCBs in the river and floodplain with a significant decrease in the long-term ecological damage required by vegetation removal and excavation. We call upon GE to put imagination to work at this remediation site with the same vigor that it is embracing imaginative technology in other industrial sectors, such as renewable energy. This could not only benefit the Rest of River, but other PCB remediation projects around the country and world.
While all parties, including GE and the EPA, are interested in finding a final resolution to the decision about how to proceed, we believe that an active adaptive management approach is appropriate in this case. While such an approach may not provide a clear answer to the final resolution in a traditional sense, it is what makes sense in this case. The contamination occurred over four decades and it has been four decades since PCB's were banned and no longer allowed to continue to be added to the river system. A solution which is a step-by step, gradual clean-up in a very fine-tuned, sensitive manner, even if it takes another four decades, is preferable to a solution which either leaves large amounts of PCBs in the system or destroys this ecologically valuable river system, which appear to be the options being presented to-date.
Consideration of the Impact on the Communities and Economy of the Berkshires
We also believe that there are substantial questions regarding the impact on the economy and public health and perceptions regarding the Berkshires from the outcomes of EPA's decisions. It seems apparent that both the stigma of having significant amounts of contamination in one of our major environmental features, the Housatonic River, and the impact of proposals for dredging and disposing of contaminates at valuable sites along the river and in proximity to neighborhoods and businesses can have serious and ongoing economic ramifications for this region, which has been struggling economically since 1970. Similarly, leaving significant amounts of contamination or major removals which destroy significant environmental features and a primary natural resource may create a perception about the region which will affect residents and potential visitors. Both removal and leaving the contamination in place also have public health ramifications. While there has been some analysis of the public health impacts of various options, there has been none of the economic impacts on affected property owners or communities. The decision-making process seems to allow consideration of the economic cost to GE of the various alternatives; we believe that it also must consider the economic impact on our citizens and region. To be blunt, we are not particularly concerned about the impact on GE's considerable bottom line but know that the contamination created by GE has already had significant costs to individuals and communities which have been affected and that the clean-up options also have economic impacts. Portions of the communities directly affected are identified Environmental Justice areas and this factor thus must be considered by EPA in its decision-making process.
Need for public informational program
We appreciate and found quite useful the series of public workshops that the EPA sponsored in April and May of this year. We respectfully request that the EPA once again facilitate a public information program that will present, in a manner that is comprehendible to citizens and property owners, the state of the science on the remediation option that the agency proposes. Decisions that residents, regulatory agencies and GE make today will affect public health and the environment for generations to come. This is a responsibility that must not be taken lightly, and it is our belief that a considerable amount of public education and dialogue is needed at the local level so that local residents and officials fully understand the various mitigation options and the long-term ramifications of EPA's proposed remediation option. As the officially recognized regional planning agency for Berkshire County, the BRPC is willing to work in whatever role it can to try to see that these steps are accomplished.
Sincerely, /~~-- Nathaniel W. Karns, AICP Executive Director
Cc: The Honorable John Kerry, U.S. Senator The Honorable Scott Brown, U.S. Senator The Honorable John Olver, U.S. Representative The Honorable Deval Patrick, Governor The Honorable Benjamin Downing, State Senator The Honorable Smitty Pignatelli, State Representative The Honorable Christopher Speranzo, State Representative Mr. Curt Spalding, Director, EPA New England Mr. Jim Murphy, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Mr. Richard K. Sullivan, Jr., Secretary, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Mr. Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Ms. Mary Griffin, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Mr. Michael Gorski, Regional Director, Mass. DEP, Western Region Housatonic Valley Association
150 Kent Road 1383 Pleasant Street 19 Furnace Bank Road PO Box28 PO Box 251 PO Box 315 Cornwall Bndge CT 06754 South lee. MA 01260 WassaIC, NY 12592 860-672-6678 413-394-9796 845-789-1381 www.hvatoday.org
June 29, 20 II EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EP A New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912
Dear Remedy Review Board:
Since its founding 70 years ago, the Housatonic Valley Association (HVA) has been dedicated solely to protecting the environmental health of the Housatonic River and its 2,000 square mile watershed. HV A's mission is to save the natural character and health of our communities by protecting land and water throughout the watershed, from the Berkshires through western Connecticut to Long Island Sound. Since the mid -1970s, HVA has been involved with Housatonic River PCB contamination and remediation issues. We have participated in the many aspects of these issues throughout the years, including the run-up to the Consent Decree and the design and implementation of restoration projects funded with Natllfal Resource Damages moneys. We have been active members of the CCC since 1999, and we maintain a document repository at our Cornwall Bridge, Connecticut office. OUf comments below regarding the Revised Corrective Measures Study, as summarized in EPA's recent fact sheet, "Cleanup Alternatives in the Revised CMS", state the guiding principals, preferred treatment alternatives and additional concerns of our organization.
I. Guiding Principals
While reviewing the revised remediation alternatives for the Rest of the River, we developed a set of guiding principals as to what we would like to see as the end result of remediation. These are: (1) That remediation should restore the river to a "fishable l" and 2 "swimable " water body. (2) Cleanup should be to the best abihty of technology regardless of time, money and temporary aesthetic damage. A careful and thorough cleanup may require sacrificing short-term aestbetics and use of the area in order to protect this and fllture generations (human and wildlife) by providiJlg them with a clean, safe and naturally beautiful river and riparian landscape. (3) Post-remediation PCB concentrations should meet the lower range of IMPG concentrations. (4) The river should be able to flow and move as rivers naturally do. Therefore, enough contanlinated bank and flood plain material must be removed and replaced to allow some meandering, rather than leaving contaminated material behind armored banks that prevent natural movement. (5) The risk of recontamination should be minimized.
II. Recommendations
Upon reviewing the RCMS document, we have determined that the following alternatives will satisfy our overarching goals. However, we are open to any alternatives that meet our guiding principals.
I We view "lishablc" as a habitat able to consistentl y produce and support healthy fi sh consumable at a frequen cy of at least 15 timesper year. 2 We see "swimablc" as a water column and river bed thaI can support primnry contact recrealion by humans. 1) In reaches 5 through 8, we prefer sediment options SED 5 and 6. These provide quicker remediation to the area to satisfy a 10-6 HH risk, as well as achieving a swimable and fishable river with reduced risk of recontamination. Other alternatives that include much Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) and Thin-Layer Capping (TLC) are not aggressive enough to achieve our guiding principles.
2) For remediation in the Flood Plain, we believe alternative FP7 should be the preferred technique as it brings the HH risk to 10-6 and achieves the lower bound TMPGs. When access roadways are built, we would also like to see that the areas each roadway accesses are full y remediated and restored. Some alternatives only remove the most highly contaminated material, leaving behind a large amolmt of less contaminated soil. It would make more sense to remediate all contaminated materia~ once the access roads are built and the machines are in place.
3) For the treatment and disposal of contaminated material, in the absence of an effective remedial technology at the present, we support the use of an upland disposal landfill located outside of the 500 year flood plain ifit is specified as a tndy temporary solution, with further remediation of stored material mandated to be done as proven technology becomes available. Transport of this material to land fill(s) could be done via the railroad. This railroad option was discounted in years past due to the cost of retrofitting the existing infrastructure. However, the increased truck traffic on local roads will increase the road maintenance budgets of the surrow1ding towns, and there is renewed regional and national interest in redeveloping rail transport as a more energy efficient alternative to trucking.
4) We also request that EPA consider the following : a) Make sure that the solution chosen accounts for both global warming and regional increases in impervious surfaces that may affect flow velocities and flooding patterns. b) Factor in the real potential for dam removal in the future . The study was conducted lmder the assumption that dams such as Woods Pond and Rising Pond would remain in place forever. However, given the environmental movement toward dam removal and the potential for a breech if improperly maintained, we ask that the remediation planning take into account the recontamination risks associated with a possible dam removal or breech. Also, in the event that any downstream dams in Massachusetts or Connecticut require maintenance that moves in-stream sediment, we ask that GE be required to test the sediment and remove PCB contaminated material in advance. c) Use a pbased approach to the remediation plan to allow newer and better technologies to be incorporated as they are discovered. The remediation should be held to a strict schedule, but with built-in regular periodic reevaluations as more advanced technologies are found, especially if they will limit the amount of destruction to the site while still removing or destroying PCBs.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide input.
yours, ~~ ans Dennis Regan ater Protection ~~Executive Director Massachusetts Director
Re: COMMENTS RE: GE CMS PROPOSAL; "Rest of River" Housatonic River Remediation Project in Massachusetts Valerie Andersen to: Bob Cianciarulo
Cc: Jim Murphy, Susan Svirsky, Dean Tagliaferro, housriverkeeper, healct, jane, bruce, lynnfowler, audreycole, gdgibbs, tames, ccianfar
Jun 30, 2011
COMMENTS To The EPA NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD
REGARDING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S OCTOBER 2010 REVISED CORRECTIVE MEASURES
STUDY (CMS) For The HOUSATONIC RIVER In MASSACHUSETTS And CONNECTICUT
FROM A Pittsfield Resident and Mother of Two Children Who Have been Exposed to PCBs in City Sponsored and School Sponsored Activities
[email protected] or to:
EPA National Remedy Review Board
c/o Bob Cianciarulo
EPA New England
5 Post Office Square , Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1)
Boston, MA 02109-3912
I am a resident of Pittsfield, Massachusetts and the mother of two teenage children. I am also a sitting member of the EPA Housatonic River Citizens Coordinating Council.
I am writing to urge the EPA to do two things: to be consistent in application of your remedies so that we in Region One obtain a clean up of the Housatonic River that is at least as extensive as that being performed in RegionTwo for the Hudson River. To this end, the EPA should mandate that General Electric clean the toxic PCBs from the rest of the Housatonic River to Long Island Sound even it means that long term dredging will occur in ecologically sensitive areas. Second, I urge you to recoginze that GE's lastest ploy: (covertly siphoning hundreds of thousands of dollars to local business groups to lobby on GE's behalf) is distorting the public discussion and is a ploy to dodge responsibility for remediating the pollution it caused.
With respect to dredging the river, PCBs are toxic man made substances that can cause cancer, low intelligence, developmental delays and other diseases. Our children have been forced to come into contact with these pollutants. For example, my son would play baseball with a city sponsored league on the field at Allendale School when PCBs were being dumped next to it at Hill 78 and 71. Only a chain link fence separated the children from the toxics. When foul balls flew over the fence, some boys would climb it and retrieve them from the toxic dump area. GE apparently did not care that children would play next to a toxic waste dump and it fought very hard to purposely establish the dump next to an elementary school and ball field. It is ludicrous that this same company now presents itself as interested in preserving the "ecology" of the river it ruined. Don't fall for it.
I advocate a clean up so that future generations can fish and swim in the river; where I don't have to tell my son's Boy Scout troop to be sure to wash off their shoes after stepping into the polluted sediment after stepping into the polluted sediment after a canoe trip in Lenox.
Some well meaning perple are using a catchy slogan to call for a scaled down clean up. They glibly say "don't ruin the river to save it". However, sadly the river is already ruined. Housatonic river fish have some of the highest levels of PCBs ever recorded. A wood duck from the Housatonic had 3,700 parts per million PCBs when adjusted for fat content. A sportsman or woman who would hunt these fowl would have to dispose of them in a high level, regulated toxic waste facility! This is our chance to clean the river for future generations. Yes the clean up will be long and damage beautiful vistas for a period of time. Buit it is a necessity for a proper clean up. Ironically those who advocate a lesser clean up say that mother nature will "take care of the PCBs", but they doubt that mother nature can "take care of " and restore a habitat for a cleaned up river.
Moreover, I find that the restoration efforts already performed by the EPA in Pittsfield have been very successful. Mayflies (a species that will not survive in polluted waters) have been found on areas that have been cleaned up. Even the once ugly rip rap, so maligned by many citizens, is now being hidden by plants. I believe the EPA will continue successful restoration efforts along the rest of the river.
One final thing: the new toxic waste dumps GE is proposing. No more dumps should be allowed in Berkshire County. All toxic material should be shipped to other facilities ot of state as is being done in Region Two for the clean up of the Hudson River.
Please do not let GE fool you into using the dumps as a bargaining chip to get you to agree to a minimal clean up, i.e., no dumps in exchange for a lame clean up. It is obvious that this is a strategy it is using. Please don't fall for it.
Many ordinary people in Berkshire County advocate a comprehensive large clean up. Don't let the paid lobbing groups for General Electric make you think otherwise.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie A. Andersen 16 Dan Ave. Pittsfield, MA 01201
Berkshire County League of Sportsmen 25 Delancy Ave Pittsfield MA 0120 I 413-499-8482
June 30, 20 II
EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob CianciaruJo EPA New England 5 Post Of'fice Square, Suite J 00 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912
Dear Mr. Cianciarulo;
I write you this letter alter a unanimous vote from the membership of the Berkshire County League of Sportsmen, (BCLS) an organization with just over 3000 members of organized sportsmen and sportswomen in Berkshire County.
This letter will voice our concerns surrounding the Housatonic's "Rest of the River" clean-up, an area that includes the confluence, down through Woods Pond. Activities by residents and tourists to the Berkshires included along this vast stretch of the river are; hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, canoeinglkayaking, bird-watching, photography and other various forms of wildlife viewing. Bearing all this recreational activity in mind, The BCLS recognize that the clean up from the confluence to Woods Pond will require a long period of time, millions of dollars to complete, and will most likely change in design from time to time during the entire clean-up process. Thus it is fair to say that this protracted clean-up process will undoubtedly interrupt if not end, many of these forms of recreation and life styles for long periods of time along the river.
After researching, watching and listening to the various proposed clean-up options, a portion of almost all of the proposals contain a certain amount of dredging. This stretch of the Housatonic River holds large varieties of wildlife that are both game and non-game species. This portion of the river is also recognized as the largest wetland area in the Commonwealth west of the Connecticut River. This wetland acts as a nesting and respite area for migratory birds and has numerous rare and endangered species of plant and wild li fe throughout its boundaries and needs to be handled in a delicate manner.
The BCLS will not supp0l1 dredging in the "Rest of River" project of the Housatonic River except (or targeted areas. This area can include Wood 's Pond, an area of the river that has become shallow due to the filling in of silt. An area that has become a sink for the entire river's PCB's. We do not want to see a remediation plan put into place like the one that was used in the first part of the river's clean up, where effectively the river was turned into a sluice pipe and now represents a commercial drainage area. Thi s area of the river has some of the most diverse habitat for its wildlife which includes a mi gratory corridor, heavil y used public recreation areas that includes three and half (3.5) miles of designated "catch and release" waters, lands that provide agricultural productivity and approximately twenty two (22) miles of cold water fisheri es resources.
An issue that was brought to our attention recently, is the fact that the river's ori ginal channel through Woods Pond has moved from its original locati on of the east side of the pond to the west side over the last sixty five (65) plus years. This movement happened in part because of all the silt that was deposited into the waterway and the speed of the river going into Woods Pond. In GE's presentation, there appears to be no mention of rectifyin g this issue.
If and when dredging happens along the ri ver in the Pond, our concern is that the PCB's in that stretch will be stirred up and with the speed of the river, we feel that it will be inevitable that there will be further downstream pollution as a result. We would like to propose that barnes be installed to slow the water entering Woods Pond and move the rivers current channel back to the west bank. The result will be less of a silt build up, and reducing the possibility of further PCB contamination downstream.
The BCLS is not in favor of an aggressive remediation plan. We want a deliberate, stepwise sequence, showing less impact. We would also like to see a slower sequence that wi ll allow habitat along the river bank to grow and provide shade for the fishery and cover for the various wildlife along the ri ver' s edge and embankments before large areas further downstream are opened up to restoration. We want a plan that will allow for the study of alternate remediation technology, and an adaptive management process.
The BCLS would support a less in vasive clean up of this pristine section of the Housatonic River. Its appeal to fi shermen and sportsmen, its importance to migratory birds and other forms of wildlife, its natural beauty and environmental sign ificance, personifies what the Berkshires and thi s ri ver means to residents and tourists alike.
COMMENTS RE: GE CMS PROPOSAL; "Rest of River" Housatonic River Remediation Project in Massachusetts & Connecticut Barbara Cianfarini to: Bob Cianciarulo
Jim Murphy, Susan Svirsky, Dean Tagliaferro, Tim Gray, Judy Herkimer, jane, Bruce Winn, Cc: Lynn Fowler, "Audrey Cole (CT/CCC)", Valerie Andersen, David Gibbs, Tad Ames, 1CharlieHTML
COMMENTS To The EPA NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD REGARDING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S OCTOBER 2010 REVISED CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY (CMS) For The HOUSATONIC RIVER In MASSACHUSETTS And CONNECTICUT FROM CITIZENS FOR PCB REMOVAL
[HARD COPY TO MAILED TODAY, AS WELL]
[email protected] or to:
EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo
EPA New England
5 Post Office Square , Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1)
Boston, MA 02109-3912
On behalf of Citizens for PCB Removal (“CPR”), a grassroots, all-volunteer citizens organization, I want to thank EPA and particularly the National Remedy Review Board for inviting and accepting these comments from the stakeholders and citizens of the Housatonic River Basin and Watershed in the Berkshires in the State of Massachusetts, and Connecticut, thereby offering access to our government, Of the People, By the People and For the People.
Stakeholders, we are. CPR was born out of the extreme concern for the homeowners and the hard-working people of Pittsfield, especially those of the Lakewood and Allendale Sections, who were and still are most impacted by GE’s contamination history in Pittsfield and Berkshire County; ourselves among them. For decades GE used PCBs in their Power Transformer Plant as an insulator and fire retardant in transformers, and voltage regulators, small to gigantic. Massive amounts of PCB-laden oil, barrels of chemicals and PCB-soaked Fuller’s Earth escaped the plant via leaks and drainage at the plant as well as through legal and illegal dumping and a ‘clean fill’ giveaway program to workers and community members for nearly a half century until PCBs were banned in the US in 1977. Silver Lake and the Housatonic River are adjacent to the plant and have suffered voluminous contamination as a result. In 1997, compelled by a conscientious GE manager who knew of the widespread poisoning of the city from the vast distribution of the PCBs and was alarmed by the large numbers of illnesses in the GE worker population, GE began distributing letters informing property owners in these two sections of Pittsfield that they may have PCB and other chemical contamination of their homes and businesses, but offered no remedy. GE also purchased several homes and businesses with massive amounts of high levels of PCB contamination, known as ‘Core Properties’ within the community, particularly those with the incriminating evidence of a signed GE Consent Form stating GE had distributed “Clean Fill.”. These events sparked numerous community meetings, many of them held at local social centers such as the Italian American Club on Newell Street, an impacted property, itself. Hundreds of people flocked to these meetings to share their experiences, knowledge, fears and heartfelt stories of family devastation from multiple illnesses, including MS, ALS, but mostly Cancer, within numerous families and neighborhoods. One of CPR’s founding members, Mr. Vincent “Vinny” Curro obtained an assessor’s map of the Lakewood section, mounted it on a cardboard backing and brought colored pushpins to the meetings. Mr. Curro owned both a GE-contaminated home and a business property. As person after person stood up and testified to the illnesses and suffering of their loved ones, Vinny encouraged them to place a pin in the map for each afflicted person in their household on the parcel representing their home; green for persons still living with illness, red for the deceased. We still have this map today, preserved in its 1997 state. It is a sea of red. Sadly, Vinny, himself, died of cancer several years ago.
Furthermore, for many years the neighborhoods and people of Lakewood and Allendale - the working class neighborhoods which abut the GE Plant site - were further impacted by regular flooding from the contaminated Silver Lake, Housatonic River, and its tributaries such as Unkamet Brook as these waters run through these neighborhoods. Adding further assault, the Army Corp of Engineers arrived in the 1940s to do a flood control project, straightening out the oxbows of the meandering river using barrels filled with PCBs and other toxic chemicals, hundreds of cubic yards of PCB and solvent-soaked Fuller’s Earth, as well as other GE-generated toxic industrial waste (saturated wood blocks, insulators, capacitors, etc.) as flood control Fill. This fill leached PCBs and other chemicals both into the River and into people’s yards and homes, including basements. Hundreds more
COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL-EPA REMEDY REVIEW BOARD Page 2 of 6 truckloads of this Fuller’s Earth and other industrial waste found its way into Lakewood yards and parks; this city section’s name derived from the fact that it was essentially low-cost swampland and therefore most affordable to blue collar workers, who used the fill to try and create solid land for homes and businesses. PCB-laden oil was sprayed on Pittsfield dirt roads, regularly, to control the dust. A large open pit between the Plant and the Allendale neighborhood was used by GE as an unlined industrial dump for decades. Today it is known as Hill 78, and although it is top-capped and closely monitored by EPA and GE, it sits between the River and the neighborhood’s elementary school, Allendale School, which itself required two (2!) PCB Removal Actions, and two caps, the first of which failed. Another adjacent Industrial Dump is known as Hill 71. This is an ongoing point of contention between the Citizens of Pittsfield, particularly the Allendale neighborhood and the environmental groups versus EPA/GE. Finally, the citizens of Pittsfield were assaulted nightly, as the GE-owned For-Profit “Thermal DeOxidizer” (PCB Incinerator) operated year-round at the Plant site, mostly after dark to hide the hideously oppressive plume of dank, foul-smelling smog it belched nightly. As the wind blew, its soot and rain-water dissolved chemicals descended on Lakewood and other Pittsfield yards, engulfing everything from playgrounds to vegetable gardens to laundry hung out to dry with its toxic film. It ceased operation in the late 90’s, but its poisonous legacy lives on. All this was happening as GE workers, many of whom were literally immersed in the PCB’s as they climbed into the giant transformers to build, test or repair them, returned home to have their PCB-soaked clothing washed in the family’s washing machine – the same machine that washed all the family’s other clothing and bedding from maternity frocks to baby blankets to childrens’ togs. The oily PCB residue coated everything. And, for years people have fished in the river and hunted its watershed, and despite fish advisories posted in the 1980’s, many still eat the fish, fowl and hunted catch, especially in these hard economic times. People in Pittsfield and Berkshire County were – and still are - essentially encased in PCBs; we breathe them, we eat them, we sleep, play and live in PCBs.
Recent Berkshire Eagle articles have noted that Berkshire County has one of the poorest State Health Depart-ment rankings of all the counties within Massachusetts. We have a shorter life expectancy and a greater incident of debilitating diseases and afflictions. We know we have a higher rate of Breast Cancer than nearly any other part of Massachusetts. PCB’s are Probable Carcinogens, highly suspected of causing Breast, Liver, and non-Hodgkins’ Lymphoma cancers; just one slight notch down from the six Known Cancer Causing Substances which have been proven at the molecular level. We also have a high prostrate and bladder cancer rate, the latter attributable to the many solvents and other VOC’s (volatile organic chemicals) used extensively at the GE Plant.
Citizens For PCB Removal formed as a unified force to compel GE to clean up the contamination in our yards, schools, and neighborhoods, but we also formed for the Greater Goal of cleaning up the Housatonic River and greater community at large. We fight for our children and grandchildren, our grandchildren’s grandchildren, and all the generations to come. We fight for the environment, and all the unique, essential, valuable living things within that environment. We fight for the restoration and preservation of our Health, first and foremost, by trying to ensure the cleanest, most thorough cleanup towards a pure and pristine environment that can be had after an ongoing environmental disaster like this one has been. We see the entire Watershed of the Housatonic as being our concern, including downstream communities in Massachusetts, as well as in Connecticut and beyond, as this river ultimately empties into the Atlantic Ocean at Long Island Sound. We are worried that the concerns and issues of our brothers and sisters in Connecticut regarding this contaminated river and its cleanup will be ignored, and that the impact on our oceans - our planet’s food, water, and weather generator - will be forgotten.
Founders and members of CPR have worked on the issue of PCB contamination in the Berkshires and beyond for over fourteen years, passionately attending hundreds of meetings, presentations, discussions and demonstrations. We have accumulated and read tens of thousands of pages of documentation, taken hundreds of pages of notes and listened to dozens of researchers and experts on the devastating effects of PCB exposure to humans and other living organisms, and on methods and attempts to mitigate or remediate these effects both historically implemented
COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL – EPA REMEDY REVIEW BOARD Page 3 of 6 and potentially to be innovatively used in the future. We also are PCB-contaminated affected residential and business property owners in the Pittsfield neighborhood of Lakewood and other city locales, have suffered from reduced property values and stigma, and endured PCB cleanups ourselves. We are members of the vast community that has been devastated by the suspected health effects of PCB’s including asthma, ADD/ADHD, Multiple Sclerosis, lowered IQ, hormone disruption, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and cancer, among a wide array of other diseases and conditions. We have observed and documented first hand the frightening concentration of cancer in our city and county with a particular concentration in the Lakewood section of Pittsfield. We have watched, helplessly, frantically, as neighbors, colleagues, dear friends and beloved family members have succumbed to various forms of this terrible disease. Several members of CPR have died from this modern plague; others battle it currently. It is on this basis of knowledge and long-term intimate stake in this process that we make these comments on the current CMS Proposal.
We all know that numerous peer-reviewed studies show that PCB contamination, at all, even minute levels, is toxic by all serious, non-biased scientific standards, including EPA’s own Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment Documents as well as other independent scientists. PCBs, all 209 congeners, are listed on EPA’s website as “Probable Carcinogens”, which is the second most serious category, behind only “Known Carcinogens” which is a very short list of substances proven at the molecular level to cause cancer. We have watched, over our lifetime, the average national cancer risk rise from a one in ten (1:10) general risk in the 1960s to one in eight (1:8) in the 1980s to currently one in four (1:4) for women; one in three (1:3) for men. At this rate, what statistical – and actual - risks will our children and grandchildren face? While PCBs are not the only cancer-causing factor in today’s world, they do bio-accumulate in the food chain, serve no legitimate purpose in this country today, and are an unnecessary risk. We also know that Berkshire County, including this River, its watershed, and surrounding communities and neighborhoods has some of the highest levels of, and most widespread area of known contamination of PCB’s, dioxins and other industrial carcinogens and that its citizens and wildlife are at significant risk, otherwise the EPA would not have made the decision to intervene in this situation nearly two decades ago. PCBs should be, must be, actively eradicated; not left to continue their harm.
We see nothing new in this current Revised CMS that gives us hope that General Electric is serious about returning the River to the citizens of this community as a clean, viable, safely fishable, swimmable river. In fact, we believe GE took the community’s comments in 2007 and 2009 and used them in this Revised CMS to exploit the fears and concerns of the citizenry in order to sway public opinion towards the ‘do nothing’ approach, i.e. “MNR” (“Monitored ‘Natural’ Recovery.”), or more recently, the “Smart” Cleanup, i.e. a limited ‘spotty’ approach. GE knows that The People, especially those who live along the corridor of the ‘Rest of River’ do not want any further toxic waste dumps in their community, whether unlined, such as Hill 78 or ‘state-of-the-art’ such as Hill 71 in Pittsfield. The riverside residents, canoeists and sportsmen and women rightly fear disruption of their homes, lives and recreational habitats by widespread draconian dredging and trucking along the Rest of River. Environmentalists, CPR among them, decry widespread indiscriminate destruction of wildlife habitat with the implementation of outdated, outmoded, dredge-and-landfill techniques.
As we have stated in previous Comments, we believe that any cleanup – or non-cleanup - approach that fails to fully take into account the magnitude of the Power of Mother Nature does a huge disservice to the living beings – human and otherwise - that are subject to that power. Leaving the chemicals in the environment risks having them further spread throughout the world and food chain. No landfill, no matter how carefully designed, is guaranteed to withstand the extremes of weather and natural disasters that we have seen throughout history as well as in modern times, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, massive floods, rock/mud/landslides, earthquakes and even volcanic eruptions. The October 2010 toxic deluge from a break in a chemical storage facility similar to Hill 78 into the Danube River in Europe is a frightening illustration of man’s arrogance, short-sightedness and incompetence in that regard. Political unrest and possible domestic terrorism are further potential threats to any man-made structure containing poisons. As our name illustrates, we believe in the Removal of PCB’s, not the COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL – EPA REMEDY REVIEW BOARD Page 4 of 6
‘ignoring’ or stockpiling of them. Therefore, we implore the EPA to mandate the inclusion of Pilot Studies for the Rest of River (including Connecticut all the way down to Long Island Sound) with newer, cutting edge “alternative“ and innovative technologies to destroy or neutralize PCB’s in situ or with less disturbance and dredging of the natural environment including the river itself, riverbanks and floodplain in a good-faith attempt to find better, less invasive solutions to this problem that eliminates the need for storing of toxins. On January 19, 2011 we attended a presentation by Biotech Restorations and Genesis Fluid Solutions, hosted by Housatonic River Initiative (HRI) and co-sponsored by Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT), Housatonic Environmental Action League (HEAL), and Housatonic Valley Association (HVA), among others in the community. At that meeting we heard promising evidence that other viable less invasive, in situ solutions are being developed, tested and, in fact, implemented in California, our nations ‘gold standard’ of environmental stringency and protection. At the January 19th 2011 meeting, Biotech even claimed that their method was actually cheaper than the conventional dredge and truck/landfill option! Chris Young, President of Biotech, also extended a Company Guarantee of success; an unprecedented offer in the environmental remediation field! When asked, ‘Have you approached GE with this option?” Mr. Young’s reply was, “Yes, and their response was, ‘We don’t believe you; if it was possible, we would have thought of it ourselves.’ ” Perhaps GE’s current national mega-million dollar multi-media ad campaign, “Eco-Imagination”, should be renamed “EGO-Imagination” for their arrogant refusal to work with the overall Environmental and Scientific communities to seek and adapt the BEST solutions currently available, and not simply the quickest, cheapest, or ones they can patent - and therefore profit from - themselves.
Furthermore, we all know that this problem was not created overnight. Over many years the PCB’s and other industrial toxins were dumped into the local land, river and air, and have accumulated. A problem decades in the making is not going to be solved quickly, easily nor ‘cheaply.’ We strongly urge EPA to insist that this and other modern, promising and most environmentally sensitive options be actively recruited by GE and EPA, studied via Pilot Studies in this River, itself, carefully, deliberately and slowly; and, if successful, implemented more fully to the Rest of River solution decision. Let’s take our time and make sure we do this right the first time. We join with HRI, BEAT, HEAL and HVA, among others, in this opinion.
It is highly ironic that those with the most money in this issue continuously spend it generously in order to avoid paying for their obligations and responsibilities to the people and environment of this ecosystem, while those who only want to see things done well and done right for all have nothing to gain financially.
Money always equates Power in this society, and those of us representing the general citizenry are all too aware of this. Many of those opposing the citizens' activists groups, including the Pittsfield “business community” (Chamber of Commerce) and everyone representing GE are well-compensated for their time involved in this issue. Most of the environmental activists are not compensated whatsoever for their hundreds of man-hours dedicated to this cause, members of CPR included. General Electric has put many resources into its public propaganda campaign aimed at swaying public opinion towards MNR and its ‘Smart Cleanup’ option, most notably its website “HousatonicOptions.com” and its slick multi-million dollar Hollywood-style film: “The Housatonic: The Fate of a River.” This is a direct attempt to oppose the EPA’s website and confuse the public. Here a few self-proclaimed ‘powerful’ business leaders fight remediation, cleanup and restoration at every turn. They take money from General Electric, create opposing websites (1Berkshires.com) and have just recently asked for a larger presence at the Citizens Coordinating Council (“CCC”) meetings in an attempt to reverse any progress towards comprehensive remediation of the Housatonic River. They had seats at the table of the CCC ten (10!) years ago, but stopped attending when the First Half Mile of remediation, restoration and redevelopment was begun. Funny how they only want to return when there is $300,000 from GE donated to their organization, 1Berkshires. Is that money a payoff for their time? If it wasn’t there would they be there either? We know that there are many business owners in Berkshire County that do not agree with these few “leaders” who are currently so vocal against real development of restoring our river and community. COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL-EPA REMEDY REVIEW BOARD Page 5 of 6 Battling websites aside, the EPA-led mini workshop on April 7 titled “Ecological Restoration” revealed a very interesting difference between business leaders in Berkshire County and those in other parts of the country. In major river restoration projects including Provo River in Salt Lake City, UT, Upper Clark Fork River in Montana, Nine Mile Run in Pittsburgh, PA and North Gray’s River in Maryland, the business and local communities have embraced those projects as important, necessary and critical to the future of those areas. They know that cleaning and restoring those rivers will make for healthier citizens and wildlife, create much-needed jobs and are actually using those projects to support and encourage tourism. And many of those projects are much more complicated, initially destructive and expensive than the most complete potential remediation of the Housatonic. CPR often gets encouraging comments and congratulations – and has for fourteen years - from small business owners and other community leaders urging us to continue our advocacy and representation of The People of Pittsfield and the Berkshires, working towards a full and thorough cleanup. We IMPLORE the EPA to stand up to those few opposing “leaders” and tell them not to put their short term financial gain before the health and welfare of our citizens, wildlife and future. Citizens for PCB Removal continues to advocate for the most thorough and comprehensive cleanup of the River and surrounding environment as is technically possible, without regard to cost in terms of dollars and cents of the actual, physical remediation methods to General Electric. We know there is an immeasurable cost in terms of human health and safety, human suffering, and environmental health and safety, in addition to recreation and enjoyment of the River, especially when one factors in these impacts on multiple generations to come - both human and otherwise. While we prefer and plead for a more creative, innovative approach than dredging, we do not want fear of dredging, or its very limited use to completely shut down the cleanup process. We joined in supporting the ACEC designation of the River to enhance the cleanup process, not to stop it cold. We strongly and completely oppose all forms of in situ "caps" and the creation of any more toxic dumps, landfills or any other term one would use for the stockpiling of yesterday's poisons to become the burden of our children and grandchildren, as is so sadly illustrated with the uncontrolled release of the massive red toxic deluge into the Danube River in Europe, October 2010. We seek better solutions for addressing the current toxic dumps and capped contaminants as created by this cleanup so far. It is all too apparent that GE modeled its current CMS proposal to specifically and pointedly target the fears and concerns of the citizens in regards to irreversible environmental destruction, inconvenient lifestyle disruption and additional local poisonous landfills, even when there are more viable approaches readily available, in order to manipulate public opinion towards a Do Nothing or Very Limited (“Smart”) Approach, just so they can spend less money in today's dollars. Recent (October 2010) comments by former Massachusetts State Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), Mr. Ian A. Bowles, that any 'savings' in a [less than full] cleanup will still be 'invested' in Berkshire County gives us no comfort. NO monetary amount, in COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL – EPA REMEDY REVIEW BOARD Page 6 of 6 today's currency, can compensate for the long term damages to the health, safety and viability of future generations of all living creatures that a cheap, ineffective and incomplete cleanup today will inflict. Any incomplete, ineffectual cleanup ‘today’ will ultimately be the taxpayer’s problem ‘tomorrow.’ We have one chance to bind GE to a thoughtful, thorough, hopefully 'permanent' solution; lets take our time, get it done, and do it right. To do any less is short sighted and selfish.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Barbara Cianfarini Co-Founder and Acting Executive Director Housatonic River Citizens’ Coordinating Counsel Representative (for) Citizens for PCB Removal
Also Representing:
Charles Cianfarini, Thelma Barzottini, Dave Gibbs, Gail Gibbs; Executive Committee REVISED COMMENTS To The EPA NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD REGARDING GENERAL ELECTRIC’S OCTOBER 2010 REVISED CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY (CMS) For The HOUSATONIC RIVER In MASSACHUSETTS And CONNECTICUT FROM CITIZENS FOR PCB REMOVAL (“CPR”)
[email protected] or to:
EPA National Remedy Review Board
c/o Bob Cianciarulo
EPA New England
5 Post Office Square , Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1)
Boston, MA 02109-3912
On behalf of Citizens for PCB Removal (“CPR”), a grassroots, all-volunteer citizens organization, we want to thank EPA and particularly the National Remedy Review Board for inviting and accepting these comments from the stakeholders and citizens of the Housatonic River Basin and Watershed in the Berkshires in the State of Massachusetts, and Connecticut, thereby offering access to our government, Of the People, By the People and For the People.
Stakeholders, we are. CPR was born out of the extreme concern for the homeowners, residents and the hard-working people of Pittsfield, especially those of the Lakewood and Allendale Sections, who were and still are most impacted by GE’s contamination history in Pittsfield and Berkshire County; ourselves among them. For decades GE used PCBs in their Power Transformer Plant as an insulator and fire retardant in transformers, and voltage regulators, of every size, small to gigantic. Massive amounts of PCB-laden oil, barrels of chemicals and PCB- soaked Fuller’s Earth escaped the plant via leaks and drainage at the plant as well as through legal and illegal dumping and a ‘clean fill’ giveaway program to workers and community members for nearly a half century until PCBs were banned in the US in 1977. Silver Lake and the Housatonic River are adjacent to the plant and have suffered voluminous contamination as a result. In 1997, compelled by a conscientious GE manager who knew of the widespread poisoning of the city from the vast distribution of the PCBs and was alarmed by the large numbers of illnesses in the GE worker population, GE began distributing letters informing property owners in these two sections of Pittsfield that they may have PCB and other chemical contamination of their homes and businesses, but offered no remedy. When Mass DEP stepped in and started to force a cleanup, they attempted to strong arm individual homeowners into accepting GE’s first cleanup offers and into signing what amounted to ‘blank contracts’ with GE; with no protections for property owners’ rights. CPR was born out of advocating for individuals’ rights and protections from government and corporate ‘railroading.’ GE also purchased several homes and businesses with massive amounts of high levels of PCB contamination, known as ‘Core Properties’ within the community, particularly those with the incriminating evidence of a signed GE Consent Form stating GE had distributed “Clean Fill.”. These events sparked numerous community meetings, many of them held at local social centers such as the Italian American Club on Newell Street, an impacted property, itself. Hundreds of people flocked to these meetings to share their experiences, knowledge, fears and heartfelt stories of family devastation from multiple illnesses, including MS, ALS, but mostly Cancer, within numerous families and neighborhoods. One of CPR’s founding members, Mr. Vincent “Vinny” Curro obtained an assessor’s map of the Lakewood section, mounted it on a cardboard backing and brought colored pushpins to the meetings. Mr. Curro owned both a GE-contaminated home and a business property. As person after person stood up and testified to the illnesses and suffering of their loved ones, Vinny encouraged them to place a pin in the map for each afflicted person in their household on the parcel representing their home; green for persons still living with illness, red for the deceased. We still have this map today, preserved in its 1997 state. It is a sea of red. Sadly, Vinny, himself, died of cancer several years ago.
Furthermore, for many years the neighborhoods and people of Lakewood and Allendale - the working class neighborhoods which abut the GE Plant site - were further impacted by regular flooding from the contaminated Silver Lake, Housatonic River, and its tributaries such as Unkamet Brook as these waters run through these neighborhoods. Adding further assault, the Army Corp of Engineers arrived in the 1940s to do a flood control
REVISED COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL-EPA REMEDY REVIEW BOARD Page 2 of 7 project, straightening out the oxbows of the meandering river using barrels filled with PCBs and other toxic chemicals, hundreds of cubic yards of PCB and solvent-soaked Fuller’s Earth, as well as other GE-generated toxic industrial waste (saturated wood blocks, insulators, capacitors, etc.) as flood control Fill. This fill leached PCBs and other chemicals both into the River and into people’s yards and homes, including basements. Hundreds more truckloads of this Fuller’s Earth and other industrial waste found its way into Lakewood yards and parks; this city section’s name derived from the fact that it was essentially low-cost swampland and therefore most affordable to blue collar workers, who used the fill to try and create solid land for homes and businesses. PCB-laden oil was sprayed on Pittsfield dirt roads, regularly, to control the dust; an issue that has never been adequately addressed. A large open pit between the Plant and the Allendale neighborhood was used by GE as an unlined industrial dump for decades. Today it is known as Hill 78, and although it is top-capped and closely monitored by EPA and GE, it sits between the River and the neighborhood’s elementary school, Allendale School, which itself required two (2!) PCB Removal Actions, and two caps, the first of which failed. Another adjacent Industrial Dump is known as Hill 71. This is an ongoing point of contention between the Citizens of Pittsfield, particularly the Allendale neighborhood and the environmental groups versus EPA/GE. Finally, the citizens of Pittsfield were assaulted nightly, as the GE-owned For-Profit “Thermal DeOxidizer” (PCB Incinerator) operated year-round at the Plant site, mostly after dark to hide the hideously oppressive plume of dank, foul-smelling smog it belched nightly. As the wind blew, its soot and rain-water dissolved chemicals descended on Lakewood and other Pittsfield yards, engulfing everything from playgrounds to vegetable gardens to laundry hung out to dry with its toxic film. It ceased operation in the late 90’s, but its poisonous legacy lives on. All this was happening as GE workers, many of whom were literally immersed in the PCB’s as they climbed into the giant transformers to build, test or repair them, returned home to have their PCB-soaked clothing washed in the family’s washing machine – the same machine that washed all the family’s other clothing and bedding from maternity frocks to baby blankets to childrens’ togs. The oily PCB residue coated everything. And, for years people have fished in the river and hunted its watershed, and despite fish advisories posted in the 1980’s, many still eat the fish, fowl and hunted catch, especially in these hard economic times. With recent research showing that volatilized PCBs affect all life within three miles of contaminated sites, this river affects literally everyone in Berkshire County and Connecticut situated along it’s corridor, People in Pittsfield and Berkshire County were – and still are essentially encased in PCBs; we breathe them, we eat them, we sleep, play, work and live in PCBs.
Recent Berkshire Eagle articles have noted that Berkshire County has one of the poorest State Health Depart-ment rankings of all the counties within Massachusetts. We have a shorter life expectancy and a greater incident of debilitating diseases and afflictions. We know we have a higher rate of Breast Cancer than nearly any other part of Massachusetts. PCB’s are Probable Carcinogens, highly suspected of causing Breast, Liver, and non-Hodgkins’ Lymphoma cancers; just one slight notch down from the six Known Cancer Causing Substances which have been proven at the molecular level. We also have a high prostrate and bladder cancer rate, the latter attributable to the many solvents and other VOC’s (volatile organic chemicals) used extensively at the GE Plant. Our children have some of the highest rates of health issues including very high rates of ADD/ADHD, childhood asthma, and childhood cancers, especially leukemia’s, particularly at Allendale School and in the Allendale neighborhood, where the two PCB dumps are located. The teachers at that school also have an unusually higher rate of health issues, particularly compared to other Pittsfield and surrounding community schools, and have actually filed union grievances on that issue. We have also been told since the signing of the Consent Decree in 1999 that all terms are “set in stone” by Federal Ruling, and cannot be changed. Yet, whenever the State of Massachusetts, the City of Pittsfield, or a large business, including GE requests a change that is deemed fair and reasonable by the EPA, changes are made. We cite the land
REVISED COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL – EPA REMEDY REVIEW BRD Page 3 of 7 exchange with the City of Pittsfield regarding the PEDA site, and the recent Amendment to the Silver Lake Restoration Plan to allow for smaller, shorter plantings around the lake, contrary to what had been removed, in order to accommodate the new Western Mass Electric Company’s Solar Array Project. If the CD can be “reopened” in Federal Court to allow for such issues, when will the issue of an Unlined Toxic Waste Dump in the middle of a heavily populated city neighborhood, adjacent to an elementary school be addressed? Citizens For PCB Removal formed as a unified force to compel GE to clean up the contamination in our yards, schools, and neighborhoods, but we also formed for the Greater Goal of cleaning up the Housatonic River and greater community at large. We fight for our children and grandchildren, our grandchildren’s grandchildren, and all the generations to come. We fight for the environment, and all the unique, essential, valuable living things within that environment. We fight for the restoration and preservation of our Health, first and foremost, by trying to ensure the cleanest, most thorough cleanup towards a pure and pristine environment that can be had after an ongoing environmental disaster like this one has been. We see the entire Watershed of the Housatonic as being our concern, including downstream communities in Massachusetts, as well as in Connecticut and beyond, as this river ultimately empties into the Atlantic Ocean at Long Island Sound. We are concerned that the health effects that the people of Pittsfield have suffered await the citizens who live below Woods Pond, in Lenox, Lenoxdale, Lee, Stockbridge and Great Barrington, especially as contamination continues to migrate down steam. We are worried that the concerns and issues of our brothers and sisters in Connecticut regarding this contaminated river and its cleanup will be ignored, and that the impact on our oceans - our planet’s food, water, and weather generator - will be forgotten.
Founders and members of CPR have worked on the issue of PCB contamination in the Berkshires and beyond for over fourteen years, passionately attending hundreds of meetings, presentations, discussions and demonstrations. We have accumulated and read tens of thousands of pages of documentation, taken hundreds of pages of notes and listened to dozens of researchers and experts on the devastating effects of PCB exposure to humans and other living organisms, and on methods and attempts to mitigate or remediate these effects both historically implemented and potentially to be innovatively used in the future. We also are PCB-contaminated affected residential and business property owners in the Pittsfield neighborhood of Lakewood and other city locales, have suffered from reduced property values and stigma, and endured PCB cleanups ourselves. We are members of the vast community that has been devastated by the suspected health effects of PCB’s including asthma, ADD/ADHD, Multiple Sclerosis, lowered IQ, hormone disruption, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and cancer, among a wide array of other diseases and conditions. We have observed and documented first hand the frightening concentration of cancer in our city and county with a particular concentration in the Lakewood section of Pittsfield. We have watched, helplessly, frantically, as neighbors, colleagues, dear friends and beloved family members have succumbed to various forms of this terrible disease. Several members of CPR have died from this modern plague; others battle it currently. It is on this basis of knowledge and long-term intimate stake in this process that we make these comments on the current CMS Proposal.
We all know that numerous peer-reviewed studies show that PCB contamination, at all, even minute levels, is toxic by all serious, non-biased scientific standards, including EPA’s own Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment Documents as well as other independent scientists. PCBs, all 209 congeners, are listed on EPA’s website as “Probable Carcinogens”, which is the second most serious category, behind only “Known Carcinogens” which is a very short list of substances proven at the molecular level to cause cancer. We have watched, over our lifetime, the average national cancer risk rise from a one in ten (1:10) general risk in the 1960s to one in eight (1:8) in the 1980s to currently one in four (1:4) for women; one in three (1:3) for men. At this rate, what statistical – and actual - risks will our children and grandchildren face? While PCBs are not the only cancer-causing factor in today’s world, they do bio-accumulate in the food chain, serve no legitimate purpose in this country today, and REVISED COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL – EPA REMEDY REVIEW BRD Page 4 of 6 are an unnecessary risk. We also know that Berkshire County, including this River, its watershed, and surrounding communities and neighborhoods has some of the highest levels of, and most widespread area of known contamination of PCB’s, dioxins and other industrial carcinogens and that its citizens and wildlife are at significant risk, otherwise the EPA would not have made the decision to intervene in this situation nearly two decades ago. PCBs should be, must be, actively eradicated; not left to continue their harm.
We see nothing new in this current Revised CMS that gives us hope that General Electric is serious about returning the River to the citizens of this community as a clean, viable, safely fishable, swimmable river. In fact, we believe GE took the community’s comments in 2007 and 2009 and used them in this Revised CMS to exploit the fears and concerns of the citizenry in order to sway public opinion towards the ‘do nothing’ approach, i.e. “MNR” (“Monitored ‘Natural’ Recovery.”), or more recently, the “Smart” Cleanup, i.e. a limited ‘spotty’ approach. GE knows that The People, especially those who live along the corridor of the ‘Rest of River’ do not want any further toxic waste dumps in their community, whether unlined, such as Hill 78 or ‘state-of-the-art’ such as Hill 71 in Pittsfield. The riverside residents, canoeists and sportsmen and women rightly fear disruption of their homes, lives and recreational habitats by widespread draconian dredging and trucking along the Rest of River. Environmentalists, CPR among them, decry widespread indiscriminate destruction of wildlife habitat with the implementation of outdated, outmoded, dredge-and-landfill techniques. However, it should also be noted that the fears of much of the public are exaggerated due to the successful GE propaganda campaign. While the clean up of the River may take as long as thirty years, no one section of the river - nor any town, business nor individual property owner - will be impacted for that entire time. However, we believe that this disruption is part of the necessary short term cost in order to achieve the Long Term Benefit in terms of the health, environmental, social, recreational, economic advantages and emotional security that a fully cleaned River will provide.
As we have stated in previous Comments, we believe that any cleanup – or non-cleanup approach that fails to fully take into account the magnitude of the Power of Mother Nature does a huge disservice to the living beings – human and otherwise - that are subject to that power. Leaving the chemicals in the environment risks having them further spread throughout the world and food chain. No landfill, no matter how carefully designed, is guaranteed to withstand the extremes of weather and natural disasters that we have seen throughout history as well as in modern times, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, massive floods, rock/mud/landslides, earthquakes and even volcanic eruptions. The October 2010 toxic deluge from a break in a chemical storage facility similar to Hill 78 into the Danube River in Europe is a frightening illustration of man’s arrogance, short-sightedness and incompetence in that regard. Political unrest and possible domestic terrorism are further potential threats to any man-made structure containing poisons. As our name illustrates, we believe in the Removal of PCB’s, not the ‘ignoring’ or stockpiling of them. Therefore, we implore the EPA to mandate the inclusion of Pilot Studies for the Rest of River (including Connecticut all the way down to Long Island Sound) with newer, cutting edge “alternative“ and innovative technologies to destroy or neutralize PCB’s in situ or with less disturbance and dredging of the natural environment including the river itself, riverbanks and floodplain in a good-faith attempt to find better, less invasive solutions to this problem that eliminates the need for storing of toxins. On January 19, 2011 we attended a presentation by Biotech Restorations and Genesis Fluid Solutions, hosted by Housatonic River Initiative (HRI) and co-sponsored by Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT), Housatonic Environmental Action League (HEAL), and Housatonic Valley Association (HVA), among others in the community. At that meeting we heard promising evidence that other viable, less invasive, in situ solutions are being developed, tested and, in fact, implemented in California, our nation’s ‘gold standard’ of environmental stringency and protection. At the January 19th 2011 meeting, Biotech even claimed that their method was actually cheaper than the conventional dredge and truck/landfill option! Chris Young, President of Biotech, also extended a Company Guarantee of success; an unprecedented offer in the environmental remediation field! When asked, ‘Have you approached GE with this option?” Mr. Young’s reply was, “Yes, and their response was, ‘We don’t believe you; if it was possible, we would have thought of it ourselves.’ ” Perhaps GE’s current national mega-million dollar multi-media ad campaign, “Eco- Imagination”, should be renamed “EGO-Imagination” for their arrogant refusal to work with the overall Environmental and Scientific communities to seek and adapt the BEST
REVISED COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL-EPA REMEDY REVIEW BOARD Page 5 of 7 solutions currently available, and not simply the quickest, cheapest, or ones they can patent - and therefore profit from - themselves.
Furthermore, we all know that this problem was not created overnight. Over many years the PCB’s and other industrial toxins were dumped into the local land, river and air, and have accumulated. A problem decades in the making is not going to be solved quickly, easily nor ‘cheaply.’ We strongly urge EPA to insist that this and other modern, promising and most environmentally sensitive options be actively recruited by GE and EPA, studied via Pilot Studies in this River, itself, carefully, deliberately and slowly; and, if successful, implemented more fully to the Rest of River solution decision. Let’s take our time and make sure we do this right the first time. We join with HRI, BEAT, HEAL and HVA, among others, in this opinion.
It is highly ironic that those with the most money in this issue continuously spend it generously in order to avoid paying for their obligations and responsibilities to the people and environment of this ecosystem, while those who only want to see things done well and done right for all have nothing to gain financially.
Money always equates Power in this society, and those of us representing the general citizenry are all too aware of this. Many of those opposing the citizens' activists groups, including the Pittsfield “business community” (Chamber of Commerce) and everyone representing GE are well-compensated for their time involved in this issue. Most of the environmental activists are not compensated whatsoever for their hundreds of man-hours dedicated to this cause, members of CPR included. General Electric has put many resources into its public propaganda campaign aimed at swaying public opinion towards MNR and its ‘Smart Cleanup’ option, most notably its website “HousatonicOptions.com” and its slick multi-million dollar Hollywood-style film: “The Housatonic: The Fate of a River.” This is a direct attempt to oppose the EPA’s website and confuse the public. Here a few self-proclaimed ‘powerful’ business leaders fight remediation, cleanup and restoration at every turn. They take money from General Electric, create opposing websites (1Berkshires.com) and have just recently asked for a larger presence at the Citizens Coordinating Council (“CCC”) meetings in an attempt to reverse any progress towards comprehensive remediation of the Housatonic River. They had seats at the table of the CCC ten (10!) years ago, but stopped attending when the First Half Mile of remediation, restoration and redevelopment was begun. Funny how they only want to return when there is $300,000 from GE donated to their organization, 1Berkshires. Is that money a payoff for their time? If it wasn’t there would they be there either? We know that there are many business owners in Berkshire County that do not agree with these few “leaders” who are currently so vocal against real development of restoring our river and community. Years ago, one of the members of CPR attended a post-graduate continuing education college course at what is now MCLA (Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts) in North Adams, MA. A GE junior executive also attended that class. When the discussion turned to environmental issues and the legacy left by our industrial age, the GE executive stated that he ‘didn’t care” about such issues” because he would, could always just ‘move somewhere where there is not contamination.” Thus exemplifies the typical corporate arrogance, particularly GE arrogance, towards environmental issues. Battling websites aside, the EPA-led mini workshop on April 7 titled “Ecological Restoration” revealed a very interesting difference between business leaders in Berkshire County and those in other parts of the country. In major river restoration projects including Provo River in Salt Lake City, UT, Upper Clark Fork River in Montana, Nine Mile Run in Pittsburgh, PA and North Gray’s River in Maryland, the business and local communities have embraced those projects as important, necessary and critical to the future of those areas. They know that cleaning and restoring those rivers will make for healthier citizens and wildlife, create much-needed jobs and are actually using those projects to support and encourage tourism. And many of those projects are much more complicated, initially destructive and expensive than the most complete potential remediation of the Housatonic. REVISED COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL – EPA REMEDY REVIEW BRD Page 6 of 7 CPR often gets encouraging comments and congratulations – and has for fourteen years - from small business owners and other community leaders urging us to continue our advocacy and representation of The People of Pittsfield and the Berkshires, working towards a full and thorough cleanup. We IMPLORE the EPA to stand up to those few opposing “leaders” and tell them not to put their short term financial gain before the health and welfare of our citizens, wildlife and future. Of the six criteria that EPA is using to evaluate the method and extent of cleanup, it should be remembered that FIRST on the list is the Health and Safety of Humans and the Environment, and LAST on the list is Cost. We hope that you will keep those in perspective, in exactly that proportion, and order of importance as you consider all the proposals. GE caused this Environmental Disaster – intentionally, over many decades - because Saving the Almighty Dollar was more important than any other consideration, LEAST of all people, including the generations to come, and the sacred flora and fauna of our land. They do NOT DESERVE that same consideration of Saving a Buck now. Citizens for PCB Removal continues to advocate for the most thorough and comprehensive cleanup of the River and surrounding environment as is technically possible, without regard to cost in terms of dollars and cents of the actual, physical remediation methods to General Electric. We know there is an immeasurable cost in terms of human health and safety, human suffering, and environmental health and safety, in addition to recreation and enjoyment of the River, especially when one factors in these impacts on multiple generations to come - both human and otherwise. While we prefer and plead for a more creative, innovative approach than dredging, we do not want fear of dredging, or its very limited use to completely shut down the cleanup process. Within the past two years numerous Berkshire locally and nationally based environmental groups signed an Formal Letter to the State of Massachusetts advocating for the designation of parts of the River as an official “Area of Environmental Concern” (ACEC) as a way to encourage Adaptive Management as a cleanup strategy. By Adaptive Management we mean newer, more cutting edge and environmentally sensitive techniques, doing short sections of the river and stopping to fully evaluate each one on completion rather than just the same old Dredge and Store tactics of yesterday. CPR joined in supporting the ACEC designation of the River to enhance the cleanup process, not to stop it cold. We strongly and completely oppose all forms of in situ "caps" and the creation of any more toxic dumps, landfills or any other term one would use for the stockpiling of yesterday's poisons to become the burden of our children and grandchildren, as is so sadly illustrated with the uncontrolled release of the massive red toxic deluge into the Danube River in Europe, October 2010. We seek better solutions for addressing the current toxic dumps and capped contaminants as created by this cleanup so far. It is all too apparent that GE modeled its current CMS proposal to specifically and COMMENTS, CPR: GE OCT 2010 REVISED CMS PROPOSAL – EPA REMEDY REVIEW BOARD Page 7 of 7 pointedly target the fears and concerns of the citizens in regards to irreversible environmental destruction, inconvenient lifestyle disruption and additional local poisonous landfills, even when there are more viable approaches readily available, in order to manipulate public opinion towards a Do Nothing or Very Limited (“Smart”) Approach, just so they can spend less money in today's dollars. Recent (October 2010) comments by former Massachusetts State Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), Mr. Ian A. Bowles, that any 'savings' in a [less than full] cleanup will still be 'invested' in Berkshire County gives us no comfort. NO monetary amount, in today's currency, can compensate for the long term damages to the health, safety and viability of future generations of all living creatures that a cheap, ineffective and incomplete cleanup today will inflict. Any incomplete, ineffectual cleanup ‘today’ will ultimately be the taxpayer’s problem ‘tomorrow.’ We have one chance to bind GE to a thoughtful, thorough, hopefully 'permanent' solution; lets take our time, get it done, and do it right. To do any less is short sighted and selfish.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Barbara Cianfarini Co-Founder and Acting Executive Director Housatonic River Citizens’ Coordinating Counsel Representative (for) Citizens for PCB Removal
Also Representing:
Charles Cianfarini, Thelma Barzottini, Dave Gibbs, Gail Gibbs, Albert Bertolli; Executive Committee United States Department ofthe Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New England Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301-5087 http://www.fws.gov/newengland
June 30, 2011
Mr. Robert G. Cianciarulo EP A National Remedy Review Board U.S. Environnlental Protection Agency Region I 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR 07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912
Dear Mr. Cianciarulo:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Revised Corrective Measures Study (CMS) and the summary Cleanup Alternatives for the General Electric Housatonic River Site, Rest of River project for Massachusetts and Connecticut. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to EPA's National Remedy Review Board (NRRB) on issues affecting u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service trust resources. We previously provided comments to Region I EPA on the original CMS (May 20, 2008) and the Revised CMS (December 20, 2010) regarding cleanup alternatives for the river and its floodplain. We are including those comments to represent our position on remedial alternatives, as well as brief summary comments.
As presented in EPA's Cleanup Decision Information sheet for the Housatonic River, EPA is required to follow three general standards and six selection decision factors in their evaluation of cleanup alternatives, as outlined in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act permit, as follows:
General Standards: 1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 2. Control of Sources of Release 3. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Federal and State Requirements (ARARs)
Selection Decision Factors: 1. Long-term Reliability and Effectiveness 2. Attainment of Interim Media Protection Goals (IMPGs) 3. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume 4. Short-term Effectiveness 5. Implementability 6. Cost Mr. Robert G. Cianciarulo 2 June 30, 2011
A comprehensive removal of sediments and soils with elevated PCBs above IMPGs, as established from findings in the Ecological Risk Assessment, will provide reasonably conservative protection of the environment, control future sources of release, provide short- and long-term effectiveness, and substantially reduce the toxicity, potential mobility and volume of PCBs in the Housatonic River system. Remedial measures proposed by General Electric that involve substantially less removal in riverine and floodplain areas will significantly fail to attain acceptable levels of protection. Furthermore, capping or non-removal of contaminated soils/sediments in excess of IMPGs in the river, backwaters, riverbanks or floodplain risks future recontamination of remediated downstream reaches of the river during severe flood events, ongoing riverbank erosion, and channel niigration over the long term. Remediation should be conducted with maximum net environmental benefits in mind and focus on reducing residual ecological risk to the greatest extent possible while impacting the least amount of habitat, especially in sensitive or unique habitat areas.
The Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) should be included as an ARAR and remedial impacts to Massachusetts-listed species should be avoided, minimized, or mitigated for, wherever feasible. However, short-moderate term habitat impacts are inevitable to all parts of the system subject to remediation.
As is customary during all remedial actions, restoration or mitigation for all resource impacts should be required, at least on a 1: 1 basis. Implementation of remedial efforts will be very challenging to attain the right balance of contaminant removal and habitat preservation or restoration. Long-term restoration and monitoring should be required on par with the ecological timeframes necessary to replace and insure successful re-establishment of the community type being restored, i.e., scrub-shrub wetland, floodplain forest, etc. Aggressive invasive species control will be The river system will be capable of returning to a healthy natural state over the long term after remediation with careful planning, a good restoration foundation, and monitoring to insure success. It is unlikely that the river will ever clean itself of massive PCB contamination that has existed for many decades and will continue to persist into the future. Remediation efforts should be undertaken that significantly reduce the magnitude and spatial extent of the PCBs. Final decisions regarding the remediation actions should be based on a risk reduction strategy which is focused on the long-term health of the human and biotic communities that utilize the river corridor, since the persistent and bioaccumulative nature of PCBs does not support remediation alternatives focused on natural attenuation. Mr. Robert G. Cianciarulo 3 June 30, 2011 We look forward to the recommendations of EPA's National Remedy Review Board and further discussions with EPA Region I regarding the remediation and restoration of the Housatonic River and its floodplain. For further comments or questions, please contact Mr. Kenneth Munney of this office at 603-223-2541, extension 19, or [email protected] . . Thomas R. Chapman Supervisor New England Field Office Enclosures u.s. FISH aWILDLIFE United States Department of the Interior SEKV>CE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New England Field Office ,~,.,~- 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, New Hampshire 03301-5087 May 20, 2008 Susan Svirsky, EPA Rest of River Project Manager Weston Solutions 10 Lyman Street Pittsfield, MA 01201 Dear Ms. Svirsky, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Housatonic River - Rest of River (ROR) Corrective Measures Study (CMS), General Electric (GE)-PittsfieldIHousatonic River Site, Pittsfield, MA, March 2008. We are providing comments during the CMS informal public comment period under our role as a Natural Resource Trustee. \ The document synthesizes a large volume of accumulated site and modeling data to present a breadth of remedial alternatives. As presented, no one alternative meets the level of ecological protection that we feel is warranted throughout the entirety of the ROR. However, specific remedial options proposed within alternative types do have merit and are worth implementing in combination with comprehensive restoration techniques. We are aware that more detailed specifications and direction will be provided in future Proposed Remedial and Restoration Plans once remedial/restoration options are decided on by the regulatory agencies. However, the CMS should stand alone and additional data should be provided, as described below, to allow a more thorough evaluation of the potential impacts and effectiveness of remedial options. We expect that there will be several phases of regulatory document review that will allow for further agency comment and discussion prior to finalization of remedial/restoration alternatives. However, herein we provide preliminary overview recommendations and summary comments early in the remedial measures review process so that our general position on remedial/restoration alternatives is known to the regulatory and natural resource agencies and Responsible Party. We support aggressive clean-up of PCB-contaminated soils/sediments and habitats, based on conservative media protection goals, for the long-term protection of fish and wildlife resources. Both regulatory and natural resource agencies should evaluate the best methods to prevent, avoid, or minimize impacts to important habitat areas while still accomplishing reasonable PCB .LV"''>'r~mp.r1;at;nn ...... v...... 'Q""'stnrat;nn, ...... ,.1. ...LV.L.l ""p.ffnrtS...... v..... shnll1r1u.v...... h""vv "",.,I1a!ly..... ":1.....L aggr~ss;"r"".I...... L y ..... '"'1.1.<:>nd ;nnmvat;"vo.L.I. J..lV l..I...... ",,,tth"Y.I. ..J..L s.....LJ..L.l1:;ngont ,",U.L monitoring protocols to insure that the widely varied riverine and floodplain habitats are fully restored, remain healthy, and free of invasive species over the long-term. We strongly suggest an expedited remedial initiation and completion timeframe rather than the protracted timeline 1 presented by GE. Recommendations provided herein should be considered conditional and may evolve during subsequent discussions with regulatory and natural resources agencies, further analysis of CMS data or data not provided in this document, new information, or future conditions resulting from remedial or natural processes that substantially alter existing conditions. The following are recommendations for remedial options for the riverine portions of the ROR, based on the eight remediation alternatives, as presented in Table 1-1 and discussed in Section 4: Reach SA: Conduct 2-foot removal with full-scale capping, in-situ or in the dry, except in areas prone to high scouring and with PCB concentrations significantly elevated above the lower bound sediment Interim Media Protection Goals (IMPGs) at depth, then conduct 3-foot removal with backfill and capping. 2-foot removal/capping, as proposed under SED-3 through SED-6 alternatives, should be sufficient to remove a large percentage of the PCB contamination in the riverbed and provide adequate protection post-capping. However, because PCB concentration data is not provided, it is difficult to determine if sediments deeper than 2 feet should be addressed, as proposed in SED-7/S. Therefore, we propose additional excavation and cap thickness to cover the potential for elevated PCB concentrations at depth that may be problematic in high erosion areas. Under most scenarios, a 2-foot engineered cap, discussed below, should be sufficient to contain sub-cap PCB migration, provide ample thickness to weather low-moderate erosional processes over extended timeframes, protect benthic and vertebrate biota from exposure, prohibit exposure to humans during consumptive and non-consumptive use activities and add a safety factor for uncertainty. A 3-foot cap in high erosion areas may necessitate the use of moderate armoring of the riverbed in conjunction with 2-foot cappillg strategies. Reaches S Band SC: Conduct removal and capping activities, as indicated for Reach 5A, where relevant and appropriate, based on exceedance of PCB concentrations above lower bound sediment IMPGs. Erodible banks: Conduct 2-foot removal of bank soils to lower bound sediment IMPG standards at depth, where relevant and appropriate, as discussed below, with backfill/capping and stabilization of embankments using the greatest proportion of bioengineering material feasible. Reach 5 Backwaters: Conduct 2-foot removal of sediments with full-scale in-situ capping, in areas in excess of lower bound sediment IMPGs and less than 6-10 feet deep, dependent on phototropic zone depth. In areas deeper than the phototropic zone, perform full-scale in-situ capping. Removal of contaminated sediments should include the removal of contaminated emergent/submergent plant stock that exists in most backwater areas and acts as a potential mechanism for annual PCB cycling or PCB biomass reservoir. Capping should not encroach on phototropic zone depths which may vary considerably within or between backwater areas dependent on suspended sediment loads and organic cycling. A 2-foot thick cap should exclude most shallow rooting emergent/submergent plants that re-colonize backwater areas from future exposure to sub cap residual PCB concentrations, prevent preferential pathway migration of PCBs along plant roots, and offer a buffer for biotic perturbations related to invertebrate vertical movements, fish spawning and vertebrate foraging/gathering. Reach 6 Woods Pond: Conduct 2-foot removal with full-scale in-situ capping in shallow areas not 2 subject to scour, 3-foot removal witb backfill and capping in areas prone to high scouring and witb PCB concentrations significantly elevated above the IMPGs at depth. Conduct full scale in-situ capping in areas deeper than the phototropic zone not subject to channel flows or scouring. Removal of contaminated sediments or deep water capping should include tbe removal of contaminated submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V) during sediment dredging or prior to capping activities. SAV may interfere witb effective capping activities due to its significant bulk volume and its probable high net weight PCB biomass and entrained sediment content. Reach 7 Channel: ConductMonitored Natural Recovery (MNR), contingent on current PCB concentrations or future conditions following upstream remediation, then 2-foot removal and full scale capping for significant areas in excess of lower bound sediment IMPGs. The potential exists for PCB-contaminated suspended sediment loads to increase during remedial activities and be transferred to downstream areas. This may result in higher concentrations of PCBs in downstream reaches than currently exist and increased exposure and effects potential, which should trigger remedial action. This issue should be evaluated during and after remediation of Woods Pond and all upstream floodplain habitat areas. Reach 7 Impoundments: In areas with PCB concentrations elevated above lower bound sediment IMPGs at depth, conduct 2-foot removal with full-scale capping in shallow areas not subject to scour. Conduct 3-foot removal witb backfill and full-scale capping in areas prone to high scouring and with PCB concentrations significantly elevated above the IMPGs at depth. Conduct full scale in-situ capping in areas deeper than the phototropic zone and not subject to channel flows or scounng. Reach 8: In areas witb PCB concentrations elevated above IMPGs at depth, conduct 2-foot removal with full-scale capping in shallow areas not subject to scour, 3-foot removal with backfill and full-scale capping in areas prone to high scouring and with PCB concentrations significantly elevated above the IMPGs at depth. Conduct full scale in-situ capping in deep areas not subject to channel flows or scouring. Reaches 9-16: Conduct MNR, contingent on PCB concentrations following upstream remediation, then 2-foot removal and capping for significant areas in excess of sediment IMPGs. 2-foot removal is warranted for these reaches, and generally in all cases where residual contamination post excavation will be in excess of IMPGs regardless of whether pre-excavation contamination exists to 2 feet. This should allow adequate protection for biota and preclude the need for additional removal actions based on residual PCB concentrations. Residual concentrations for all removal/capped areas should not exceed lower bound IMPGs. Exceedance of lower bound IMPGs post-capping due to settling of suspended contaminated sediments should trigger additional remedial actions to satisfy IMPG requirements. The following are recommendations for remedial alternatives for tbe floodplain portions of the ROR, based on the seven remediation alternatives, as presented in Table 2-7 and discussed in Section 6: Floodplains: Remediate all identified vernal pool habitat to at least mean IMPGs for amphibians. Remediate soils to at least mean IMPGs for omnivorous/carnivorous and piscivorous mammals 3 based on re-configured area averaging units, as discussed below. Remediate soils to IMPGs for insectivorous birds based on currently proposed area averaging units. IMPGs were established to provide reasonable effects-based protective levels for indicator biota via a comprehensive Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). We acknowledge that GE has points of departure from EPA based lower bound IMPGs and therefore suggest attainment of at least mean IMPGs as a potential compromise. Remediation of floodplain soils will be driven in many areas by human health concerns. Residual risks above human health concerns should be evenly weighted and addressed for protection of biota. Remediation scenarios not based on IMPGs, either upper bound, mean or lower bound values, will leave elevated levels of PCBs in many areas of the floodplain and are not recommended. Floodplain soils should be excavated to a minimum of 2 feet, where relevant and appropriate, and backfilled/capped with at least I foot of organic surface soils with a minimum total organic carbon (TOC) content of 5% or higher, dependent on native soils characteristics. As discussed below, area averaging units need to be adjusted for omnivorous/carnivorous and piscivorous mammals. This may markedly change the predicted level of IMPG achievement for area averages under floodplain alternatives, as presented. Additionally, IMPGs for biota foraging in both riverine and floodplain habitats are based on sediment concentrations ranging from 1-5 ppm. Final riverine sediment concentrations should be determined post-remediation for respective species area averaging units prior to initiation of floodplain remediation so that fully protective floodplain soils concentrations can be achieved. The following are recommendations for treatment and disposition of removed sediments and soils, as presented in Table 1-3 and discussed in Section 7: Treatment/disposition: All low moisture sediments/soils should undergo thermal desorption and be re-used as backfill on site in terrestrial settings, dependent on treatment efficiency and PCB concentrations achieved. Treatment for the reduction of PCB concentrations in high moisture soils to recommended concentrations for the protection of human health and the environment should be conducted to the maximum extent possible. Thermal desorption of low-high moisture soils will permanently reduce the overall volume of PCB contamination, alleviate a proportion of the disposal burden and allow for productive re-use of native soils. All TSCA and non-TSCA level waste that cannot meet thermal desorption moisture requirements should be shipped to a regulated landfill that can accommodate large volumes of low-high level organic and low level inorganic waste. There are no permitted TSCA or non-TSCA waste landfills in the area that can accept the large volume of anticipated remedial waste that will be generated. An out of area option is recommended instead of further impacting upland/wetland habitats within the Housatonic River valley, maintaining landfill integrity in perpetuity and potentially contributing additional PCB-laden groundwater or leachate for treatment over the long-term. The following are comments on overall protection of the environment, as discussed in the text under different remediation alternatives: Site Preparation: Staging area and access road design and placement should be carefuliy scrutinized in order to minimize, to the extent practicable, impacts to riparian areas adjacent to riverine and floodplain remedial areas. Careful consideration should be given to avoid impacts to uncommon or rare natural communities and old age sentinel trees of significance. Invasive species 4 should be aggressively managed in all staging and access road areas prior to and during remedial actions to minimize the potential for invasive species transfer into uncolonized habitats, remedial action areas and restored habitats. Maximum use of the railroad corridor adjacent to large portions ofthe Primary Study Area (PSA) should be conducted. This would minimize vehicular transport traffic in the larger community, contain PCB transport to a smaller footprint in case of residual PCB transfer during shipping, and expedite disposition of large removal volumes. Control of Sources of Release: Upstream sources of contamination, West Branch and residual PCB concentrations in remediated areas, should be evaluated for their potential to contaminate downstream remediation areas over time under different PCB load transfer scenarios. The fate and transport modeling may evaluate this issue but it is unclear how long-term downstream transfer of residual PCBs into remediated areas may affect pre-remedial decisions in low-risk areas or long term implications for exposure and effects. Dredging: Hydraulic and mechanical dredging typically result in residual contamination, ranging from 1-8%, due to suspended sediment releases during operations or the inability to capture solid-associated contamination in aqueous environments. These issues should be carefully evaluated and discussed when choosing removal technologies and managing real-time releases or residual risk. Thin-layer capping (TLC): We do not support the use of TLC, as defined, as a long-term remediation technique. In our experience a 3 to 6 inch thin-layer cap is insufficient to sequester residual PCBs in subsurface sediments or floodplain soils over extended timeframes due to groundwater upwelling, currents, wave action, high flow events, biotic perturbations and human recreational and consumptive use. TLC could be used as a short-term tool to prevent exposure and uptake immediately after dredging activities. In the event that TLC is used for short-term reduction of exposure, it should be augmented with full scale in-situ capping techniques within 30-60 days after dredging and application completion for a given sub-area. Capping: We support the use of low permeability material, in conjunction with standard capping material, for use in all areas where residual PCB concentrations above surficial sediment standards will be left in place at depth. Low permeability materials should consist of at least a 12-inch layer with a bentonite component, similar to AquaBlocktm. The low permeability layer will prevent or decrease the upward migration potential of PCB-laden pore water, act as a more restrictive barrier for direct sediment exposure to benthic invertebrates and other biota, and be a more protective barrier to ice and storm scour. Additional capping material needed to augment cap thickness could consist of more traditional cap materials, similar to subaqueous cap consistency as proposed for Silver Lake, but with a 6-12 inch organic habitat layer on top, where applicable. Riverbed consistency should mimic existing conditions, as practicable, relative to grain size distributions and organic content. Armoring of the riverbed should be avoided to the greatest extent possible except in areas subject to aggressive scour or erosion. In-situ capping in low, moderate and high flow conditions should be discussed, relative to effectiveness and suspended sediment control. Riverbanks: In areas subject to bioengineering restoration, subsurface soils with known elevated PCB levels in excess of IMPGs, within reasonable proximity of the river, should be remediated for the protection of mink, otter, beaver, muskrats and bank-dwelling birds, such as kingfishers and bank swallows. This will also preclude the transfer of contaminated subsurface soils to remediated portions of the river by bank-dwelling biota. Backwaters: Open water, submerged aquatic and emergent habitat should be restored to the same condition as it was before removal activities. Unavoidable loss of specific habitat types should be quai1.tified, pooled, and compensated for in adjacent areas, if possible, or within the same reach of the river. Riverbank stabilization: The Housatonic River is characterized by highly erodible banks and 5 episodic water fluctuations. Persistent scouring and erosion of embankments contribute to the high sediment loads in much of the upper river system. This process is integral to organic matter transport and supports abiotic and biotic cycling. Unfortunately, PCB load transport is also associated with this process and needs to be addressed. The nature and extent of PCB contamination in bank soils is crucial for deciding where and to what degree bank soils should be remediated. We recommend that removal of bank soils should be minimized to the greatest extent practicable, based on PCB concentrations and area averaging. Significant overstory trees responsible for maintaining bank stability and providing instream temperature mediation should be retained where possible. When riverbank removal is conducted, stabilization with bioengineering material should be utilized instead of armor stone whenever feasible based on flow dynamics and engineering standards. Bank slope gradients should be reduced wherever possible to accommodate bioengineering use and still attain performance specifications for stabilization. Bioengineering techniques integrated into the use of armoring in areas with greater than 3: 1 gradients should also be implemented to facilitate faster naturalization of embankments. The range of naturalized river restoration techniques available should be fully investigated and incorporated into remedial design applications. Bioengineering options should use vegetated structures in all implementation areas possible to maximize naturalization potential (which benefits instream flow dynamics, water quality, aesthetics, etc.), expedite recolonization of desired vegetation, exclude invasive species and accommodate biota utilization. Bank-dwelling vertebrate pro-use areas, free of heavy stone armoring, should be promoted whenever feasible, based on literature frequency use rates, and averaged over suitable habitat areas. Consideration should be given to riverbed stability across the floodplain over the long term. It is unclear if modeling efforts captured the expected migration ,of the river channel through the wide floodplain throughout thc PSA. Riverbank height and channel width influence river stability and remedial actions are expected to substantially impact these factors. Additionally, flow velocities, as influenced by the degree of riverbed and bank armoring or proportion of bioengineered embankments, will impact stability features. As evidenced by the large number of oxbows in the system, the river (unless heavily armored) is expected to migrate laterally across the floodplain over time, which has implications for areas of the floodplain where elevated PCBs remain in surface soils or at depth. These issues and others related to channel geomorphology processes, if not addressed by the fate and transport model, need to be addressed in the Proposed Plan. Residual Risk: Riverbank erosion or floodplain transfer of residual PCB contamination via surface water sheetflow may result in future contamination of remediated areas. These sources may lead to elevated concentrations of PCBs in the river or floodplain areas that have a propensity for sediment accumulation. Residual risk should be calculated for all proposed remedial scenarios by area. Sediment accumulation areas should be preferentially monitored post-remediation. Woods Pond dam and the other downstream dams, at least to Great Barrington, Massachusetts, present a long-term liability to the stability of residual PCBs in the Housatonic River system post remediation. Barring total removal of PCBs within the 1 ppm isopleth, elevated capped and uncapped PCBs have the potential to destabilize and migrate downstream in the event of dam failure or purposeful dam removal. Dam removal may be proposed for one or a series of Housatonic River dams in the future in order to restore historic fishery and flow dynamics for a given reach. Additionally, all dams have a limited longevity and are subject to dissolution unless 6 maintained in perpetuity. At some juncture, it may no longer be cost effective for dam owners to maintain their dams which may lead to breaching conditions and sediment destabilization. Massive destabilization may lead to transfer of substantial quantities of elevated PCBs downstream of the Rising Pond dam. Currently, Woods Pond dam is the key component in the Upper Housatonic dam system, relative to containment of downstream PCB migration. Present and foreseeable future status indicates that Woods Pond dam will be maintained. However, that may not be the case over the long-term for the Woods Ponds dam or the other downstream dams which may have more uncertain ownership and stewardship in the future. GE should be responsible in perpetuity for the estimated 5500 lbs of PCBs present in Reach 7 impoundments and Rising Pond, as cited, should dam removal or dissolution become imminent, in addition to the larger implications for Wood Pond dam stability. Long-term management plans for all dams, including response actions for significant sediment transfer events associated with dam compromise or removal, should be provided in a Proposed Plan. Fate and transport modeling of dam failure implications to downstream reaches should also be included. Institutional controls should also be discussed for all areas where residual PCB concentrations will exist in surface or sub-surface soils or sediments. Removal activities will potentially remove PCB contamination down to 1-3 feet in select media, depending on which remedial options are selected. Sufficient capping thicknesses will effectively control future exposure under normal situations. Future invasive actions should be regulated and prohibited for all remedial areas exhibiting PCB concentrations above human health or ecological protection criteria in perpetuity. We are interested in attaining the least amount of residual risk in the shortest timeframe practical for the greatest amount of habitat. A timefame of up to 25-50 years to complete remedial activities that promote this concept is unacceptably long. We also do not support the preferred altemative proposed by GE for riverine and floodplain habitat as being protective enough to media or biota over the long-term. Residual risk should be calculated for all indicator species contingent on the final mix of remedial options chosen. There should also be event and monitoring level results that trigger additional actions and these should be comprehensively detailed in a Proposed Plan. Restoration: Average and maximum floodplain soil concentrations should be carefully evaluated to elucidate where removal of the most elevated tPCB concentrations can most efficiently and effectively reduce area averages. This may allow for habitat preservation of low risk !PCB areas rather than remediation of all areas to satisfy IMPGs, especially where sensitive habitat areas are involved. Uncommon or rare habitat assemblages, especially those that support listed species, and old age sentinel trees, especially roost, nesting and denning trees supporting listed or uncommon species, should be isolated and excluded from remedial impacts, if possible, including riverbank areas. These should be evaluated on an area by area or a case by case basis, relative to the contamination present, engineering options and value of the resource. The concept of leaving habitat islands of varying sizes and habitat types should be explored relative to the value of a specific habitat and PCB area average attainment. Habitat islands may allow isolated refugia of plant and animal species to be retained in removal areas and act as reservoirs for re-colonization during restoration succession. Special restoration considerations for sensitive areas, especially if listed species are involved, should be discussed with federal and state regulatory agencies, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MADFW) and the Natural Resource Trustees. Consultations with MADFW natural heritage and endangered species biologists should be conducted for potential indirect or direct impacts to listed species or their habitats. Temporary 7 relocation of uncommon or listed species, including plants, invertebrates (mussels), and vertebrates (herptiles) could be considered, where feasible, prior to removal actions and under the direction of MADFW. Pre-existing conditions should be fully characterized prior to remedial action initiation and duplicated post-remediation, to the fullest extent practicable. Woodlot, Inc.' s habitat characterization that was conducted as part of the ERA should be utilized for evaluating removal strategies and potential habitat impact areas. Additionally, ground-truthing of current habitat conditions, especially verification of listedspecies presence or habitat usage, should be conducted during the planning phase. The MADFW Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) is currently being funded, by the Natural Resource Trustees through Housatonic Natural Resource Damage funds, to conduct natural community inventories along the Housatonic River corridor. Inventory operations are commencing this summer and progressing over the next two years. Information gathered through these efforts should augment and help guide remedial, restoration and preservation decisions in the floodplain. Open water, submerged aquatic and emergent habitat should be restored to its original condition post-remediation, relative to depths. Removal and capping activities should strive to replicate pre remedial elevations for all habitat types, whether aquatic or terrestrial areas are involved. Riverine, backwater and floodplain wetland areas of significance should be replicated with emergent plantings to hasten habitat recovery, where possible. Floodplain and riverbank areas should be restored in an expedited manner that will ensure species assemblages and habitat structure re establishment in the shortest timeframes possible. Instream enhancements should be implemented in certain areas, similar to the 1\12 mile restoration, to aid in habitat formation that will benefit varying species of fish and benthic invertebrate assemblages and management of flow dynamics. A detailed restoration plan for aquatic and terrestrial habitats should be presented for review prior to remedial initiation to insure interagency agreement for remediation/restoration of all areas, especially sensitive habitat areas. Monitoring and maintenance of the restored habitat should follow a plan similar to that currently in place for the first 2 miles of the river. However, habitats that are expected to be substantially impacted by remedial activities in ROR are much more complex and valuable to wildlife than those in the first 2 miles of river. Therefore, enhanced monitoring and maintenance should be required, including prolonged timelines for insuring success criteria, Special attention should be given to exclusion of invasive species from all disturbed/restored habitats. Wetland mitigation, as suggested, should occur for all wetland areas impacted by staging and access roads if those areas cannot be returned to pre-remedial conditions or if impacts occur over extended timeframes, including time to attain pre-remedial conditions. Mitigation should also occur for all loss of habitat type due to unavoidable impacts associated with removal or capping. Additional habitat-specific wetlands could be created within the floodplain in removal areas of low habitat value. This could satisfy wetland mitigation requirements, lessen the amount of backfilling required, and result in time and cost savings. Mitigation should also be required if significant flood storage capacity is lost as a result of capping activities, especially if removal of sediments to accommodate cap thickness is not conducted, as proposed for areas of Woods Pond and downstream impoundments. 8 Disposal: The Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) option, as proposed, has some major drawbacks and is not recommended. The four areas proposed, 3 large backwaters and Woods Pond, have the potential to be influenced in the future by river course changes or extreme episodic events. There is no guarantee that disposal and capping of large volumes of highly elevated PCB sediments in an aquatic setting would not lead to potential releases in the future. Sheetpiling, CDF cover material and berms would have to be maintained in perpetuity in order for this option to be viable. Conducting long-term maintenance, insuring minimal release of PCBs and rectifying issues if and when they arise in an aquatic system suggest high levels of uncertainty and incompatibility with long-term protectiveness. In addition, a CDF would permanently impact large areas of aquatic habitat and flood storage capacity, as stated. The largest sediment removal options would require filling the majority of Woods Pond and one or more of the main backwaters slightly upstream, all of which are valuable habitat areas for fish, waterfowl, and other migratory birds. For these reasons, we are not confident that the CDF option would be protective over the long term or be in the best interest of the biotic community dependent on these areas for feeding, breeding, staging and overwintering. IfEPA accepts the CDF option, then large-scale mitigation for the lost habitat areas and flood storage capacity would be required and a more rigorous CDF design with stringent monitoring and maintenance requirements would be recommended. An Upland Disposal Facility (UDF) option should require the minimization of waste volume through thermal desorption prior to landfilling. All soils/sediments that do not meet JMPG standards for re-use after treatment or that cannot be treated due to moisture content or other issues should be disposed of in a UDF. PCB concentrated filter cakes or contaminated by-products of treatment processes should also be disposed of in a UDF. We recommend out of area disposal in pre-existing landfills that are established for these purposes rather than creating more known and potential impacts to area habitat via creation of a local mixed TSCA-certified/non-TSCA landfill. However, if the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) accept the creation of a local PCB landfill, mitigation for lost function and values of upland habitat in perpetuity, due to landfill site impacts, would be required. Rigorous monitoring and maintenance requirements would be recommended for a local landfill, with similar or more stringent requirements than those that exist for the Hill 78 disposal area. The following are assorted section-specific comments: Section 2.2.2.3: Insectivorous birds: Appendix B: Assumptions: It appears that the wood duck dietary invertebrate proportion only amounts to < 80% of total dietary intake, as proposed for the Interim Media Protection Goals (JMPG). In order to fully evaluate dietary intake and calculate a final protective goal, a 100% dietary intake could have been modeled, including sediment-soil ingestion. Piscivorous mammals: Appendix C, Section 2: The assumption is made that the waterfowl component of the mink diet consists solely of insectivorous species (i.e. wood duck, Aix sponsa). Piscivorous waterfowl species (i.e. hooded mergansers, Lophodytes cucullatus) actively breed and occupy territories similar to wood ducks throughout the PSA. Hooded merganser adults and eggs-' are expected to have considerably higher PCB loads than wood ducks due to dietary intake and·' ,.' should be mentioned here and in the uncertainty section, relative to average waterfow"l concentrations. Section 3.1.1: It would be helpful to provide a reference table and/or figures of current reach or 9 summary spatial bin data to depth and proposed area average PCB concentration per species to better evaluate the relative effectiveness of exposure and risk reduction for the proposed remedial options. It would also be beneficial to provide figures with habitat characterizations for areas proposed for remedial actions. Evaluation of the existing resources is a key component in determining the need to proceed with removal actions for specific areas. Section 3.1.4.3: GE is slated to dredge 2.65 million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediments from the Hudson River in a timeframe of less than 10 years, with a target sediment cleanup concentration of 1 ppm and aggressive productivity criteria. We realize that the two projects have considerable differences in scope and logistical dynamics but projected productivity rates for the Housatonic appear to be under-scaled compared to the Hudson dredging project. It seems that closer comparability in removal productivity might be attained with alteration of remedial techniques and increased work force. The dry removal activities proposed for the upper reach, 5A, constitute a significant expenditure of time. These preclude the progression of downstream remedial activities until their completion, unless simultaneous removal activities can be conducted in downstream reaches or floodplain areas and effectively segregated from upstream suspended sediment load contamination associated with dredging activities or episodic high water events. Wet excavations, although not as conservative relative to removal efficiency and protectiveness, are recommended if they will result in reasonable attainment of media protection goals, minimal increase in residual risk and expedited remedial timelines. The protracted timelines proposed to complete remedial alternatives is a large concern on many levels. Extended remedial efforts increase and prolong impacts to human health and the environment. Furthermore, they do not allow for the initiation of restoration processes which are integral to the return of the river to functional use levels for the general public and biota. All efforts should be made to expedite remedial activities to a shortened timeframe while ensuring remedial goals are attained. Section 3.3.1/5.2.3.3: Insectivorous Birds: Area averaging size appears to increase in acreage moving downriver, culminating with the largest acreage inputs for Woods Pond area. Please clarify why area averaging is not consistent throughout the PSA. Section 3.3.1/5.2.3.4: Piscivorous mammals: The size of the two area averaging units appears overly liberal and warrants further discussion. It would be pertinent to state the linear distance and total number of acres/hectares of each area averaging unit. Mink females, especially during reproductive cycles, have highly reduced home ranges, 7 to 21 hectares, compared to males, 310 to 777 hectares, as cited in the ERA. Females are the key components in life tables and species propagation and should be the targeted sex for calculation of area averaging unit size, especially when sex-related differences are known and pronounced. Section 3.3.2: The use of largemouth bass as a surrogate for trout is problematic when modeling fish protection in areas below the PSA. Salmonid species are typically more sensitive to PCBs than centrarchids and may not be adequately evaluated for potential risk in coldwater fishery areas with elevated PCBs. The IMPG for coldwater fish, as stated in Table 2-7, is 14 ppm, versus 55 ppm for ,', i '. warmwater fish. The IMPG for coldwater fish should be used for all viable coldwater habitat areas evaluated downstream of Woods Pond. Section 4.0: The use of different modeling periods, ranging from 52-81 years as presented, makes it difficult to evaluate modeling outputs relative to years to achieve IMPGs. Please standardize or 10 clarify throughout the document. Section 5.2.3.2: The use of Minimum Viable Population (MVP) for determining area averaging units is contrary to that used for other indicator species and requires further validation. GE's use of MVP, a liberal interpretation of EPA's perceived intent in their April 13, 2007 directive letter to GE regarding omnivorous mammal area averaging, results in the use of much larger averaging areas for calculation of remedial goals in floodplain soils than the use of standard home range scales. These larger area averaging units will potentially result in more areas in exceedance of IMPGs for omnivorous mammals. The MVP approach utilized proposesa scale of 500 individuals asa conservative measure. As cited, Lehmkuhl 1984 and others, state that an MVP within the range of 50-500 individuals is reasonable. Therefore, conservative scaling would infer a much lower MVP than used. Additional discussion on this issue is warranted. Short-tailed shrews are almost ubiquitous in healthy floodplain habitats during non-inundated periods. Information should be provided on the parameters for the classification of unsuitable shrew habitat. Section 5.2.3.3/5.2.3.4: The presumptive use of average sediment concentrations of 1 ppm tPCBs to calculate soil remedial levels for biota using aquatic and floodplain habitats to achieve dietary requirements results in higher floodplain habitat cleanup scenarios and should be augmented with figures for higher average sediment tPCB values. Indicator floodplain biota is excluded from specific habitats based on habitat suitability determinations. Overlap of floodplain indicator species unsuitable habitat areas may result in areas being unassessed for remedial clean up standards and should be addressed. Section 5.3.3/5.3.4: Areas that are not assessed for floodplain cleanup levels due to IMPG exceedance in sediments should have a default cleanup value applied. Section 6.0: It is unclear why pertinent tables are lacking Removal Depth, Volume and Area estimates. Please provide where appropriate. It would be beneficial to include all indicator species on figures depicting removal scenarios, including overlap areas with human health removal areas. Table 6.1516.39: It appears that there are inconsistencies in removal volumes and post-remediation exposure point concentrations (EPC) between the less conservative and more conservative removal strategies that require further scrutiny (i.e. 8-VP-2, 23-VP-2, etc.) It is uncertain if these issues exist for all other pertinent removal tables, as well. Section 7.1.9: It would be beneficial to provide a cost matrix for all sediment and floodplain volume options for Off-Site Disposal in Permitted Landfill - TD 1. As with all large-scale remediationirestoration plans that project long timeframes for completion, adaptive management plans are key for successful and efficient implementation of the project. We expect that remediation strategies should evolve as the site progresses to fine-tune projected activities or include new techniques that may prove effective and efficient or be warranted based on 11 new technological information or site data. We realize that the remedial efforts we propose will result in large-scale impacts to habitat over short-moderate timeframes. However, we also realize that the nature and extent of the PCB contamination will result in considerably longer-term impacts if aggressive clean-up actions are not implemented. Less than aggressive clean-up actions will result in too much residual risk, undermine the efforts in remediated areas, and devalue the portions of the ROR that are impacted by remedial activities. We stress the need to consult with both regulatory and natural resource agencies on the methods for remediation and restoration to minimize unnecessary impacts to valuable habitat types. We also stress the importance of expediency in remedial initiation, implementation, and completion. This will allow restoration efforts and successional processes to proceed sooner and result in functional habitat for biota and the public in shorter timeframes than proposed. We look forward to continued discussions on the Corrective Measures Study, the crafting of long term appropriately protective remedial options and the development of methods that restore the health and productivity of all the natural resources in the river and floodplains. Please contact Kenneth Munney at 603-223-2541, x.19 or Kenneth [email protected] if you have questions or concerns about these comments. Sincerely yours, Marjorie Snyder Acting Project Leader New England Field Office 12 u,. FISH &0 WILDLIFE SERVICE United States Department of the Interior . ~ .:'o~ .'~. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ~~OT"'"· New England Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, New Hampshire 03301-5087 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/newenglandfieldoffice December 20, 2010 Ms. Susan Svirsky EPA Rest of River Project Manager Weston Solutions 10 Lyman Street Pittsfield, MA 01201 Dear Ms. Svirsky: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Housatonic River - Rest of River (ROR) Revised Corrective Measures Study (CMS), General Electric (GE), Pittsfield, Massachusetts, dated October 2010. We are providing comments during the CMS public comment period under our role as a Natural Resource Trustee. The revised CMS essentially re-synthesizes the March 2008 CMS and includes new cleanup scenarios and substantial additional analyses in support of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory requests and GE's position. Our comments on the original CMS (May 2008), and on GE's response to EPA's interim comments on the CMS (May 2009) are still pertinent, relative to our position on many facets of the proposed remediation of the ROR. We realize that our original comments on preferred removal options are not wholly contained in anyone sediment/floodplain soil management alternative currently being proposed. In order to facilitate decision-making within the framework of the revised CMS, the current sediment option that comes closest to our preferred management alternative is SED 9. Furthermore, floodplain option FP8 is protective of human health and amphibians to acceptable levels; however, we believe that a soil remediation threshold oftPCBs >50 ppm is not protective enough for all biota. The action level proposed for FP6, removal of soils with tPCBs >25 ppm, would be more conservatively protective, where appropriate and feasible. Sediment removal guidelines are generally defined for SED 9, relative to depth of removal, capping material and final elevations, in specific sections of the river and backwaters. It is envisioned that implementation of sediment removal will be very complicated but will fall within parameters that are relatively narrowly defined. However, implementation of floodplain soil removal will require more complicated analysis, relative to weighing remedial impacts on the various contaminated habitat types that exist in the extensive floodplain. In light of our position regarding floodplain soil remedial levels, strict adherence to a set removal Ms. Susan Svirsky 2 December 20, 2010 . concentration in all habitat types is not in the best interest of the ROR ecosystem. Early successional habitat types are probably the most replaceable and viable for aggressive remediation to the lowest conservatively protective clean-up standards. In contrast, floodplain forests are less replaceable in reasonable time frames, and remediation in this habitat type should be carefully evaluated for risk reduction benefit versus loss of long-term habitat value. Unique habitat types or sensitive area complexes supporting rare or state-threatened species should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. GE has provided substantial information on potential habitat and species impacts associated with remedial actions, which is valuable. As stated in previons comments, we acknowledge that significant areas of habitat will be lost in the near-term so that long-term health of the ecosystem can be re-established. We understand that substantial species displacement will occur and that productivity will be severely curtailed for many species for extended periods of time over stretches of the river and floodplain. These consequences are very unfortunate but cannot be wholly avoided if deleterious and widespread PCB contamination is to be removed from the environment. We realize that it will be a monumentally challenging task to minimize unnecessary impacts to habitats and species and comprehensively remediate complex aquatic, ten-estrial and wetland habitat. We do not believe that remedial actions necessarily have to result in permanent and in-eparable harm to habitats or species if conducted judiciously and in unison with the wealth of remedial and restoration experts available in the public and private sectors. Large-scale remediation and long-term restoration efforts have the potential to significantly reduce widespread PCB contamination and insure the return ofhabitat productivity over time. Trade-offs will have to occur throughout the floodplain in order to effectively reduce elevated contaminant risk to biota but also to insure the potential for successful long-term restoration. Habitat type, species abundance, and species uniqueness will need to be evaluated to determine if complete or partial habitat removal will result in significant risk reduction with reasonable potential for comparable habitat and species restoration. Adjacent habitat quality should also be evaluated for its ability to act as a buffer or reserve for potentially lost habitat in the interim between remediation and full restoration. For instance, partial removal of contiguous stands of floodplain forest may be acceptable, dependent on risk reduction magnitude, and result in limited long-term impacts due to niche overlap and buffer capacity of adjacent forest stands to support similar or displaced biota. Short-term loss of early successional habitat during remediation may be buffered by managing adjacent or nearby uncontaminated habitat for similar species. Provision of unimpacted alternative habitat was successfully used during the aftermath of HUTI'icanes KatrinalRita and the recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill to attract displaced biota. Due to the expected extended duration of the cleanup, it is probable that upstream remediated and restored habitat will begin to provide early successional functions and values to the ecosystem while downstream early successional habitat is undergoing remediation. This may also be pertinent for emergent and scrub-shrub habitat areas that characteristically re-establish themselves in short-to-moderate time frames. Functions and values of restored habitats, especially their ability to support species assemblages, should be monitored in conjunction with vegetative survival and performance. Abiotic ecosystem services, such as woody debris, sediment retention, and flow reduction, should also be creatively restored to the maximum extent practicable in the shortest time frame post-removal. Ms. Susan Svirsky December 20,2010 Select removal of contaminated floodplain soils with limited habitat removal for sensitive habitat areas should be implemented where possible, either with small-scale excavators or hydraulic vacuum techniques. Additionally, Region 1 EPA is considering a thin layer cap (TLC) approach at Centredale Manor NPL for remediation of dioxin-contaminated soils in floodplain habitat. We are skeptical of applying a TLC approach in floodplains without removal due to TLC's characteristically limited cap thickness and reduced ability to offer conservative protection. However, we realize that compromises on remedial stringency may need to occur in certain areas in order to strike a balance with preservation of highly valued habitat. In general, we do not support the use of a TLC for use in floodplains, shallow backwater or riverine settings without prior removal. These areas are subject to scour, high biotic use by finfish, waterfowl and mammals or establishment of submerged aquatic or emergent vegetation that have the capacity to undermine the protectiveness of a thin-layer cap. Additionally, TLC should not be used after removal if residual contamination exceeds interim media protection goals (IMPGs). Use of full-scale capping post-removal or in deep water areas without removal is recommended, as described in several of the sediment management alternatives. However, we consider the cUJ1"ently proposed capping thickness of one foot, as described, to be insufficient to conservatively protect biota over the long-term. Consistent cap thicknesses of 1.5-2 feet would be more protective and supportable and have been instituted in many other sediment remediation sites across the country. We still support the use of low permeability material, such as bentonite, in conjunction with standard capping practices, for use in all areas where residual PCB concentrations above surficial sediment standards will be left in place at depth. The low permeability layer will prevent or decrease the upward migration potential of PCB-laden pore water, act as a more restrictive bauier for direct sediment exposure to benthic invertebrates and other biota, and be a more protective bauier to ice and storm scour. We support the inclusion of a habitatlbioturbation layer for all capping scenarios. Capping material should closely approximate native sediments to the greatest extent possible. Organic carbon augmentation of capping material in the habitat layer may be necessary to achieve total organic carbon percentages sufficient to facilitate benthic community recolonization. Additionally, we realize the need for armouring of river bottoms or shorelines in shallow or high scour areas but recommend no or minimal usage of armouring in areas presently devoid of hard rock bottoms. It would be more beneficial to use backfill with characteristics similar to existing sediments in thicknesses that can act as conservative buffers to contamination left in place. Fate and transport modeling should elucidate areas where this is most applicable and appropriate. This would allow for more natural sediment dynamics over the long-term. Use of wet excavation techniques for sediment removal in Reaches SA and 5B may allow for substantial cost and time savings, as described. Hydraulic dredging with cutter heads may offer the best alternative to sediment removal with the lowest suspended solids generation. Suspended Ms. Susan Svirsky 4 December 20, 2010 . sedirrient loads should be monitored during removal, if wet excavation is chosen. Total suspended solid (TSS) and associated PCB loads should be minimized to the greatest extent possible to avoid transfer of significant PCB-contaminated sediments downstream, especially beyond Woods Pond Dam. Monitoring and evaluation ofTSS and PCB transfer during removal may necessitate aggressive re-design of removal operations, based on unacceptably elevated loads, and include more stringent sediment migration controls or reverting to dry removal techniques, where feasible. This type of adaptive management strategy will be integral to sediment removal efficiency and success as the proj ect evolves, similar to the challenges faced and overcome in the 1Y:.-mile removal operation. We support the proposed use of simultaneous removal activities in various reaches of the ROR to facilitate an expedited remedial timeline. However, downstream transport of contanlinated sediment loads has the potential to undermine remedial progress in areas prone to deposition. F or these downstream areas, pre-determined action levels for potential re-dredging should be set, in case significant PCB contamination is re-deposited prior to capping. It would be helpful to provide PCB concentration data for Reaches, spatial bins and/or habitat types in the remedial design phase so that a more-informed evaluation of remedial option protectiveness and habitat impacts can be conducted for riverine, riverbank, and floodplain areas. Riverbank remediation and restoration is a key component to accomplishing the goals of PCB reduction and re-establishing viable riverine habitat for the greatest number of species. PCB contamination in riverbanks, and floodplain soils immediately adjacent to them, need to be remediated to the greatest extent possible, based on area averaging calculations. These areas are the most prone to erosion during normal flows and surface water runoff, flood events and future lateral charmel migration. Comprehensive remediation of these areas will help insure long-term protection of remedial accomplishments in riverine and backwater sediments. However, in areas of low contamination and reduced residual risk, it may be practical to avoid riverbank removal or preserve significant vegetative or structural components with minimal alterations. Hard-banking of the ROR post-removal, similar to the I Y:.-mile river stretch, will undermine the restoration potential of the river ecosystem and should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Armouring or gabion baskets may be acceptable in certain areas that warrant increased stability requirements beyond the capacity of bioengineering techniques. In general, more naturalized rock features or revetments than were used in the 1Y:.-mile remediation should be designed and installed for limited areas, such as high volume drainage features, steep banks or high shear stress areas. Naturalized river banks should be established in the vast majority of the ROR using established and innovative bioengineering techniques. GE's assessment of potential riverbank restoration options is insightful and noteworthy. We envision that EPA's river restoration consultants can work with GE to facilitate comprehensive naturalized riverbank implementation that will support robust restoration of biotic and abiotic functions and values throughout the ROR. Ms. Susan Svirsky 5 December 20,2010 We disagree with the minimum viable population (MVP) determinations made for short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) with regard to attaining protective levels of remediation in terrestrial areas. Currently, GE is proposing an area averaging unit of 35.7 hectares (ha) based on a density of 14 shrews/ha with no overlapping home ranges. As stated in previous comments, an MVP of 500, based on GE's literature analysis for large mammals and birds, is inappropriate and probably overly- conservative for small mammals with short generational turnover and multiple breeding events per year. It is unlikely that species with high reproductive output and small home ranges require the same number of individuals for long-term population stability as wide ranging, low-reproductive individuals. Furthermore, home ranges have to overlap to some degree annually or no reproduction would occur. Additionally, much higher short-tailed shrew densities were found in the Housatonic floodplain and the literature than are being used in area averaging estimates. Literature density estimates are as high as 48 individuals/acre (l19/ha) in good habitat, and a GE-funded site-specific study documented considerably higher densities than 14 shrewslha as well. These factors would suggest that area averaging units should be based on a much lower MVP and a much higher population density, resulting in appreciably reduced sizes for area averaging units and ensuring more conservatively protective remedial soil concentrations for the small mammal community. Area averaging units proposed for insectivorous birds and piscivorous mammals may lead to less than conservatively protective scenarios, based on breeding female home ranges and young-of the-year exposures. However, we realize that EPA has mandated lower area averaging units for both exposure groups than were originally proposed, based on Ecological Risk Assessment findings. We envision that remedial actions may attain slightly lower final sediment/soil concentrations than currently proposed which may lead to more protective exposure scenarios over the long-term. Downstream biota should be monitored during upstream remedial actions in order to evaluate potential PCB tissue concentration increases or decreases related to PCB source removal or PCB-associated suspended sediment transport, respectively. Aggressive invasive species management in the remediatedlrestored areas is imperative and will be a serious challenge to the success of the proj ect. Aquatic, semi-aquatic and terrestrial invasive species will opportunistically invade remediated open habitat areas. Invasive species management in the first two remediated miles of the river has been very successful due to a stringent monitoring plan, early detection and prompt aggressive management action. We advocate similar strategies for the ROR but realize that the challenge will be much greater across a varied floodplain, extensive acreages, and in significantly different conditions than the remediated/restored upstream section of the river. However, invasive species control operations in ROR will need to be instituted for extended periods of time beyond traditional three-to-five year time frames, in order to protect the remedy and allow restored habitats to evolve and mature across a broad landscape. We recommend that invasive species in the ROR should be pre-treated in advance of remedial actions in removal, staging and access road areas, to minimize their potential for proliferation during and after remedial activities. Active invasive species control operations should also be conducted during the protracted timeline of removal operations. Ms. Susan Svirsky 6 December 20,2010 . We previously advocated for the use of thermal desorption of low moisture PCB-contaminated soils or sediments, to the greatest extent possible. We still feel it is a viable option for the ROR and would permanently reduce the overall volume of PCB contamination, alleviate a proportion of the disposal burden, and allow for productive re-use of native soils. Treated soil re-use should .only occur at depth, below biotic activity zones, due to its lack of organic matter and altered character. We previously advocated for out-of-area disposal of PCB-contaminated soils/sediments instead offurther impacting upland/wetland habitats within the Housatonic River valley. We continue to believe that this is in the best interests of the watershed. Contaminated soil/sediment transport out-of-area via the railroad corridor, which has been deemed a viable option, would be parallel to disposal efforts being conducted for the Hudson River PCB removal project. As previously discussed, wetland mitigation should occur for all wetland areas impacted by staging and access roads if those areas carmot be returned to pre-remedial conditions or if impacts occur over extended time frames, including time to attain pre-remedial conditions. Mitigation should also occur for unavoidable loss of specific habitat types which should be quantified, pooled, and compensated for in adjacent areas, if possible, or within the same reach of the river. Additional habitat-specific wetlands could be created within the floodplain in removal areas of low habitat value. This could satisfy wetland mitigation requirements, lessen the amount of backfilling required, and result in time and cost savings. Mitigation should also be required if significant flood storage capacity is lost as a result of capping activities, especially if removal of sediments to accommodate cap thickness is not conducted. We recommend the use of in-situ treatment technologies involving application or injection of activated carbon (AC) within some area of tlle ROR, in conjunction with traditional removal and capping technology. The significant area of contamination in the ROR affords numerous options to conduct a limited pilot to moderate-scale application of the effectiveness of AC in limiting PCB uptake in the Housatonic, which may have future applications. We suggest that a riverine backwater would be a good candidate area for testing AC performance. Recommendations provided herein may evolve during subsequent discussions with regulatory and natural resource agencies. These general comments are pertinent to many major issues of the revised CMS, but do not fully capture all of our technical concerns, as outlined in previous comments. We anticipate continued discussions on the revised CMS and look forward to a remedial decision and proposed plan for the remediation and restoration of the river. Ms. -Susan -Svirsky 7 . ' December 20, 2010 'Please contact Mr. Kenneth Munney of my staff at' 603-223-2541, extension 19, or [email protected] questions or concerns about these comments. Thomas R. Chapman Supervisor New England Field Office Ann R. Klee Vice President Corporate Environmental Programs GE 3135 Easton Turnpike Fairfield. CT 06828 USA T+12033733198 F+1203 373 3342 [email protected] June 30, 2011 EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912 RE: Statement of General Electric Company to National Remedy Review Board Respecting Housatonic Rest of River Dear Members of the National Remedy Review Board: Enclosed is the Summary of Position ofthe General Electric Company on Remedial Alternatives for the Housatonic River- Rest ofRiver. We understand that EPA Region 1 is including this summary in its site information package transmitted to the Board in anticipation of the Region's presentation of a proposed remedy to the Board in late July. As you will see in the enclosed summary of position, GE and EPA have already removed PCBs from much of the former GE plant site in Pittsfield, in nearby areas and the two-mile stretch of the Housatonic River from the former GE plant site to the confluence of the East and West Branches of the River, the beginning of what is known as the Rest of River. These remedial actions have drastically reduced the amount of PCBs entering the Rest of River. The Rest of River is a unique ecosystem - especially the ten mile stretch between the confluence and Woods Pond Dam (also known as the Primary Study Area), that is designated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Nearly any dredging of river sediment or excavation of soil in this unique and sensitive ecosystem will cause irreparable ecological damage. For this reason, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts concluded in its comments on the Revised Corrective Measures Study Report (Revised CMS) that the "actual and inevitable damage to this existing, unique ecological resource" resulting from most of the remedial alternatives evaluated "will far exceed the theoretical benefit of lower PCB concentrations." We reached a similar conclusion and therefore recommended Monitored Natural Recovery as the best course for the Rest of River. 2 However, as required by EPA, GE also considered which other combinations of remedial alternatives would best meet the applicable decision criteria taking into account the assumptions and conclusions in EPA's human health and ecological risk assessments of the Rest of River (with which GE disagrees). Based on that evaluation, we concluded that, given those constraints, a combination of sediment and floodplain alternatives known as SED lOIFP 9 would best meet those criteria. The Revised CMS which contains all of these conclusions, and the evaluations on which they are based, is the product of thousands of hours of work by GE and its consultants. To the best of our knowledge, this is among the most wide-ranging and rigorous evaluations of alternatives ever undertaken in advance of the selection of a remedy. We trust that the entire Revised CMS will be included in the Region's site information package, but have also enclosed a copy of the Executive Summary as an attachment to our summary of position for your convenience. We understand from Regional Administrator Spalding that the Remedy Review Board is acting in an advisory capacity. As I wrote to Administrator Jackson on June 28, we believe that the Board's review would be enhanced ifGE and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in addition to the Region, were allowed to make presentations to the Board. More fundamentally, we believe that the Board's review would have benefitted from further technical, legal and policy discussions between GE, the Commonwealth and the Region. Because there have been no such discussions since the submission of the Revised CMS in October 201 0, the parties have not had the opportunity to resolve any factual questions or narrow areas of potential disagreement. Such discussions would have facilitated a robust discussion of the relative risks and benefits of the various remedial alternatives. Instead, pursuant to EPA's self-imposed deadline, we now present this summary of position. It was prepared without any information from EPA about its proposed remedy. GE appreciates the Board's careful consideration of the results of our evaluations as summarized in the enclosed summary of position. We look forward to a science-based discussion about balancing the perceived benefits of additional PCB removal against the unavoidable impacts of such removal on the unique Housatonic River ecosystem. Very truly yours, ~.,----- R ~..t'---- Ann R. Klee Enclosure 3 cc: James T. Owens, III, EPA Dean Tagliaferro, EPA Susan Svirsky, EPA Timothy Conway, EPA Secretary Richard Sullivan, Jr., MA EOEEA Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell, MA DEP Commissioner Mary Griffin, MA DFG Summary of Position of the General Electric Company on Remedial Alternatives for the Housatonic River – Rest of River Prepared for The National Remedy Review Board U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 30, 2011 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction and Overview ...... 1 2.0 Background ...... 2 2.1 Site Description ...... 2 2.2 Prior Activities ...... 4 2.3 CMS and Overview of Remedial Alternatives ...... 5 3.0 MNR Is the Best Approach for the Rest of River. However, Given EPA’s Directives, SED 10/FP 9 Also Meets the Permit Criteria ...... 7 4.0 There Is No Need for a Large-Scale Removal Remedy To Protect Human Health ...... 8 5.0 The Large-Impact Remedial Alternatives Would Have a Negative Impact on the Environment ...... 10 5.1 IMPG Attainment Is Not Determinative of Overall Protection of the Environment ...... 10 5.2 The Ecological Harm from the Large-Impact Removal Alternatives Outweighs Any Residual Risk ...... 11 6.0 Use of an On-Site Upland Disposal Facility Is Protective and Provides the Best Balance of Other Factors ...... 17 Tables Table 1 Overview of Combinations of Sediment and Floodplain Alternatives ...... 6 Table 2 Habitat Areas in PSA Affected by SED/FP Combination Alternatives ...... 12 Attachment A Executive Summary of Revised Corrective Measures Study Report (October 2010) 1.0 Introduction and Overview The General Electric Company (GE) submits this summary of its position to the National Remedy Review Board (Board) regarding the remedial alternatives currently being considered by Region 1 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the portion of the Housatonic River known as the Rest of River. GE and EPA have already addressed (or are addressing) PCBs in, and in areas adjacent to, a two-mile stretch of the Housatonic River that flows past and downstream of GE’s former plant site in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, to the confluence of the East and West Branches of the River (the Confluence). The Rest of River begins at the Confluence and flows south through Western Massachusetts and Connecticut. The remedial decision-making process for the Rest of River is governed by a permit that EPA issued to GE under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (the Permit), which is part of a comprehensive agreement embodied in a Consent Decree (CD) that became effective in 2000. The Permit sets forth specific criteria for the evaluation of remedial alternatives for the Rest of River, including three General Standards (threshold criteria) and six Selection Decision Criteria (balancing factors). In October 2010, as part of the Permit process, GE submitted a Revised Corrective Measures Study (CMS) Report evaluating numerous remedial alternatives for the sediment and floodplain of the River under those criteria and presenting its conclusions as to which set of alternatives best meets the Permit’s criteria.1 In January 2011, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth) proposed an additional alternative. It is critical that the Board undertake a hard and objective evaluation of the range of alternatives and the Region’s “preferred alternative” (which EPA has not shared with GE). The Board was created in 1995 to “help control remedy costs and to promote both consistent and cost-effective decisions at Superfund sites.”2 In creating the Board, EPA emphasized that “cost plays an important role in Superfund response actions,” and that, in fact, CERCLA “mandates that, in addition to being protective, all remedies must be cost-effective”; and it stated, as the “key message,” that the establishment of the Board was “to encourage decision makers to think even harder about the costs of response at every Superfund site.”3 In this case, a review of the costs of the remedial alternatives is particularly important because the sediment and floodplain removal alternatives for the Rest of River will have enormous costs, not only in dollars, but also, in most instances, in terms of the extensive and irreparable adverse impacts of the alternatives on the unique and flourishing ecosystem of the Rest of River area. As discussed further below and in the Commonwealth’s comments on the Revised CMS Report, the River and floodplain in the Rest of River area, especially the 10-mile stretch between the Confluence and Woods Pond Dam (known as the Primary Study Area or PSA), constitute a biologically unique ecosystem, with many exceptional characteristics that are not found elsewhere in Massachusetts. The River in the PSA is subject to considerable natural erosion and lateral channel migration, which have created a riverine system that meanders through a wide floodplain with a highly diverse mosaic of habitats, including backwaters, side channels, oxbows, wetlands, and vernal pools. Moreover, the River and floodplain in this stretch provide a contiguous, largely unfragmented forested corridor, which is critical to the migration and dispersal of many 1 In doing so, GE noted its disagreement with many of the assumptions and other input parameters that the Region directed GE to use in the evaluations; but, as required by the Permit, it conducted the evaluations taking into account those EPA directives. 2 Memorandum from Elliott P. Laws, Assistant Administrator, titled Formation of National Remedy Review Board (November 28, 1995) at p. 1. 3 Id. at pp. 1 & 3. 1 species. For these and other reasons, the PSA supports numerous and diverse wildlife populations, including at least 25 species that are listed by the Commonwealth as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Any of the sediment and floodplain removal alternatives other than the alternative designated SED 10/FP 9 (also known as the Ecologically Sensitive Alternative) and perhaps the alternative proposed by the Commonwealth (referred to herein as MA ALT)4 would have unavoidable, extensive, and widespread adverse impacts on the ecosystem in the PSA, including the riverbed, the riverbanks, the forested floodplain, vernal pools, and other floodplain wetlands. There is no need for the selection of remedial alternatives that would cause such profound ecological damage. Given the completed and ongoing source control and remediation efforts upstream of the Confluence, monitored natural recovery (MNR) is the best approach for the Rest of River. That alternative would protect human health for reasons that GE has previously presented to EPA. Moreover, even using the assumptions in EPA’s Human Health Risk Assessment (which overstate PCB exposures and risks), the removal alternatives with less adverse impact, such as SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT, would achieve EPA’s goals for human health protection, except for consumption of fish; and none of the alternatives would reach those goals for unrestricted fish consumption in Massachusetts. As a result, fish consumption advisories would need to be left in place to protect human health for the foreseeable future, regardless of the extent of PCB removal. From an environmental standpoint, implementation of MNR would cause no adverse ecological impacts, and implementation of SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT would minimize the adverse impacts described above relative to the other removal alternatives. Based on a balancing of adverse impacts with the residual risks of PCBs, as required by EPA guidance, it is clear that the ecological damage caused by those other alternatives would cause more severe and certain harm to the wildlife in the PSA than any asserted effects of PCBs. As a result, those alternatives would have a net negative impact on the environment. This is not the case for MNR, SED 10/FP 9, and MA ALT. Given the Board’s mission, it is important that the Board consider these impacts and recommend to the Region that it not adopt a set of sediment/floodplain alternatives with the severe ecological costs discussed above. Finally, in considering the best alternative for managing any removed sediments and soils, the Board should recognize – and recommend that Region recognize – that disposal in an engineered landfill constructed in an area near the River is fully protective of human health and the environment and provides the best balance of other factors, as discussed further below. 2.0 Background 2.1 Site Description Beginning at the Confluence, the Housatonic River flows for approximately 10 river miles downstream to Woods Pond, the first significant impoundment. The River in this stretch is mainly a low-gradient stream that 4 Because the MA ALT was proposed in response to the Revised CMS Report, it is not defined or evaluated in that report. For the purpose of this Summary, GE intends to refer to the MA ALT as specifically defined in the January 31, 2011 correspondence to Susan Svirsky, EPA Rest of River Project Manager, from Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Richard Sullivan, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell and Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Mary Griffin, as supplemented by an Addendum to those comments, dated February 18, 2011, transmitted to EPA by MassDEP Commissioner Kimmell via electronic mail on February 22, 2011. Any revisions to the MA ALT would likely affect the substance of the conclusions about it made herein. 2 meanders in a sinuous fashion through a generally wide and largely intact wetland floodplain (ranging from 800 to 3,000 feet wide), with numerous backwater areas. It flows into Woods Pond, which encompasses approximately 60 acres and is a generally depositional environment. The stretch of the River and floodplain between the Confluence and Woods Pond Dam, known as the PSA, contains over 90% of the mass of PCBs remaining in the Rest of River area. Downstream of Woods Pond, the river channel gradient increases significantly, fewer backwaters are present, and the floodplain is relatively narrow (except where major tributaries enter the River). The River in this stretch flows through several smaller impoundments and then into Rising Pond, the next significant impoundment (~ 40 acres), approximately 18 river miles downstream of Woods Pond Dam. Downstream of Rising Pond Dam, the River continues to flow south-southeast for an additional 105 miles through western Massachusetts and Connecticut before emptying into Long Island Sound. The Rest of River area in Massachusetts, especially the PSA, constitutes a biologically unique and extraordinary ecosystem. This exceptional ecological value is a product of numerous biophysical factors (geomorphology, geology, hydrogeology, surface water hydrology), land use, and biological factors that function in concert. These include the following: Meandering and dynamic character of River: In addition to being a generally low-gradient river with a largely undeveloped floodplain, the Housatonic River in the PSA has banks that are subject to considerable erosion, particularly in the upper portion of this stretch. As a result of these characteristics, the River in the PSA is subject to substantial natural lateral channel migration and meandering, which are constantly changing the landscape. This migration and meandering have lead to an highly diverse mosaic of habitats, including steep vertical undercut banks, backwaters, side channels, oxbow and remnant Aerial photograph showing meandering nature of river. oxbows that have developed into wetlands, and vernal pools. As the Commonwealth noted in its January 2011 comments on the Revised CMS Report, there are no other rivers of this size in Massachusetts, and few in New England, with these kinds of dynamics. Presence of contiguous riparian corridor providing connectivity: The Housatonic River and its floodplain communities in the PSA provide a contiguous, largely undisturbed forested riparian corridor along a stretch of about 10 miles of diverse riverine and wetland/floodplain habitats, making the River and floodplain a critical regional migratory and dispersal corridor for many wildlife. Geologic and hydrogeologic setting: Both bedrock and surficial geologic conditions of the region have a significant influence on the ecological resources of the PSA. The regionally unique calcareous (limestone) bedrock formation that underlies the valley is bordered by metamorphic rock of the adjacent highlands. Surficial geologic deposits from glaciation have filled the valley with variable material, including calcareous (i.e., alkaline) cobbles derived from the underlying marble. This condition produces a unique hydrogeologic environment of groundwater flow through these deposits, discharging to the surface. These interactions support rich calcareous soils and wetlands found only in this region of Massachusetts, which significantly affect the character of the natural communities in the area. 3 Hydrologic characteristics: Surface water and groundwater hydrology, including floodwater dynamics and riverine flow, give rise to a wide array of wetland hydrologic regimes, remnant channel segments, complex and diverse soil profiles (including river sediment differences), riverbank variability, significant microtopographic relief, and diverse vegetative community types. Land use: Most of the floodplain within the PSA is undeveloped, with the Commonwealth owning the great majority of that land. Portions of the Rest of River area are highly desirable for recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, canoeing, bird watching, and wildlife viewing. Habitat features: Exceptional habitat features have developed due to the cumulative effect of the factors discussed above. A high diversity of contiguous natural riparian community types juxtaposed with adjacent landscapes has given rise to an extensive, relatively unfragmented ecological resource. Diverse wildlife communities: Due to these diverse habitat features, the River and floodplain support an abundance of diverse and ecologically sensitive wildlife species. These include at least 35 species in the stretch between the Confluence and Rising Pond Dam that are listed by the Commonwealth as endangered, threatened, or of special concern, with 25 of these species in the PSA. In fact, the entire PSA is mapped as Priority Habitat for one or more state-listed species, with some areas mapped for numerous (up to 15) such species. Recognizing these unique and exceptional ecological characteristics, the Commonwealth in 2009 designated the Upper Housatonic River, including the PSA, as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) deserving of special protection under state law and regulations. 2.2 Prior Activities Upstream source control/remediation: GE has conducted major source control and sediment/soil removal activities at and near its former plant site in Pittsfield to prevent and control PCBs present in soils and underground oil plumes from entering the River. Since 2000, GE and EPA have performed these and other cleanup activities under the CD. Notably, GE and EPA have conducted extensive sediment and bank soil removal actions, as well as bank armoring, in the two miles of the River that runs adjacent to and downstream of the former GE plant to the Confluence, with GE performing such actions in the first ½ mile reach and EPA then continuing in the next 1½ mile reach of the River. GE’s efforts in upstream areas have also included soil removal actions in floodplain and former oxbow areas adjacent to the River, remediation of portions of the former Aerial photograph of East/West Branch Confluence showing completed GE plant site, and removal of sediments and remediation in East Branch (at left) and beginning of Rest of River (at riverbank soils in the West Branch of the River. right). In addition, over the next few years, GE will conduct a sediment removal/capping project in Silver Lake (which discharges to the River) and remediation of Unkamet Brook (which flows into the River). Collectively, these completed and planned activities represent one of the largest remedial projects in EPA Region 1. These activities have significantly reduced and will continue to reduce the amount of PCBs entering and present in the Rest of River. For example, water column data collected just upstream of the Confluence 4 indicate that the upstream remediation reduced the concentration of PCBs in the river water by a factor of three to five (from pre- to post-remediation) under both base flow and storm conditions.5 These reductions are expected to continue due to the ongoing and planned remediation actions upstream of the Confluence. Rest of River studies: Following numerous investigations of the Rest of River area (conducted from 1997 through 2002), the EPA Region performed a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for the Rest of River. GE was then required to develop and submit proposed Interim Media Protection Goals (IMPGs) applicable to various environmental media (e.g., floodplain soil, sediment, fish), which are considered by EPA to be protective of human health and ecological receptors based upon the findings in the HHRA and ERA. GE did so while expressing its strong disagreements with the HHRA and ERA and the effect of the disputed elements of the HHRA and ERA on the IMPGs. During this same period, EPA developed a mathematical model to simulate the fate, transport, and bioaccumulation of PCBs between the Confluence and Rising Pond Dam. This model estimates PCB concentrations in the water, sediments, and fish in that portion of the Rest of River for a period of 52 years into the future (or 30 years after completion of remediation, if longer), both in the absence of any additional remediation and in response to various sediment remedial alternatives.6 2.3 CMS and Overview of Remedial Alternatives As required by the Permit, GE submitted an initial CMS Report to EPA in March 2008. In response to comments from EPA, as well as comments from the Commonwealth and others insisting that additional alternatives be considered that did not cause the ecological damage inherent in the alternatives presented in the CMS Report, GE submitted its Revised CMS Report in October 2010. That report evaluated a broad range of remedial alternatives, including 10 individual alternatives for addressing sediments and riverbanks, 9 individual alternatives for addressing floodplain soil, and 5 alternatives for treatment and/or disposition of removed sediments and soils. The sediment alternatives (SED 1 through SED 10) range from no action and MNR to full-scale dredging. Apart from no action and MNR, the alternatives use various combinations of remediation technologies, including sediment removal (followed in most cases by capping or placement of backfill), engineered capping, thin-layer capping, stabilization of riverbanks with removal of bank soil, and MNR. The floodplain alternatives (FP 1 through FP 9) range from no action to widespread removal of floodplain soil. These individual sediment and floodplain alternatives are summarized, and key statistics regarding each are presented, in Tables ES-1 through ES-4 of the Executive Summary of the Revised CMS Report (CMS Executive Summary), which is attached hereto as Attachment A. In addition, since the selected remedy for the Rest of River will involve both a sediment/riverbank component and a floodplain component, a comparative evaluation of alternatives was conducted for certain combinations of sediment and floodplain (SED/FP) alternatives. Those combinations (which span the full range of remedial alternatives in terms of removal volumes and affected areas) are listed, and key statistics for each are presented, on page 12 and Table ES-5 of the CMS Executive Summary in Attachment A. 5 In addition, the most recent adult fish sampling data from the River, which were collected in 2008, show a substantial reduction in PCB concentrations in the fish in the PSA from those measured in 1998 and 2002. These data and the data discussed in the text are described in GE’s Revised CMS Report (Sections 6.1.3 and 6.2.5.2). 6 EPA did not design its model to forecast PCB concentrations past Rising Pond Dam. Therefore, at EPA’s request, GE developed a simplistic procedure for extrapolating the results of the model downstream into the four major Connecticut impoundments on the River. 5 In its January 2011 comments on the Revised CMS Report, the Commonwealth proposed MA ALT, which was designed to protect human health while also preserving the ecological value of the Rest of River ecosystem. As we understand it, MA ALT would include focused sediment removal in Woods Pond to achieve an average pond-wide sediment PCB concentration of 1 mg/kg. It would also involve floodplain soil removal in a number of specific areas so as to reduce asserted health risks without adversely affecting certain sensitive areas that the Commonwealth identified as having important ecological values. Given that the Commonwealth is the owner of the majority of land in the PSA, MA ALT should be given full consideration along with the alternatives presented in the Revised CMS Report. As such, we have added an overview of that alternative, as we understand it, to the overview of the other combined sediment/floodplain alternatives, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Overview of Combinations of Sediment and Floodplain Alternatives SED 2/ SED 3/ SED 5/ SED 6/ SED 8/ SED 9/ SED 10/ Remedial Components MA ALT FP 1 FP 3 FP 4 FP 4 FP 7 FP 8 FP 9 Removal Volume (cubic yards) Sediment -- 134,000 377,000 521,000 2,252,000 886,000 235,000 286,000 Riverbank Soil -- 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 6,700 0 Floodplain Soil -- 74,000 121,000 121,000 615,000 177,000 26,000 57,000 Total -- 243,000 533,000 677,000 2,902,000 1,098,000 267,700 343,000 Area Subject to Sediment/Soil Removal (acres)1 Sediment -- 42 126 178 351 333 62 60 Floodplain -- 44 72 72 377 108 14 33 Total -- 86 198 250 728 441 76 93 Riverbank Subject to Stabilization/Bank Soil Removal (linear miles, considering both banks) Riverbank - 14 14 14 14 14 1.6 0 Capping Without Removal, or Thin-Layer Capping (acres) Capping -- -- 60 45 -- 3 -- 0 Thin-Layer Capping -- 97 102 112 -- -- -- 0 Total Surface Area Impacted (acres) and Construction Duration (years) Area Impacted by -- 183 360 407 728 444 76 93 Remediation Area Impacted by Access -- 94 97 106 97 80 36 26 Roads/Staging Areas Construction Duration -- 10 18 21 52 14 5 5 Cost ($ million)2 With Off-Site Disposal $5 $251 $483 $612 $1,740 $729 $183 $184 With On-Site Disposal $5 $210 $365 $446 $1,160 $435 $128 NA 1. All areas subject to removal would be capped or backfilled following removal except for portions of Woods Pond under SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT, where sediment would be removed without capping or backfilling. 2. For example purposes, costs are given for the combinations of each SED/FP alternative with TD 1 and with TD 3 (assuming use of the Woods Pond Site for the on-site Upland Disposal Facility except under SED 8/FP 7, where, due to the large volume, use of the larger Rising Pond Site is assumed). 6 The treatment/disposition alternatives evaluated are summarized on page 13 of the attached CMS Executive Summary. In brief, they are as follows: TD 1 – Off-site transport and disposal; TD 2 – Placement of hydraulically dredged sediments in a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) within an on- site waterbody; TD 3 – Placement of excavated sediments and soils in an engineered Upland Disposal Facility in an area near the River (but outside the 500-year floodplain) (3 potential locations identified); TD 4 – Treatment using chemical extraction, followed by off-site disposal of the treated soils and treatment of the wastewater generated; and TD 5 – Treatment using thermal desorption, followed by either on-site re-use of a portion of the treated solids in the floodplain (with off-site disposal of the remainder) or off-site disposal of all treated materials. 3.0 MNR Is the Best Approach for the Rest of River. However, Given EPA’s Directives, SED 10/FP 9 Also Meets the Permit Criteria. On many key issues that underlie the Region’s directives for evaluating the sediment and floodplain remedial alternatives, the Region’s conclusions are not supported by the scientific evidence. These include, first, the fundamental issue of PCB toxicity. The toxicity values that EPA uses to assess what it regards as the cancer and non-cancer risks of PCBs to humans are based on laboratory studies of animals. However, based on the evidence from human exposure studies, PCBs have not been shown to cause cancer in humans or to cause adverse non-cancer effects in humans at environmental levels.7 Second, PCBs have not adversely affected the Rest of River ecosystem; indeed, field surveys have demonstrated abundant, diverse, and thriving fish and wildlife populations and communities in the Rest of River area despite over 70 years of exposure to PCBs. In addition, many of the specific exposure assumptions, input values, interpretations, and conclusions in EPA’s HHRA and ERA (on which the IMPGs are based) overstate the exposures and risks of PCBs to both humans and ecological receptors. GE also disagrees with various other directives that the Region issued to GE for revising the IMPGs and conducting the CMS. As discussed above, upstream remediation and source control activities, along with natural recovery processes, have significantly reduced the PCBs in the Rest of River, and those improvements are continuing. Further remediation would unavoidably and severely damage the unique ecosystem of the River and floodplain, including riverbanks, mature forests, vernal pools and other wetlands, and the plants and animals that inhabit or use the River and floodplain. Given these facts as well as the considerations discussed above, it would be inappropriate to conduct additional remedial actions in the Rest of River area apart from monitoring the ongoing source control and natural recovery processes. MNR (i.e., SED 2/FP 1) would be protective of human health for reasons that GE has previously presented to EPA.8 Further, as GE has also shown, SED 2/FP 1 would not result in adverse impacts to the local 7 Even accepting EPA’s use of the animal studies, EPA’s application of conservative uncertainty factors to extrapolate from animals to humans is unsupported. A number of recent studies on human and animal cells have confirmed that human cells are many times less sensitive to the effects of PCBs than the cells of the laboratory test animals used in the studies on which EPA’s toxicity values are based. See Section 1.2 of the Revised CMS Report. 8 See Section 1.2 of Revised CMS Report and documents cited therein. 7 populations and communities of wildlife in the Rest of River.9 As a result, SED 2/FP 1 is the best approach for the Rest of River. Nevertheless, as required by the CD and the Permit, GE conducted the evaluations in the Revised CMS taking into account EPA’s HHRA and ERA and using the assumptions, procedures, and other inputs that the EPA Region directed GE to use. In light of those constraints, GE considered which of the other sediment/floodplain alternatives (apart from SED 2/FP 1) would best meet the Permit criteria.10 Based on its evaluation, GE concluded that, given the constraints imposed by EPA’s directives, the combination of SED 10/FP 9 is best suited to meet the General Standards in the Permit in consideration and balancing of the Selection Decision Factors.11 GE further concluded that the other SED/FP combination alternatives involving removal that were evaluated in the Revised CMS Report would not meet the Permit’s General Standards, notably the standard of overall protection of the environment, due to their severe adverse ecological impacts. The bases for these conclusions, including a discussion and application of each of the Permit criteria to the various SED/FP combination alternatives, are summarized in the CMS Executive Summary in Attachment A. GE has considered whether MA ALT, as we understand it, would meet the Permit criteria. Based on a preliminary evaluation of the available information, it appears that that alternative would meet the Permit criteria. Several of the key reasons for this conclusion are discussed in Sections 4 and 5 below. In addition, assuming that some sediments and floodplain soils will need to be removed, GE has concluded that TD 3 (disposition in an on-site Upland Disposal Facility) best meets the Permit criteria, especially as the volume of removed material increases. The bases for this conclusion under the Permit criteria are also summarized in the CMS Executive Summary in Attachment A. In the present Summary of Position, GE has not repeated its evaluation of each of the Permit criteria. Rather, we focus on three key issues that are fundamental to the Board’s consideration: (a) whether a large-scale sediment and floodplain removal remedy is necessary to protect human health; (b) the extent to which such a large-scale removal remedy would provide overall protection of the environment; and (c) the best treatment/disposition alternative for removed sediments and soils. 4.0 There Is No Need for a Large-Scale Removal Remedy To Protect Human Health. The Region may attempt to justify a large-scale remedial alternative and its attendant ecological damage on the ground that such a remedy is necessary to protect human health. That is not so, however, because, even accepting EPA’s assumptions and toxicity values in the HHRA, alternatives with considerably less ecological impact would also protect human health. 9 See id. This is further demonstrated in detail in a separate report, titled Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives Using Sound Ecological Assumptions, which GE submitted to EPA simultaneously with the Revised CMS Report. 10 In doing so, GE has preserved its position on all of the disputed issues for an appeal of the selected remedy, which GE has the right to take under the CD and the Permit. 11 That combination would involve: (a) removal (followed by capping) of 66,000 cubic yards (cy) of sediment over 20 acres in selected areas of the River; (b) stabilization of the riverbanks in selected areas; (c) removal of 169,000 cy of sediments over 42 acres in Woods Pond (in areas with the highest PCB concentrations in the upper sediments); (d) MNR in the remaining portions of the River; and (e) removal of 26,000 cy of floodplain soil (followed by backfilling) from approximately 14 acres of the floodplain. 8 Direct Contact and Consumption of Agricultural Products Under the Permit, attainment of the IMPGs is not determinative of whether an alternative is protective of human health or the environment. Rather, it is one of the Selection Decision Factors to be balanced along with other Selection Decision Factors in evaluating the alternatives. However, in evaluating protection of human health, it is useful to begin by considering the extent to which the sediment and floodplain alternatives would achieve the IMPGs based on EPA’s HHRA, using EPA’s Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) assumptions, since if an alternative would attain those highly conservative IMPGs, it would most certainly protect human health from any potential effects of PCBs. For direct human contact with sediments and floodplain soils, all of the SED/FP alternative combinations identified above – including SED 2/FP 1, SED 10/FP 9, and MA ALT – would achieve the RME IMPGs within or below EPA’s acceptable cancer risk range (10-6 to 10-4 risk) in all sediment and floodplain exposure areas established by EPA. In addition, all of those combinations would achieve the RME IMPGs based on non- cancer impacts in all such exposure areas, except that SED 2/FP 1 (MNR) would not achieve those IMPGs for the most highly exposed individuals in 24 of the 120 floodplain exposure areas and MA ALT would not do so in one exposure area (where removal was not proposed so as to avoid elimination of critical core habitat for a state-listed species). However, as the Commonwealth has pointed out, the one area where MA ALT would not achieve the non-cancer IMPG is a relatively small (2.2-acre), wet, and difficult-to-access area, where the Commonwealth proposes that institutional controls (e.g., signs) be used to ensure health protection. Thus, even accepting EPA’s HHRA, all of the alternative combinations would provide protection of human health from direct contact with sediments and soils, with the exception of purported non-cancer effects in a few floodplain areas under SED 2/FP 1. For human consumption of agricultural products from the floodplain, all of the SED/FP alternative combinations would achieve RME IMPGs within or below EPA’s cancer risk range, as well as the non-cancer RME IMPGs, in all farm areas evaluated for such consumption. Fish Consumption For human consumption of fish from the River, the post-remediation concentrations predicted by EPA’s model under all alternatives would not, in Massachusetts, achieve both the cancer- and non-cancer-based IMPGs based on RME assumptions (which assume 52 meals per year of Housatonic River fish) within the model projection period (52 to 81 years). Thus, the Board should recognize that, no matter the extent of remediation, fish consumption advisories would have to remain in place indefinitely to provide human health protection from the asserted risks reported in EPA’s HHRA for human consumption of fish. In Connecticut, where fish PCB levels are already much lower, extrapolation of EPA’s model results downstream (although uncertain) indicates that all of the alternative combinations would achieve very low PCB levels in fish in the Connecticut impoundments by the end of the model period – i.e., ~ 0.1 mg/kg or lower (except between 0.1 and 0.2 mg/kg in one impoundment under MNR and MA ALT). These estimated concentrations are below the level (0.2 mg/kg) used as guidance by the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CDPH) to allow fish consumption of 50 meals per year (approximately the same as EPA’s assumed RME rate), and all (except for MNR and MA ALT in one impoundment) would even achieve or reach the boundary of CDPH’s “unlimited” fish consumption level (< 0.1 mg/kg).12 Thus, the fish PCB concentrations 12 In addition, these estimated concentrations would achieve the RME IMPGs based on a 10-4 cancer risk in all Connecticut impoundments within the model period. With respect to the non-cancer RME IMPGs, the estimates indicate that MNR, 9 achieved in the Connecticut impoundments under all of the alternatives should allow the CDPH to remove the fish consumption advisories for PCBs within the foreseeable future. Conclusion Thus, the Board should recognize that the alternatives with fewer adverse impacts (such as SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT) would meet EPA's goals for direct contact and agricultural products consumption and would also reach levels at which the CDPH guidance would allow 50 fish meals/year, and that even the largest alternatives would not allow fish consumption at that rate in Massachusetts. For these reasons, adoption of a large-scale remedy that would cause severe and irreparable ecological harm cannot be justified on a health basis. 5.0 The Large-Impact Remedial Alternatives Would Have a Negative Impact on the Environment. One of the Permit’s General Standards is “overall protection” of the environment. The Region may attempt to justify a large-scale removal alternative as necessary to meet that standard. As EPA guidance makes clear, however, the standard of “overall protection” of the environment requires a balancing of the short-term and long-term adverse ecological impacts of the alternatives with the residual risks.13 Thus, in assessing achievement of that standard, it is essential that any asserted risks of PCBs be weighed against the adverse ecological impacts from implementation of the remedial alternatives. As shown below, even accepting EPA’s conclusions in the ERA, the remedial alternatives with large-scale impacts (i.e., SED 3/FP 3 and alternatives with greater impacts) would not meet that standard because they would cause severe and, in many cases, irreparable ecological harm to all the affected habitats, which would outweigh any risk reduction from additional PCB removal. By contrast, the smaller-impact removal remedies (i.e., SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT) would provide overall protection of the environment by avoiding much of that ecological harm while still reducing the PCB exposure levels of many ecological receptors. 5.1 IMPG Attainment Is Not Determinative of Overall Protection of the Environment. While application of the ecological IMPGs to the SED/FP alternatives indicates that attainment of those IMPGs varies among the alternatives (as shown in the Revised CMS Report),14 attainment of IMPGs, as only one of the Selection Decision Factors under the Permit, is not determinative of whether an alternative would provide overall protection of the environment. To begin with, as stated in EPA guidance, the goal for ecologically based remediation is to “reduce ecological risks to levels that will result in the recovery and maintenance of healthy local populations and communities of SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT would have only limited IMPG attainment, and that the remaining alternatives would achieve all (or most) of those IMPGs. 13 See, e.g., EPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (1997) at p. 8-3; EPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk Management Principles for Superfund Sites (1999) at p. 6; EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (2005) at p. 6-6. 14 MNR, as well as the removal alternatives with fewer adverse ecological impacts (i.e., SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT), would achieve the IMPGs for some ecological receptor groups in all areas and would achieve the IMPGs for other receptor groups in some areas. For example, SED 10/FP 9 would achieve the IMPGs for warmwater fish and threatened and endangered species, as well as levels within the range of the IMPGs for omnivorous/carnivorous mammals, in all averaging areas; and it would achieve levels within the range of the IMPGs for benthic invertebrates in 84% of the averaging areas, for amphibians in 21% of the averaging areas, and for insectivorous birds in 58% of the areas. 10 biota.”15 The occurrence of exceedances of the IMPGs for certain receptors in certain areas does not translate into adverse impacts that prevent the maintenance of healthy local populations of those receptors, let alone negatively impact the overall wildlife community in the Rest of River area. This is true, first, because of the highly conservative nature of these IMPGs and the “averaging areas” to which EPA has directed that they be applied, which in many cases are much smaller than the extent of the local populations of the receptor groups.16 Furthermore, field surveys have documented the presence of numerous and diverse plant and animal species (including state-listed rare species) that continue to reproduce and inhabit the River and floodplain in the PSA despite the fact that PCBs have been present in the area for over 70 years. As stated by the Commonwealth in its January 2011 comments (p. 6), recent surveys of state-listed species “provide fresh documentation of the wide range of robust state-listed species and amphibian populations within the PSA that occur despite PCB contamination.” 5.2 The Ecological Harm from the Large-Impact Removal Alternatives Outweighs Any Residual Risk. As shown above, the standard of “overall protection” of the environment requires a balancing of the short-term and long-term adverse ecological impacts of the alternatives with the residual risks. In particular, as EPA has stated, “it is important to determine whether the loss of a contaminated habitat is a greater impact than the benefit of providing a new, modified but less contaminated habitat.”17 Thus, it is critical that any uncertain risks that may be indicated by IMPG exceedances be weighed against the certain adverse impacts on the habitat of further remedial efforts to achieve the ecological IMPGs. This is an important policy issue for EPA, and is one that has been recognized by the Commonwealth in its January 2011 comments (p. 8): “Any potential benefits associated with remediation to achieve ecological IMPGs would be far outweighed by the short and long-term damage to the meandering character of the Housatonic River ecosystem and to the associated state-listed species and their habitats.” The Board should take steps to ensure that the Region performs such balancing. For reasons discussed in detail in the Revised CMS Report, implementation of any of the large-impact alternatives (i.e., SED 3/FP 3 and any combination of sediment and floodplain alternatives with greater impacts) would have substantial and widespread short- term and long-term adverse effects on the exceptional habitats of the PSA and the plants and animals that use them, causing greater harm to the wildlife that the IMPGs were designed to protect than the asserted PCB effects. Many of these impacted habitats could not be restored to their current conditions for many years or, in some cases, ever. By contrast, SED 2/FP 1 would not produce any of these adverse impacts, and SED 10/FP Photograph of forested riparian habitat in Rest of River. 9 and MA ALT would have considerably reduced impacts. Table 2 below summarizes the impacts of the identified SED/FP alternative combinations on the various habitat types in the PSA. 15 EPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk Management Principles for Superfund Sites (1999) at p. 3. 16 For example, the local populations of wood frogs, wood ducks, and shrews (which EPA has selected to represent amphibians, insectivorous birds, and omnivorous/carnivorous mammals) extend throughout the PSA; and the local population of mink (as representative of piscivorous mammals) extends beyond the boundaries of the PSA, including to tributaries of the River and to other riverine areas in the vicinity. Yet the averaging areas to which the IMPGs were applied at EPA’s direction are much smaller than those areas, leading to exceedances of the IMPGs in such areas when such exceedances would not exist if broader areas representative of the local populations were considered. 17 EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (2005) at p. 6-6. 11 Table 2. Habitat Areas in PSA Affected by SED/FP Combination Alternatives1 SED 2/ SED 3/ SED 5/ SED 6/ SED 8/ SED 9/ SED 10/ Habitat FP 1 FP 3 FP 4 FP 4 FP 7 FP 8 FP 9 MA ALT Aquatic Riverine - 79 127 127 127 127 20 0 Habitat (acres) Riverbank (linear - 14 14 14 14 14 1.6 0 miles) Impoundment - 60 101 139 139 139 42 60 Habitat (acres) Backwater (acres) - 0 61 70 86 66 0 0 Floodplain Wetland - 38 60 60 178 56 14 25 Forest (acres) Shrub and Shallow - Emergent Wetlands 19 22 22 70 31 3.7 5.8 (acres) Deep Marshes - 1.9 0.3 0.3 4.7 3.1 0 0 (acres) Vernal Pools - 15 (58) 15 (58) 15 (58) 17 (61) 18 (61) 0 0 (acres) 2 Disturbed Upland - 14 15 15 25 11 7.5 5.8 Habitats (acres) Upland Forested - 4.2 4.9 4.6 6.4 2.8 0.7 2.4 Habitats (acres) Total (acres)3 -- 231 406 453 653 454 88 99 1. Includes habitat areas within the boundaries of the natural community mapping prepared by EPA’s consultant, Woodlot Alternatives, in 2002; includes remediation areas as well as areas impacted by access roads and staging areas. 2. Number of vernal pools affected are shown in parentheses. 3. Total habitat area affected does not include riverbanks, and can differ from total surface area affected since the total shown includes all habitats within the boundaries of the Woodlot (2002) mapping. The adverse impacts of the alternatives on certain of the key habitats identified above and the associated impediments to restoration are discussed below. Bank Stabilization Impacts All of the large-impact remedial alternatives would involve the implementation of bank stabilization measures on both sides of the River along the first 7 miles below the Confluence (14 linear miles of riverbanks) to control erosion. Even with the use of bioengineering techniques, the implementation of the stabilization measures themselves would preclude the re-establishment of the current conditions and functions of many of these riverbanks. By design, these stabilization measures would be intended to prevent or permanently curtail the continuation of the current processes of bank erosion and lateral channel migration and meandering, which have allowed for the current mix of habitat types on the riverbanks and adjacent floodplain. This would permanently eliminate the vertical and undercut banks, which provide critical habitat for several species of birds and other animals. It 12 would convert the affected stretch of the river into a single non-moving channel, which would, in turn, cause the existing wetland habitats along the river to eventually fill in, resulting in the loss of those wetlands. The bank stabilization would also require the removal of the numerous mature trees and other vegetation from the banks, as well as a long-term management plan to prevent the reforestation of the stabilized banks (due to the potentially destabilizing effect of large trees on those banks). While vegetation and shrubs would be replanted, the loss of large trees would result in a permanent change in the vegetative character of the banks from their current wooded condition to a more open condition with dense shrub growth, with a corresponding reduction in the quality of the habitat for birds, dragonflies, reptiles, and mammals (including state- listed species) that currently use the mature trees Photograph showing large overhanging tree on bank in Rest of River. on the banks. Further, in portions of the banks stabilized with techniques such as riprap, there would be a long-term reduction in animal slides and burrows on the banks and in access routes for the movement of smaller and less mobile animals to and from the River. As a result of these changes, there would be a long-term reduction in species richness and diversity on the riverbanks and adjoining wetlands, and those habitats would never return to their current condition. By contrast, SED 10/FP 9 would involve stabilization of only a relatively small portion of the riverbanks (1.6 linear miles), greatly reducing the above impacts. MA ALT would not involve any bank stabilization or other work on the riverbanks, thus eliminating the above impacts. Floodplain Forest Impacts The floodplain soil removal activities and the necessary access roads and staging areas in the floodplain (to support both sediment and floodplain remediation) would have long-term negative impacts on the floodplain forests, which include a variety of forested wetland habitats. These activities would require the removal of all trees, shrubs, and other vegetation in the affected areas (which range from 38 to 178 acres under the large- impact alternatives) to allow soil removal activities and construction of access roads and staging areas. While such areas could be replanted, it would take at least 50 to 100 years for a replanted forest community to reach a mature condition comparable to current conditions; and that progression could take even longer and may not occur at all in large cleared areas due to cumulative stresses from floods, changes in microclimate, changes in hydrology, and colonization by invasive species. In addition, the tree removals would cause the loss of woody debris and annual leaf litter that are used as structural habitat or cover for many species. Further, soil removal and backfilling would change the characteristics of the native floodplain soil, which contains seeds from native plants. It would impossible to recreate these soil conditions precisely, which would change the soil chemistry and thus negatively affect local plants and animals. As a result, under these alternatives, there would be a long-term loss of these mature forested floodplain habitats and of the forest wildlife species (including rare species) that currently utilize these habitats. 13 Under SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT, the affected floodplain forest areas would be reduced to 14 acres and 25 acres, respectively, which would decrease the extent of the above-described adverse impacts. Vernal Pool Impacts Each of the large-impact alternatives would involve excavation and replacement of soils in all or portions of most (88% or more) of the vernal pools in the PSA floodplain. These activities would cause an immediate loss, in all or parts of these pools, of the amphibian and other species that depend on vernal pools for breeding. They would also cause alterations in the hydrology, vegetation, and soil conditions of these vernal pools. Where these characteristics are disturbed, efforts to reproduce them, especially their hydrology, are highly susceptible to failure. As a result, there would probably be a permanent change in the hydrology and soil of the affected pools. Furthermore, these alternatives would involve substantial disturbances to the generally forested habitats surrounding the vernal pools, which are critical for maintaining water quality in the pools, providing shade and litter for the pools, and providing a variety of important non-breeding functions for many of the vernal pool amphibians, which spend most of their lives in these surrounding areas. Even small impacts to these habitats can seriously disrupt important aspects of those areas’ non-breeding functions. In addition, the disturbances within and around the vernal pools would create a high potential for predators (e.g., green frogs, bullfrogs) to invade individual vernal pools, which would further undermine the re-establishment of the vernal pool functions. Photograph of vernal pool within Rest of River floodplain. Due to these impacts, the full complement of characteristics that contribute to vernal pool functions would not be re-established in at least many of the affected vernal pools. As a result, there would be a loss of sensitive vernal pool species in the Rest of River. By contrast, SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT would have no direct impact on any of the vernal pools in the PSA and would cause much less disturbances in the areas surrounding those pools. Other Wetland Impacts In other impacted wetland areas such as shrub swamps and emergent marshes, the soil removal activities and construction of access roads and staging areas under the large-impact alternatives would change the soil conditions and hydrology of the wetlands. Due to these changes in soil and hydrologic conditions, the vegetation currently present in the wetlands, which depends on those conditions, is likely to change as well. Further, there would be a high potential for proliferation of invasive plants, since removing a mature stable wetland system creates conditions under which invasive species readily take hold. These conditions, in turn, would result in changes to the wildlife communities that inhabit the wetlands. In particular, the return of sensitive species, including state-listed wildlife species, would be doubtful. SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT would have much less impact on these wetlands as well, affecting less than 4 and 6 acres, respectively, of these wetlands. 14 Aquatic Riverine Impacts The large-impact remedial alternatives would also involve substantial direct impacts on the river channel itself, as shown in Table 2 above. The removal and/or capping of sediments would remove or bury the existing aquatic vegetation and benthic invertebrates in those areas, displace the fish, and change the surface of the riverbed from its current condition (sand, sand and gravel, or silt) to a bottom composed of a stone cap or backfill material. This would alter the riverbed habitat until the deposition of sediments from upstream changes the surface back to a condition approximating its current condition, which could take many years, especially if the upstream areas and adjacent riverbanks are similarly impacted. While it is expected that, over time, vegetation, invertebrates, and fish would recolonize these areas, the length of time for that to occur and the abundance of organisms and mix of species in the recolonized community are uncertain. In particular, the sediment removal or capping would cause a loss of a number of state-listed rare species that use the river bottom. Since such species are highly sensitive to habitat quality, effective restoration of their habitat would be very difficult, if not impossible, and such species may not ever recolonize the affected areas. For example, such changes in river sediments and large woody debris are likely to eliminate the current over-wintering habitats for the wood turtle. Moreover, colonization by undesirable invasive species, which thrive in such disturbed areas, is highly probable; and a sufficiently intensive invasive species control program would not be practical in this underwater environment. SED 10/FP 9 would affect only selected portions of the aquatic riverine habitat in the river channel (20 acres vs. 79-178 acres for the large-impact alternatives); and MA ALT would involve no disturbance at all of the river channel, since the sediment remediation would be limited to focused removal in Woods Pond. Backwater Impacts All of the large-impact alternatives except SED 3/FP 3 would also have serious impacts on the backwater habitats. These impacts would include changes in substrate type from silts or mucky organic material to sand, with corresponding changes in the vegetation and wildlife communities using the backwaters, all of which would last until deposition from flood events return the substrate to conditions comparable to current conditions and corresponding vegetative and wildlife communities develop – which is an uncertain time period. Further, proliferation of invasive plant species would be highly probable, and there is a high potential for the loss of certain sensitive (e.g., state-listed) species. SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT would involve no work in the backwater areas, thus avoiding these impacts altogether. River/Floodplain Corridor Impacts Due to the impacts on all of the various habitats discussed above, the large-impact SED/FP alternatives would result in fragmentation of the contiguous, largely undisturbed forested river/floodplain corridor between the Confluence and Woods Pond. This contiguous corridor is critical to the viability and sustainability of many floodplain-dependent animals, since the smaller animals (such as amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals) need such connected habitats to disperse and migrate, and others (such as some migratory song birds and large mammals) rely on the existing, largely unfragmented forested riparian corridor to facilitate access and movement. Thus, the fragmentation of this corridor would displace some species and disrupt the dispersal and migratory movements of other species. Due to their fewer impacts on the individual habitats in the PSA, SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT would not result in the same fragmentation of the river/floodplain corridor. While these alternatives might result in some 15 disturbance of animals’ movement in this corridor, they would not cause the substantial extent of fragmentation that the large-impact alternatives would. Impacts on State-Listed Rare Species For the reasons given above, and as the Commonwealth has recognized, the large-impact SED/FP alternatives would have a substantial long term and potentially permanent adverse impact on many state-listed species. The Revised CMS Report includes a detailed evaluation, for each potentially affected species, of whether each such alternative would result in a “take” of that species under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and, where it would, whether the take would impact a significant portion of the local population of the species. This evaluation indicates that the large-impact SED/FP combined alternatives would result in a take of 28 to 32 18 state-listed species (depending on the alternative), Photograph of a wood turtle, a State-listed species, in the Rest and that for 17 to 22 of those species, the take would of River. impact or likely impact a significant portion of the local population. By contrast, it is estimated that SED 10/FP 9 would result in a take of 21 state-listed rare species, but would impact or likely impact a significant portion of the local population of only 2 of those species, and that MA ALT would result in a take of 22 state-listed rare species, but would not impact or likely impact a significant portion of the local population of any of them. Conclusions Under all of the large-impact combined alternatives, these adverse ecological impacts would occur over extensive areas of the Rest of River, as shown by the impacted area acreages in Table 2 above. Further, as discussed above, there are numerous impediments that would prevent or hinder the re-establishment of pre remediation conditions for the affected habitats in the PSA. In fact, we have not identified any precedents for successful restoration of a unique ecosystem like the PSA in the face of the substantial destruction that would be caused by the large-impact alternatives. The other riverine sites where restoration has been completed, including those cited by the EPA Region, are very different from the PSA, where the River meanders for more than 10 miles through diverse floodplain wetland habitats that support at least 25 state- listed species.19 Overall, implementation of the large-impact alternatives would cause more severe and certain harm to the animals that the IMPGs were designed to protect than not attaining the IMPGs. For example, actions to attain the amphibian IMPGs in vernal pools would require extensive removals within the network of such pools within 18 Although, as noted above, there are 25 state-listed species with designated Priority Habitat in the PSA, the reason that these alternatives would result in a take of a greater number of such species is that they would also impact additional state- listed species with Priority Habitat between Woods Pond and Rising Pond Dams. 19 At a recent workshop, EPA identified five sites that it claimed provided evidence that the Rest of River ecosystem can be restored. However, none of those sites is comparable to the Housatonic in the PSA. Some were already substantially degraded and basically lifeless prior to the restoration (portion of Upper Clark Fork in Montana and Nine Mile Run in Pittsburgh); another was a highly altered and straight river channel that was dammed, channelized, and placed between dikes by the federal government in the 1940s and 1950s (Provo River in Utah); and others were small wetlands or streams that have little in common with the Rest of River (Loring Air Force Base in Maine and Gray’s Creek in Maryland). 16 the PSA, which, as shown above, would produce substantial adverse impacts on the amphibian populations that rely on those pools. Yet, as the Commonwealth has stated, the amphibian populations in the PSA are currently robust despite the presence of PCBs. Similar considerations apply to other wildlife species as well. As a result, these combined alternatives would have a net negative ecological impact on the Rest of River and thus would not meet the standard of providing overall protection of the environment. By contrast, SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT would have substantially reduced ecological impacts. While they would have some of the above-described short-term and long-term adverse ecological effects in certain areas, they would minimize those impacts relative to the large-impact SED/FP removal alternatives and would not produce widespread long-term impacts on the overall environment of the PSA.20 Balancing the certain adverse impacts of remedial activities with the, at most, uncertain risks of PCBs remaining in the ecosystem, SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT would provide overall protection of the environment, since they would (a) reduce the PCB exposure levels of ecological receptors and provide additional protection from the perceived PCB effects reported in EPA’s ERA, while at the same time (b) causing much less environmental damage relative to the other alternatives involving removal. GE urges the Board, consistent with its mandate to encourage the Regions to “think hard” about costs, to recommend that, in conducting the necessary balancing to assess overall protection of the environment, the Region give full consideration to the ecological “costs” caused by the large-impact alternatives and to take into account the reduced ecological “costs” of SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT. 6.0 Use of an On-Site Upland Disposal Facility Is Protective and Provides the Best Balance of Other Factors. As noted above and discussed in the Revised CMS Report, GE has concluded that, of the treatment/disposition alternatives for handling removed sediments and soils, TD 3, disposition in an on-site Upland Disposal Facility, is best suited to meet the Permit’s General Standards in consideration and balancing of the Permit’s Selection Decision Factors.21 GE recognizes that the Commonwealth, the local communities, and local members of the public oppose that alternative. The fact remains, however, that that alternative is wholly protective and provides the best balance of the other relevant factors, and we urge the Board to recommend that the Region recognize that fact based on an objective application of the relevant criteria. Benefits of TD 3 It is clear that disposition of removed materials in an engineered on-site disposal facility would protect human health and the environment and control sources of releases through permanent isolation of the PCB-containing sediments and soils following dewatering. That facility would be constructed with a double liner system, a geosyntheic drainage layer, a double leachate collection system, and an impermeable surface cover. It would also be subject to access and deed restrictions to limit future use of the site, and a long-term monitoring and maintenance program would be implemented to ensure the effectiveness of the isolation. In addition, the 20 In addition to minimizing these ecological impacts, it is significant that SED 10/FP 9 and MA ALT would produce fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than the large-impact alternative combinations. Those emissions are estimated to be 40,000 tonnes for SED 10/FP 9, 46,000 tonnes for MA ALT, 47,000 tonnes for SED 3/FP 3, and 100,000 to 520,000 tonnes for the other SED/FP removal alternatives. 21 As discussed in that Report, three potential locations have been identified for such a facility, each of which is located relatively near the River but outside the 500-year floodplain and has either limited or no sensitive habitats or could be configured to avoid or minimize the impacts on such habitats. 17 facility would be located away from the River, outside the 500-year floodplain, and away from any significant wetlands – which would further contribute to the long-term effectiveness of the containment. EPA has long recognized that use of such on-site engineered landfills for permanent containment of wastes is protective, particularly for wastes such as solids containing PCBs, which are relatively immobile and do not constitute “principal threat” waste (such as free non-aqueous-phase liquids [NAPL], drums of liquid waste, and the like).22 Use of such landfills has a high degree of reliability and effectiveness, and has been approved by EPA and used reliably at many sites. The capped landfill area would be replanted with grass, and the support areas that are no longer needed would be restored to the extent practical. The significance of any long-term change to habitat within the operational footprint of the disposal facility would depend on the existing habitat. At one of the identified sites, the impact would be minimal since the majority of the site consists of previously disturbed land that is or has been used as a sand and gravel quarry. Thus, using that site would have no significant ecological effects, and its permanent conversion to grassland after closure may actually improve the habitat. At the other two identified sites, the impacts would be more significant, since the majority of those sites consists of upland forest. Even there, however, the long-term change in habitat would be confined to the footprint of the facility, rather than constituting widespread impacts in the Rest of River area. Moreover, the placement of the facility outside the floodplain and away from or with minimal impacts on wetlands would avoid or minimize long-term impacts to those sensitive habitats and the species that inhabit them. On-site disposal would also have the fewest short-term impacts in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and truck traffic, noise, and accidents for the range of disposal volumes. For example, it is estimated that that alternative would produce 5,500 to 61,000 tonnes of GHG emissions, based on the range of potential disposal volumes from the smallest to the largest. Off-site disposal (TD 1) would produce 19,000 to 290,000 tonnes of GHG emissions for that range of volumes, and the treatment alternatives (TD 4 and TD 5) would produce substantially more such emissions.23 Similarly, on-site disposal would involve approximately 1,450 to 68,000 off-site truck trips for the range of volumes (in this case, to import construction materials to the site), compared to approximately 15,900 to 243,000 off-site truck trips for off-site disposal and generally similar numbers for the treatment alternatives. This would result in fewer accidents and fewer fatalities and injuries associated with the project-related off-site truck traffic. Finally, on-site disposal would have the lowest cost of the TD alternatives for the range of volumes. This is shown in Table 1 above and in Table ES-5 in the CMS Executive Summary in Attachment A. Comparison to Other Alternatives Off-site transport and disposal (TD 1) would also protect human health and the environment and control sources of releases through permanent isolation of the PCB-containing sediments and soils in permitted off- site landfill(s), and this approach has also been used effectively for many sites. However, as the volume of materials requiring disposal and the length of time required to do so increase, the more uncertainty would exist 22 Thus, EPA’s expectation to use treatment to address principal threat wastes at a site whenever practicable, as set forth in the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR § 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(A)), is not applicable to this alternative. In the unlikely event that free NAPL, drums of liquid waste, or similar principal threat wastes are removed from the River or floodplain, such wastes would not be placed in the Upland Disposal Facility, but would be segregated and transported off-site for treatment and disposal, as appropriate. Accordingly, the present situation is, instead, governed by EPA’s expectation to use engineering controls, such as containment, for waste that poses a relatively low long-term threat (40 CFR § 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(B)). 23 Regarding TD 2, disposition in on-site in-water Confined Disposal Facility(ies) (CDF(s)), see the following footnote. 18 regarding the future availability of sufficient off-site landfill capacity over the long term. In addition, disposal at an off-site landfill could also have habitat impacts at the site of the off-site facility, although this has not been quantitatively evaluated. Most significantly, as discussed above, the off-site disposal alternative would have considerably more short-term impacts than on-site upland disposal (for the range of volumes) in terms of GHG emissions, off-site truck traffic, truck noise, and traffic accidents, and would have higher costs.24 The alternatives involving treatment (TD 4 and TD 5) would have significant problems, as discussed in the Revised CMS Report and summarized in the attached CMS Executive Summary. For example, the use of chemical extraction (TD 4) has not been demonstrated at full scale on sediments and soils comparable to those in the Rest of River, and there are uncertainties regarding the extent to which that process can reduce PCB concentrations in such materials. Results from a site-specific bench-scale study of that technology indicate that PCB concentrations cannot be reduced to levels that would allow reuse, and it is uncertain whether the treated materials would be subject to disposal regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Thermal desorption (TD 5) has rarely been used to treat PCB-containing sediments; and while has been used at several sites to treat PCB-containing soils, the volumes of materials treated in those cases were substantially smaller and the duration of the treatment operation was substantially shorter than the volumes and duration that could be involved at the Rest of River. Moreover, when on-site reuse of thermally treated materials has occurred, the materials have typically been placed in a small area and covered with clean backfill. Thus, the reliability of this process for treatment of a large volume of materials like the Rest of River sediments and soils is unknown, as is the ability to use the thermally treated solids as backfill in the floodplain without being covered. Further, if some thermally treated soils were reused as backfill in the floodplain, that reuse would result in long-term adverse environmental impacts in the floodplain forest and other wetland areas due to the differences in soil characteristics between that material and the existing natural soil in those wetland areas. Hence, with such reuse, this alternative would not provide overall protection of the environment. In addition, for the range of volumes that would need to be treated, the treatment alternatives would have substantially more GHG emissions than the other TD alternatives. This is especially true for thermal desorption, which would have 2.5 to 3 times more GHG emission than any other alternative. These alternatives would also cause more off-site truck traffic and associated noise and accidents that on-site upland disposal, although slightly less than off-site disposal. Finally, they would have high costs, with the costs of chemical extraction generally comparable to that of off-site disposal and the cost of thermal desorption substantially higher (see Table ES-5 in the attached CMS Executive Summary). Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the use of an on-site Upland Disposal Facility best meets the Permit criteria. The extent to which it is better suited to do so than off-site disposal would increase with the volume of excavated material to be disposed of and the duration of the implementation period, and is less pronounced with the volumes and durations at and near the lower end of the range. 24 The use of on-site in-water CDF(s) (TD 2) (assumed to be constructed in the deep portion of Woods Pond and/or a backwater area) does not appear viable because: (a) it could be used only for certain hydraulically dredged sediments under certain sediment alternatives and would not provide for disposition of the remaining sediments or of floodplain or riverbank soils; and (b) it would result in a permanent loss of aquatic habitat in a large portion of Woods Pond and/or the backwater where the CDF(s) would be constructed, as well as a likely loss of flood storage capacity in those areas, thus failing to provide overall protection of the environment. 19 ATTACHMENT A Executive Summary of Revised Corrective Measures Study Report (October 2010) Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary Executive Summary Overview After decades of work and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, GE and EPA have addressed PCBs at both the former GE plant site in Pittsfield and adjacent areas and in the two miles of the Housatonic River near the former plant. More will be done in the next few years in several other areas, including Silver Lake and Unkamet Brook, but the amount of PCBs in the remediated areas has been dramatically reduced, which, in turn, has decreased the amount of PCBs carried downstream. GE and EPA have now focused their attention on a third area, which has become known as the “Rest of River” – the stretch of the Housatonic River that begins where the River’s East and West Branches meet in Pittsfield and extends south through western Massachusetts and Connecticut. Approximately 90% of the PCBs remaining in the Rest of River are in the 10-mile stretch between Pittsfield and Woods Pond Dam in Lenox, an area with a rich and vital ecosystem. Unlike the areas in and around the former GE plant site, most of this 10 mile stretch of the River has been untouched by development. It includes a unique, relatively unfragmented corridor of forests and wetlands that provide critical habitat for an extraordinary assemblage of plants and animals, including dozens of species listed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as threatened, endangered, or of special concern. In 2009, in recognition of its uniqueness, the Commonwealth designated the Upper Housatonic River as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The question that is the subject of this Revised Corrective Measures Study (CMS) Report is: What to do about the PCBs remaining in the Rest of River? There are several possible approaches, and each one has advantages and disadvantages. The basic problem is this: the Rest of River is a flourishing ecosystem. The more aggressively you work to remove PCBs from this ecosystem, the more you damage it in the name of “remediating” it. For example, to keep PCBs that have found their way into the banks of the River from reentering the River, you can “stabilize” the banks. This “stabilization” requires you to (1) eliminate the existing vertical and “undercut” banks that have been carved by nature and cannot be reproduced by man, and which are important habitat for birds and other animals that are currently using them; and (2) remove trees and other vegetation currently on the banks, which will permanently change their appearance and character and change the animals that can live in those areas. Removing or capping sediments in the bottom of the River to address PCBs will have similar consequences. The more sediment you dredge, the more you displace fish and change the nature of the riverbed and its hospitability to aquatic life. Likewise, the more soil you remove from the floodplain, the more you change the nature of the floodplain and its hospitability to the plants and animals that currently live there (including the sensitive species living in the area’s dozens of vernal pools and other areas). Building access roads and staging areas 1 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary needed to carry out these large-scale engineering activities will cause further damage. At some point, the balance tips and you will find yourself, as the Boston Globe entitled a 2008 editorial about the Housatonic, “Destroying a river to clean it.” This is in nobody’s interest. The answer to the question of what to do about the Rest of River can be found only through carefully weighing the potential advantages and disadvantages of each remedial approach. GE has done this in this Revised CMS Report. GE used EPA’s model to forecast future PCB levels in fish, water, and sediment. GE used assumptions based on EPA’s human health and ecological risk assessments to compare the various approaches. GE does not agree with EPA about all of these assumptions – in fact, GE strongly disagrees with the Agency about several of them – but in preparing the Revised CMS Report, GE used EPA’s assumptions. Using this information, the advantages and disadvantages of each potential remedial approach were determined. The results of this process show that, when it comes to the Rest of River, less really is more. The least intrusive approaches to cleaning up river sediment and floodplain soil will meet EPA’s human health criteria, are protective of the environment, and are far more likely to achieve that goal without “destroying a river to clean it.” There are several reasons that support this conclusion. First, all of the approaches that GE studied involving any PCB removal will adequately protect human health according to standards developed by EPA. Second, none of the approaches that have been suggested will decrease PCB levels in Housatonic River fish in Massachusetts to a point that, according to EPA’s assumptions, would allow people to eat those fish without restriction. No matter which alternative is adopted, the Rest of River will remain a “catch and release” fishery for the foreseeable future. Third, although applying EPA’s assumptions does indicate some differences in how the various remedial alternatives will affect certain animal species, the incremental PCB reductions predicted for the more aggressive approaches are outweighed by the serious and certain ecological damage that would result from those approaches. It is important to remember that the amount of PCBs in the Rest of River is not going to increase. PCB levels are already dropping, and they will continue to drop no matter what is or isn’t done next. And we already know that even the highest historic levels of PCB contamination have not destroyed or degraded the ecology of the Rest of River; PCBs have been present for more than 70 years and yet the indigenous flora and fauna have flourished. These observations give us every reason to believe that the animal and plant populations of the Rest of River will continue to do just fine even if no further clean-up occurs. On the other hand, there is no question that the more aggressive remediation alternatives under consideration will permanently damage the ecosystem. Riverbanks will be 2 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary permanently deforested and reshaped; the riverbed will be altered; forests in the floodplains will be removed and will take generations to return to their current state (if they ever do); the vernal pools that dot the landscape will be destroyed; and the broad swath of largely contiguous forest will be fragmented by man-made access roads and staging areas. Habitats will be disrupted, populations will be displaced, and there is no way to know what will replace them. Answering the question of what to do about the Rest of River, then, comes down to a comparison of what we do know and don’t know. We know that the Rest of River is flourishing without any remediation at all. We know that the less intrusive removal alternatives will fully protect human health using EPA’s assumptions. We don’t know how much damage the Rest of River can bear from an attempt to remove more PCBs. Therefore, GE believes that the least intrusive approach – “Monitored Natural Recovery” – is best here. However, taking into account EPA’s human health and ecological risk assessments, and using numerous other assumptions and inputs specified by EPA even though GE strongly disagrees with them, the combination of sediment and floodplain remedial alternatives known as SED 10/FP 9 will provide the greatest benefit with the least ecological harm. Although it will require a substantial sediment removal project in the first five miles of the Rest of River and in Woods Pond, together with removal of floodplain soil, SED 10/FP 9 has been carefully designed to minimize the severe harm that will result from more invasive measures, and it will still meet all of EPA’s human-health based goals (except for those relating to fish consumption, which can’t be achieved by any remedial alternative). GE has also concluded that the excavated sediments and soils should be placed in a secure disposal facility built near the River but outside the floodplain, which will avoid the detriments of the other disposal and treatment options, especially with larger removal volumes. ES.1 Background Upstream Source Control/Remediation: For over 30 years, the General Electric Company (GE) has been conducting source control and environmental cleanup activities at and near its former plant site in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, to address polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). For example, during this period, GE has conducted major source control activities at and near its former plant to prevent and control PCBs present in soils and underground oil plumes from entering the River. During the last 11 years, GE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have performed cleanup activities under a comprehensive agreement embodied in a Consent Decree (CD) that became effective in 2000. Under the CD, GE and EPA remediated the two miles of the River that runs adjacent to and downstream of the former GE plant to the confluence of the East and West Branches of the River (the Confluence). Specifically, GE performed extensive sediment and bank soil remediation in the Upper ½-Mile Reach of the River (between the Newell Street and the Lyman Street Bridges in Pittsfield); and EPA then 3 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary remediated the 1½-Mile Reach of the River (between the Lyman Street Bridge and the Confluence). GE’s remedial efforts in upstream areas have also included remediation of soils in floodplain and former oxbow areas adjacent to the River, remediation of portions of the former GE plant site, and remediation of sediments and riverbank soils in the West Branch adjacent to Dorothy Amos Park in Pittsfield. In addition, over the next 2 to 3 years GE will conduct a sediment removal/capping project in Silver Lake (which discharges to the River) and remediation of Unkamet Brook (which flows into the River). Collectively, these completed and planned activities represent one of the largest remedial projects in EPA Region 1. These activities have significantly reduced and will continue to reduce the amount of PCBs entering the Rest of River area. For example, water column data collected upstream of the Confluence indicate that the remediation in the 2-Mile Reach and adjacent upland areas reduced the concentration of PCBs in the Housatonic River water column by a factor of three to five (from pre- to post-remediation) under both base flow and storm conditions (see Section 6.1.3 of this Report). These reductions are expected to continue due to the ongoing and planned remediation actions upstream of the Confluence. Rest of River Studies Leading Up To the Revised CMS: As part of the settlement embodied in the CD, EPA issued a permit to GE under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (the Permit) relating to the Rest of River. That Permit and the CD specify the process for investigating the Rest of River, and for studying the need for and scope of additional remedial activities.1 From 1997 through 2002, EPA conducted numerous sampling activities and investigations of the Rest of River area, building on the considerable investigations that had previously been conducted by GE and others. The resulting data were presented in GE’s RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Report, finalized in September 2003, which documented the concentrations of PCBs in the surface water, sediments, floodplain soils, and biota of the Rest of River. That report focused in particular on the 10 mile stretch of the River and floodplain between the Confluence and Woods Pond Dam (known as the Primary Study Area or PSA), which contains approximately 90% of the PCBs in the Rest of River and also contains a unique and extraordinary ecosystem with numerous and diverse plant and animal species, including state-listed rare species. Next, EPA performed a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for the Rest of River. GE was then required to develop and submit proposed Interim Media Protection Goals (IMPGs), which are preliminary remediation goals, applicable to various environmental media (e.g., floodplain soil, sediment, fish), that are considered by EPA to be protective of human health and ecological receptors based upon EPA’s findings in the HHRA and ERA. GE did so while expressing its strong disagreements with EPA’s HHRA and ERA and the effect of the disputed issues on the development of the 1 Copies of the reports discussed below are available on EPA’s website for the Housatonic River, http://www.epa.gov/region1/ge/index.html. 4 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary IMPGs. The IMPGs based on EPA’s HHRA and ERA were approved by EPA after GE revised them to incorporate numerous directions from EPA. Under the Permit, attainment of the IMPGs is one of the factors to be considered in evaluating remedial alternatives and is to be balanced along with a number of other factors specified in the Permit (as described below). During this same period, EPA developed a mathematical model to simulate the fate, transport, and bioaccumulation of PCBs between the Confluence and Rising Pond Dam (the most downstream impoundment on the River in Massachusetts). This model estimates PCB concentrations in the water, sediments, and fish in that portion of the Rest of River for a period of 52 years into the future (or 30 years after completion of remediation, if longer), both in the absence of any additional remediation and in response to various sediment remedial alternatives. It has been used to assess the effects of the sediment remedial alternatives evaluated in this Report on future PCB levels in water, sediments, and fish in the Massachusetts portion of the River.2 In February 2007, as required by the Permit and after discussions with EPA, GE submitted a Proposal to EPA for conducting the Corrective Measures Study (CMS) – an evaluation of potential remedial alternatives. The CMS Proposal, along with a number of addenda, identified and screened potential remediation technologies for the Rest of River, developed a set of specific remedial alternatives for detailed evaluation, and described the proposed methodology to be used for that evaluation. Those remedial alternatives covered a broad range of potential approaches – from no action to extensive removal of sediments and floodplain soils. EPA approved the CMS Proposal and addenda, subject to a number of conditions. GE submitted a CMS Report to EPA in March 2008. The public and the Commonwealth expressed significant concerns about that report. For example, the Commonwealth advised EPA of its view that the CMS Report was inadequate and needed to be revised to consider other options that did not cause the ecological damage inherent in the remedial alternatives presented in the CMS Report. EPA then provided extensive comments on the report in September 2008, requiring that GE provide substantial additional information and perform further analyses. GE began these analyses and discussed with EPA and the Commonwealth the development of a new remedial alternative (consisting of both sediment and floodplain remediation) that would reduce the adverse ecological impacts from remedial construction activities. EPA agreed that the new alternative should be included in the revised CMS evaluations, and requested that another set of remedial alternatives (one for 2 EPA did not design its model to forecast PCB concentrations past Rising Pond Dam. Therefore, at EPA’s request, GE developed a simplistic procedure for extrapolating the results of the model downstream into Connecticut. The estimates from that extrapolation procedure are used in this report, but are highly uncertain. 5 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary sediments and one for the floodplain), which EPA had developed and described, also be evaluated. In March 2009, GE submitted a detailed interim response to EPA’s September 2008 comments. In addition, in August 2009, GE submitted a work plan for the evaluation of the additional remedial alternatives mentioned above. That work plan proposed to evaluate the new and the previous remedial alternatives in a Revised CMS Report. EPA conditionally approved that work plan on January 15, 2010. GE disputed certain of the conditions mandated by EPA staff to EPA management, but EPA management upheld its staff’s decisions in a decision issued on June 10, 2010. In the meantime, in February 2010, GE submitted an in-depth evaluation of the impacts of the remedial alternatives and the potential for avoiding or minimizing those impacts and restoring affected habitats in six “example areas” identified by EPA in the PSA. GE’s Reservations of Rights: During the course of the process described above, GE has disagreed with EPA on many key issues, as stated in numerous reports and submittals. First, GE has a fundamental disagreement with EPA regarding the effects of PCBs on human health and the environment. The toxicity values that EPA uses to assess what it regards as the cancer and non-cancer risks of PCBs to humans are based on laboratory studies of animals. However, based on the scientific evidence from human exposure studies, PCBs have not been shown to cause cancer in humans or to cause adverse non- cancer effects in humans at environmental levels.3 Further, the evidence does not indicate that PCBs have adversely affected the Rest of River ecosystem; indeed, field surveys by both EPA and GE contractors have demonstrated abundant, diverse, and thriving fish and wildlife populations and communities in the Rest of River area despite over 70 years of exposure to PCBs. In addition, GE disagrees with many of the specific assumptions, input values, interpretations, and conclusions in EPA’s HHRA and ERA, which overstate the risks of PCBs to humans and ecological receptors. GE also disagrees with numerous directives that EPA has issued to GE both for revising the IMPGs and for conducting the CMS. GE has preserved its position on all of these issues. As discussed above, upstream remediation and source control activities, along with natural recovery processes, have significantly reduced the PCBs in the Rest of River, and those improvements are continuing.4 As documented in this report, further remediation would unavoidably and severely damage the ecosystem of the River and floodplain, including riverbanks, mature forests, vernal pools and other wetlands, and the plants and animals that 3 In addition, a number of recent studies on human and animal cells have shown that human cells are many times less sensitive to the effects of PCBs than the cells of the laboratory test animals used in the studies on which EPA’s toxicity values are based. See Section 1.2 of this report. 4 For example, the most recent adult fish sampling data from the River, which were collected in 2008, show a substantial reduction in PCB concentrations in the fish in the PSA from those measured in 1998 and 2002. 6 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary inhabit or use the River and floodplain. In these circumstances, GE has concluded that, apart from monitoring the ongoing source control and natural recovery processes, it would be inappropriate to conduct additional remedial actions in the Rest of River area. Nevertheless, while preserving its position, GE has, as required by the CD and the Permit, conducted the evaluations in this Revised CMS taking into account EPA’s HHRA and ERA and using the assumptions, procedures, and other inputs that EPA directed GE to use. Many of these EPA assumptions and directives with which GE disagrees have fundamentally shaped the analyses presented herein and the resulting conclusion as to which set of remedial alternatives best meets the Permit criteria. Given GE’s objections and its appeal rights under the CD and the Permit, this Revised CMS Report should not be regarded as a proposal by GE to implement those alternatives. ES.2 Scope of Revised CMS Report This Revised CMS Report presents the results of a detailed evaluation of a range of remedial alternatives, approved by EPA for evaluation, for sediments (including riverbanks), floodplain soils, and treatment and/or disposition of removed materials. In addition, this report presents a detailed comparative evaluation of several combinations of sediment and floodplain remedial alternatives, ranging from MNR to very extensive remedial measures. Reaches Addressed: For purposes of these evaluations, GE has used the Rest of River reaches and subreaches designated by EPA. These are shown on Figure ES-1 and are as follows: • Reach 5 – from the Confluence to Woods Pond, which is further divided into three subreaches – 5A (Confluence to Pittsfield wastewater treatment plant [WWTP]); 5B (Pittsfield WWTP to Roaring Brook); and 5C (Roaring Brook to start of Woods Pond) – and which also contains a large number of backwater areas adjacent to the River; • Reach 6 – Woods Pond; • Reach 7 – Woods Pond Dam to Rising Pond (the next large impoundment); • Reach 8 – Rising Pond; • Reach 9 – Rising Pond Dam to the Connecticut border; and • Reaches 10-17 – Connecticut border to Long Island Sound. Sediment/Riverbank Alternatives: For sediments and erodible riverbanks, GE has evaluated a total of 10 individual remedial alternatives (designated SED 1 through SED 10). With the exception of SED 1 (no action) and SED 2 (MNR only), these alternatives use various combinations of remediation technologies, including: (a) sediment removal (via mechanical or hydraulic methods) followed in most cases by capping or placement of backfill; (b) placement of a clean cap over existing sediments; (c) thin-layer capping 7 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary (placement of a thin layer of clean material over existing sediments to provide a reduction in PCB concentrations in the biologically active zone, thereby accelerating the natural recovery process); (d) stabilization of riverbanks, with removal of bank soil where appropriate, to minimize erosion of bank soils into the River; and (e) MNR (reliance on naturally occurring processes to contain or otherwise reduce the bioavailability of PCBs in sediment, with monitoring to assess the rate of recovery). The 10 individual sediment remedial alternatives evaluated in the Revised CMS are summarized, and key statistics regarding each (e.g., removal volume, capping area, estimated implementation duration) are presented, in Tables ES-1 and ES-2, respectively. 8 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary Table ES-1. Summary of Remediation Alternatives for Sediments and Riverbanks Alternative Description SED 1 No action. SED 2 Monitored natural recovery (MNR). SED 3 Sediment removal in Reach 5A; thin-layer capping in portion of Reach 5C and in Woods Pond. Sediment removal in Reach 5A; combination of sediment removal, engineered capping, and/or SED 4 thin-layer capping in Reaches 5B and 5C and Woods Pond; thin-layer capping in portions of the Reach 5 backwaters. Sediment removal in Reaches 5A and 5B; combination of sediment removal, engineered capping, SED 5 and/or thin-layer capping in Reach 5C, the Reach 5 backwaters, and Woods Pond; thin-layer capping in Rising Pond. Sediment removal in Reaches 5A, 5B, and 5C; combination of sediment removal, engineered SED 6 capping, and/or thin-layer capping in the Reach 5 backwaters, Woods Pond, and Rising Pond; thin- layer capping in Reach 7 impoundments. Sediment removal in Reaches 5A, 5B, and 5C; combination of sediment removal, engineered SED 7 capping, and/or thin-layer capping in the Reach 5 backwaters, Woods Pond, Reach 7 impoundments, and Rising Pond. Removal of all sediments with PCBs above 1 mg/kg from the main stem and backwaters of entire SED 8 River between Confluence and Woods Pond Dam, from Reach 7 impoundments, and from Rising Pond. Sediment removal in entire Reach 5 channel, Woods Pond, Reach 7 impoundments, and Rising SED 9 Pond; combination of sediment removal and engineered capping in Reach 5 backwaters with PCBs > 1 mg/kg. Sediment removal in portions of Reach 5A based on application of criteria designed to avoid or SED 10 minimize adverse ecological effects; sediment removal from top 2.5 feet in portions of Woods Pond based on PCB concentrations. Notes: 1. Under SED 3 through SED 10, all portions of the River where active remediation is not specified would be subject to MNR. 2. Where sediment removal is specified, the excavations would be capped or, in some instances (under SED 7 and SED 8), backfilled to the pre-existing grade, except that: (a) under SED 9, shallower portions of Woods Pond would have a thinner cap than the depth of removal; and (b) under SED 10, the excavated portions of Woods Pond would not be capped or backfilled. 3. All alternatives other than SED 1, SED 2, and SED 10 also include stabilization of all riverbanks in Reaches 5A and 5B, with removal of bank soil as appropriate. SED 10 includes bank stabilization/soil removal on select riverbanks in Reaches 5A and 5B. 4. All alternatives also include continued maintenance of fish consumption advisories. 9 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary Table ES-2. Overview of Volumes, Areas, and Duration for Sediment Alternatives SED 1/2 SED 3 SED 4 SED 5 SED 6 SED 7 SED 8 SED 9 SED 10 Sediment removal volume (cubic 0 134,000 262,000 377,000 521,000 770,000 2,252,000 886,000 235,000 yards [cy]) Bank soil removal 0 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 6,700 volume (cy) Capping after 0 42 91 126 178 150 0 333 20 removal (acres) Backfill after 0 0 0 0 0 69 351 0 0 removal (acres) Capping without 0 0 37 60 45 45 0 3 0 removal (acres) Thin-layer capping 0 97 119 102 112 72 0 0 0 (acres) Time to implement 0 10 15 18 21 26 52 14 5 (years) Note: MNR would be a component of all alternatives except SED 1. Floodplain Soil Alternatives: For floodplain soil, GE has evaluated a total of nine individual remedial alternatives (designated FP 1 through FP 9). Except for the no action alternative (FP 1), these alternatives all involve the removal of soil, followed by replacement of that soil with clean backfill and revegetation of the remediated area. These alternatives are of three types: (1) alternatives that achieve average PCB concentrations that meet particular EPA-approved IMPGs for a given area (FP 2, FP 3, FP 4, FP 7, and FP 9);5 (2) alternatives based on removal of soils within a given depth that exceed a specified PCB concentration (FP 5 and FP 6); and (3) a combination of the those approaches (FP 8). The nine individual floodplain soil alternatives are described, and the total removal volume and removal area for each are listed, in Tables ES-3 and ES-4, respectively.6 5 The IMPGs generally consist of ranges of numbers. For example, those intended to be protective of human health include values that correspond to various cancer risk levels (as determined by EPA) within EPA’s acceptable cancer risk range – from a 10-4 cancer risk (a 1 in 10,000 chance of excess cancer) to a 10-6 cancer risk (a 1 in a million chance of excess cancer) – as well as values based on assumed non-cancer impacts (as determined by EPA). Most of the ecological IMPGs consist of ranges of concentrations (based on thresholds in EPA’s ERA) from an upper to a lower bound. The above- listed floodplain alternatives were designed to meet certain selected sets of those IMPGs. 6 It is assumed that each of these alternatives would be combined and coordinated with a sediment remediation alternative and could be implemented within the duration of the associated sediment alternative. 10 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary Table ES-3. Summary of Remediation Alternatives for Floodplain Soils Alternative Description FP 1 No action. FP 2 Soil removal/backfilling to achieve the health-based IMPGs based on 10-4 cancer risk or on non- cancer (whichever is lower). FP 3 Same as FP 2 except: (a) in certain frequently used areas, soil removal/backfilling to achieve the health-based IMPGs based on 10-5 cancer risk or on non-cancer (whichever is lower); and (b) supplemental remediation to achieve upper-bound IMPGs for ecological receptors. FP 4 Soil removal/backfilling to achieve the health-based IMPGs based on 10-5 cancer risk or on non- cancer (whichever is lower). Supplemental remediation to achieve upper-bound IMPGs for ecological receptors. FP 5 Removal of soils that contain PCB concentrations of 50 mg/kg or greater, with backfilling. FP 6 Removal of soils that contain PCB concentrations of 25 mg/kg or greater, with backfilling. FP 7 Soil removal/backfilling to achieve the health-based IMPGs based on 10-6 cancer risk, but no lower than 2 mg/kg for direct human contact (level specified in Consent Decree as the standard for residential use). Supplemental remediation to achieve lower-bound IMPGs for ecological receptors. FP 8 Soil removal/backfilling to achieve the health-based IMPGs based on 10-5 cancer risk or on non- cancer (whichever is lower). Supplemental remediation in vernal pools to achieve lower-bound IMPG for amphibians. Additional removal of all remaining soils that contain PCB concentrations of 50 mg/kg or greater, with backfilling. FP 9 Same as FP 2 with additional soil removal/backfilling to achieve the health-based RME IMPGs based on 10-4 cancer risk or on non-cancer (whichever is lower) in top 3 feet in certain heavily used subareas. Notes: 1. The health-based IMPGs refer to the IMPGs that were based on EPA’s “Reasonable Maximum Exposure” assumptions in its Human Health Risk Assessment. 2. For all alternatives, the remediation described applies to the top foot of soil, except that FP 3 through FP 9 also involve additional remediation in certain heavily used subareas as necessary to achieve specified criteria in the top 3 feet of soil. Table ES-4. Overview of Volumes and Areas for Floodplain Alternatives FP 1 FP 2 FP 3 FP 4 FP 5 FP 6 FP 7 FP 8 FP 9 Removal 0 22,000 74,000 121,000 104,000 320,000 631,000 177,000 26,000 volume (cy) Removal 0 13 44 72 63 197 387 108 14 area (acres) Combinations of Sediment and Floodplain Alternatives: Since the selected remedy for the Rest of River will involve both a sediment/riverbank remediation component and a floodplain remediation component, the comparative evaluation of alternatives in this Revised CMS Report has been conducted for certain combinations of sediment and floodplain (SED/FP) alternatives, as approved by EPA. Those combinations (which span the full range of remedial alternatives in terms of removal volumes and affected areas) are as follows: 11 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary • SED 2 and FP 1; • SED 3 and FP 3; • SED 5 and FP 4; • SED 6 and FP 4; • SED 8 and FP 7; • SED 9 and FP 8; and • SED 10 and FP 9. The following table provides an overview of each of these combinations: Table ES-5. Overview of Combinations of Sediment and Floodplain Alternatives Remedial SED 2/ SED 3/ SED 5/ SED 6/ SED 8/ SED 9/ SED 10/ Components1 FP 1 FP 3 FP 4 FP 4 FP 7 FP 8 FP 9 Removal Volume (cubic yards) Sediment -- 134,000 377,000 521,000 2,252,000 886,000 235,000 Riverbank Soil -- 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 6,700 Floodplain Soil -- 74,000 121,000 121,000 615,000 177,000 26,000 Total -- 243,000 533,000 677,000 2,902,000 1,098,000 267,700 Area Subject to Sediment/Soil Removal (acres)2 Sediment -- 42 126 178 351 333 62 Floodplain -- 44 72 72 377 108 14 Total -- 86 198 250 728 441 76 Riverbank Subject to Stabilization/Bank Soil Removal (linear miles, considering both banks) Riverbank - 14 14 14 14 14 1.6 Capping Without Removal or Thin-Layer Capping (acres) Capping -- -- 60 45 -- 3 -- Thin-Layer Capping -- 97 102 112 -- -- -- Total Surface Area Impacted (acres) and Construction Duration (years) Area Impacted by -- 183 360 407 728 444 76 Remediation Area Impacted by Access Roads/ -- 94 97 106 97 80 36 Staging Areas3 Construction Duration -- 10 18 21 52 14 5 1. MNR would also be a component of all combinations. 2. All areas subject to removal would be capped or backfilled following removal except for 42 acres of Woods Pond under SED 10/FP 9, where sediment would be removed without capping or backfilling. 3. Includes impacted areas outside the floodplain. 12 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary Treatment/Disposition Alternatives: GE has evaluated a total of five alternatives for the treatment and/or disposition of removed sediments and soils. These alternatives include three disposal alternatives and two alternatives that would involve treatment followed by disposal, as follows: • TD 1 – Off-site Disposal: Sediments and soils would be transported for disposal in permitted off-site landfills. • TD 2 – Confined Disposal Facility (CDF): Sediments that are hydraulically dredged from certain river reaches would be pumped into on-site CDF(s) that would be built within a local waterbody.7 • TD 3 – Upland Disposal Facility: Sediments and soils would be placed in an Upland Disposal Facility constructed in an area near the River (but outside the 500-year floodplain), with an engineered cover, impermeable liners, and monitoring systems. • TD 4 – Chemical Extraction: Sediments and soils would be treated using a chemical extraction process, in which an extraction fluid is mixed with those materials to remove some of the PCBs from the solids into the fluid. For purposes of the Revised CMS, it has been assumed that the treated solids would be disposed of off-site and that the fluid would be subject to wastewater treatment.8 • TD 5 – Thermal Desorption: Sediments and soils would be treated using a thermal desorption process, in which most of the PCBs are removed from those materials through application of heat to volatilize the PCBs and the volatilized PCBs are then condensed into a liquid, which would be sent off-site for incineration. This alternative has been evaluated under two assumptions: (a) that a portion of the thermally treated solids would be reused on-site as backfill in the floodplain (after mixing with organic material to promote plant growth and sampling to ensure that the concentrations are sufficiently low to allow reuse) and that the remainder of the treated materials would be sent off-site for disposal; and (b) that all treated sediments and soils would be sent off- site for disposal. Evaluation Criteria: In accordance with the Permit, each of the alternatives and alternative combinations discussed above has been evaluated under three “General Standards” and six “Selection Decision Factors” specified in the Permit. These criteria are as follows: 7 Under this alternative, sediments that are not hydraulically dredged, as well as floodplain and bank soils, would have to be handled by another treatment/disposition method. 8 At EPA’s request, a bench-scale treatability study was conducted of this technology, using a process developed by BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc. A report of that study and an analysis of it are included in this Revised CMS Report. 13 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary General Standards: • Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment; • Control of Sources of Releases; and • Compliance with Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) (or the basis for a waiver of an ARAR under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA]). Selection Decision Factors: • Long-Term Reliability and Effectiveness (including magnitude of residual risk, adequacy and reliability of alternative, and potential long-term adverse impacts on human health or the environment); • Attainment of IMPGs; • Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Wastes; • Short-Term Effectiveness (including impacts to the environment, nearby communities, and workers during implementation); • Implementability; and • Cost. Under the Permit, GE is required to conclude its evaluations with a recommendation as to which alternatives or combination of alternatives, in GE’s opinion, is “best suited to meet the [General Standards] in consideration of the [Selection Decision Factors], including a balancing of those factors against one another.” ES.3 Evaluation Overview: GE has conducted a thorough evaluation of each of the remedial alternatives described above under each of the nine Permit criteria, given the constraints imposed by the Permit and the EPA directives for the Revised CMS Report. Sections 1 through 5 of this Report describe in detail the approaches and procedures used in these evaluations. The evaluations of the individual sediment and floodplain alternatives are presented in Sections 6 and 7, respectively.9 A comparative evaluation of the combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives is presented in Section 8. The evaluation of the treatment/disposition 9 As noted above, the evaluations of the sediment alternatives have used EPA’s model to estimate future PCB concentrations in sediment, surface water, and fish resulting from the implementation of those alternatives. They have also used the extrapolations of the model results into Connecticut, although those extrapolations are highly speculative. EPA’s model has also been used to evaluate the long-term reliability and effectiveness of caps, thin-layer caps, and backfill used in the various remedial alternatives, since the model includes simulations of the forces of erosion under high flow events, including an extreme storm event on the scale of a 50- to 100-year flood. 14 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary alternatives, including a comparative evaluation of those alternatives, is presented in Section 9. Cost estimates for combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives with pertinent treatment/disposition alternatives are presented in Section 10. ES.3.1 Evaluation of Sediment and Floodplain Alternatives This summary of GE’s evaluation of the sediment and floodplain remedial alternatives focuses on the evaluation of the combinations of those alternatives listed in Table ES-5 above. Based on its evaluation, GE has concluded that, given the constraints imposed by EPA’s directives, the combination of SED 10 and FP 9 is “best suited” to meet the General Standards in the Permit, in consideration and balancing of the Selection Decision Factors. That combination would involve the following elements: • Removal (followed by capping) of 66,000 cubic yards (cy) of sediment over 20 acres in selected areas of the River in Reach 5A; • Stabilization of the riverbanks in selected areas in Reaches 5A and 5B (totaling approximately 1.6 linear miles), including removal of approximately 6,700 cy of bank soil; • Removal of 169,000 cy of sediments over 42 acres in Woods Pond (in areas with the highest PCB concentrations in the upper sediments • MNR in the remaining portions of the River in the Rest of River area; and • Removal of 26,000 cy of floodplain soil (followed by backfilling) from approximately 14 acres of the floodplain. The reasons for this conclusion are summarized below. ES.3.1.1 Attainment of General Standards Overall Protection of Human Health: The evaluation of protection of human health in this Revised CMS Report has considered initially the extent to which the sediment and floodplain alternatives would achieve the IMPGs based on EPA’s HHRA. For direct human contact with sediments and floodplain soils, all of the combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives identified above would achieve IMPGs within or below EPA’s cancer risk range in all sediment and floodplain exposure areas established by EPA. In addition, all of those combinations would achieve the IMPGs based on non-cancer impacts in all such exposure areas, except that SED 2/FP 1 (MNR only) would not achieve those IMPGs for the most highly exposed individuals in 24 of the 120 floodplain exposure areas. Thus, even accepting EPA’s HHRA, all of the combinations of alternatives would provide protection of human health from direct contact with sediments and soils, with the exception of purported non- cancer effects in a few floodplain areas under SED 2/FP 1. For human consumption of agricultural products from the floodplain, all of the sediment-floodplain alternative combinations would achieve IMPGs within or below EPA’s cancer risk range, as well as the non-cancer IMPGs, in all farm areas evaluated for such consumption and thus would provide human health protection. 15 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary For human consumption of fish from the River, the post-remediation concentrations predicted by EPA’s model under all combinations of alternatives would not, in Massachusetts, achieve both the cancer- and non-cancer-based IMPGs based on unrestricted consumption of fish within the model projection period (which ranges from 52 to 81 years). As a result, no matter the extent of remediation, fish consumption advisories would have to remain in place indefinitely to provide human health protection from the asserted risks reported in EPA’s HHRA for human consumption of fish. In Connecticut, where fish PCB levels are already much lower, extrapolation of EPA’s model results downstream (although highly uncertain) indicates that all of the alternative combinations would achieve very low PCB levels in fish by the end of the model period – i.e., 0.1 mg/kg or lower (except 0.16 mg/kg in one impoundment under SED 2/FP 1) – which may allow the Connecticut Department of Health to remove the fish consumption advisories for PCBs. In the meantime, fish consumption advisories would remain in place in Connecticut for human health protection.10 In considering overall protection of human health, it should also be noted that the larger combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives would result in a greater risk of fatalities and injuries, both to on-site workers as a result of workplace accidents and to the public as a result of traffic accidents. For example, total injury estimates due to both workplace and traffic accidents indicate that SED 10/FP 9 would involve 3.7 such injuries, but that the larger combinations would involve approximately 7.5 to 41 such injuries, depending on the size of the project. Overall Protection of the Environment: As EPA guidance makes clear, the standard of “overall protection” of the environment requires a balancing of the short-term and long-term adverse ecological impacts of the alternatives with the residual risks (EPA, 1990a, 1997a, 1999, 2005d). Thus, in assessing achievement of that standard, it is essential that any asserted risks of PCBs be weighed against the adverse ecological impacts from implementation of the remedial alternatives. Application of the ecological IMPGs to the combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives under evaluation indicates that SED 2/FP 1, SED 10/FP 9, SED 3/FP 3, and SED 5/FP 4 would achieve the IMPGs for some ecological receptor groups in all areas and would achieve the IMPGs for other receptor groups in some areas. For example, SED 10/FP 9 would achieve the IMPGs for warmwater fish and threatened and endangered species, as well as levels within the range of the IMPGs for omnivorous/carnivorous mammals, in all averaging areas; and it would achieve levels within the range of the IMPGs for benthic invertebrates in 84% of the averaging areas, for amphibians in 21% of the 10 Both Massachusetts and Connecticut also have state-wide fish consumption advisories based on mercury, unrelated to releases from the former GE plant. These advisories would not be affected by any reductions in PCB concentrations. 16 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary averaging areas, and for insectivorous birds in 58% of the areas.11 The remaining combinations – SED 6/FP 4, SED 8/FP 7, and SED 9/FP 8 – would achieve the ecological IMPGs or levels within the ranges of those IMPGs for all receptor groups in all averaging areas. However, attainment of IMPGs, as only one of the Selection Decision Factors under the Permit, is not determinative of whether an alternative would provide overall protection of the environment, but rather is a consideration to be balanced against the other Selection Decision Factors. The fact that there are exceedances of the IMPGs for certain receptors in certain areas does not translate into adverse impacts that would prevent the maintenance of healthy local populations of those receptors, let alone negatively impact the overall wildlife community in the Rest of River area. This is true, first, because of the highly conservative nature of the individual averaging areas to which the IMPGs are applied (as required by EPA) and the fact that the local populations of these receptors extend beyond those areas.12 Furthermore, field surveys conducted by both EPA and GE, as well as other existing ecological information, have documented the presence of numerous and diverse plant and animal species (including state-listed rare species) that continue to reproduce and inhabit the River and floodplain in the PSA despite the fact that PCBs have been present in the area for over 70 years. Thus, even accepting the IMPGs based on EPA’s ERA, the impact of the IMPG exceedances on the maintenance of healthy local populations of these receptors is at best uncertain. Moreover, as noted above, the standard of “overall protection” of the environment requires a balancing of the short-term and long-term adverse ecological impacts of the alternatives with the residual risks. In particular, “it is important to determine whether the loss of a contaminated habitat is a greater impact than the benefit of providing a new, modified but less contaminated habitat” (EPA, 2005d, p. 6-6). Thus, it is critical that any uncertain risks that may be indicated by IMPG exceedances be weighed against the certain adverse impacts on the habitat of further remedial efforts to achieve the ecological IMPGs. As discussed in detail in this report, implementation of any of the combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives under evaluation except SED 2/FP 1 and SED 10/FP 9 would cause substantial and widespread short-term and long-term adverse impacts on the ecosystem of the PSA and the plants and animals that use it regardless of the implementation of restoration measures. These adverse impacts include: 11 That combination would not achieve the IMPGs for coldwater fish, piscivorous birds, or piscivorous mammals in any area. 12 For example, the local populations of wood frogs, wood ducks, and shrews (which EPA has selected to represent amphibians, insectivorous birds, and omnivorous/carnivorous mammals) extend throughout the PSA; and the local population of mink (as representative of piscivorous mammals) extends beyond the boundaries of the PSA, including to tributaries of the River and to other riverine areas in the vicinity. 17 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary • River Impacts: The removal and/or capping of sediments in the River would remove or bury the existing aquatic vegetation and benthic invertebrates in those areas, displace the fish, and change the surface of the riverbed from its current condition (sand, sand and gravel, or silt) to a substrate composed of a stone cap or backfill material. This would alter the riverbed habitat until the natural deposition of sediments from upstream changes the surface back to a condition approximating its current condition, which could take many years, especially if the upstream areas are similarly impacted. While it is expected that, over time, vegetation, invertebrates, and fish would recolonize these areas, the length of time for that to occur and the abundance of organisms and mix of species in the recolonized community are uncertain, the return of specialized or rare species is doubtful, and colonization by invasive species is highly probable. • Riverbank Impacts: All of these combinations of alternatives would involve the implementation of bank stabilization measures on both sides of the River along the 7 miles in Reaches 5A and 5B (14 linear miles of riverbanks) to control erosion. While these measures would include use of bioengineering techniques where appropriate, they would cause long-term and permanent adverse impacts on the riverbank habitat. By design, these measures would result in the permanent elimination of vertical and undercut banks, which provide critical habitat for several species of birds and other animals. They would also require the removal of the mature trees and other vegetation from the banks, as well as a long-term management plan to prevent the reforestation of the stabilized banks (due to the potentially destabilizing effect of large trees on those banks). This would result in a permanent change in the vegetative character of the banks from their current wooded condition to a more open condition with dense shrub growth, with a corresponding reduction in the quality of the habitat for birds, dragonflies, reptiles, and mammals that currently use the mature trees on the banks. Further, the implementation of stabilization measures would produce a long-term reduction in animal slides and burrows on the banks and in access routes for the movement of smaller and less mobile animals to and from the River. As a result of these changes, there would be a long-term reduction in species richness and diversity on the riverbanks, and the stabilized riverbanks would never return to their current condition. • Floodplain Forest Impacts: The floodplain soil removal activities and the necessary access roads and staging areas in the floodplain (to support both sediment and floodplain remediation) would have long-term negative impacts on the floodplain forests, which include a variety of forested wetland habitats. These activities would involve the removal of all trees, shrubs, and other vegetation in the affected areas and (for soil removal) replacement of existing native soil with commercial backfill having different characteristics. In the areas of mature floodplain forests that would be impacted by these activities (ranging from 38 to 178 acres under these combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives), this would result in a long-term loss of those forested habitats. It would take at least 50 to 100 years for a replanted forest community to reach a mature condition comparable to current conditions, and that progression could take even longer and would be unreliable in large cleared areas due to cumulative 18 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary stresses from floods, changes in microclimate, changes in hydrology, and colonization by invasive species. During that period, there would be a loss of the forest wildlife species (including rare species) that currently utilize these mature forested wetland habitats, and the return of at least some of those species would be doubtful. • Other Wetland Impacts: In other impacted floodplain wetland areas (ranging from 21 to 75 acres under these combinations), the soil removal activities and construction of access roads and staging areas would cause changes in the soil conditions, vegetation, and hydrology of the wetlands. These impacts would last until soil and hydrological conditions similar to pre-remediation conditions return through flooding and other natural processes – which is unpredictable. During this period, the wildlife that use these wetlands would be lost. In fact, even after the return of such conditions, the biological communities that are re-established may not match the pre-remediation communities. For example, there would be a high potential for proliferation of invasive plants, and the return of sensitive species, including state-listed wildlife species, would be doubtful. • Vernal Pool Impacts: Each of these combinations of sediment and floodplain remedial alternatives would involve excavation and replacement of soils in all or portions of most (88% or more) of the vernal pools in the PSA floodplain. These activities would cause an immediate loss, in all or parts of these pools, of the amphibian and other species that depend on vernal pools for breeding. They would also cause both short-term and long-term alterations in the hydrology, vegetation, and soil conditions of these vernal pools. The ability to re-establish these characteristics of vernal pools, especially their hydrology, is limited and highly susceptible to failure. Moreover, these combinations of alternatives would involve considerable disturbances of the habitats surrounding the vernal pools, which (in the immediately adjacent areas) are critical for maintaining water quality and providing shade and litter for the pools and (in areas up to 750 feet from the pools) provide a variety of protective cover, temperature and moisture regulation, and overwintering habitat functions for the vernal pool amphibians. Even small impacts to these habitats have the potential to disrupt important aspects of those areas’ non-breeding functions for the vernal pool amphibians. In addition, the disturbances within and around the vernal pools would create a high potential for predators (e.g., green frogs, bullfrogs) to invade individual vernal pools, which would further undermine the re-establishment of the vernal pool functions. Due to these impacts, it is highly likely that the full complement of characteristics that contribute to vernal pool functions would not be re established in at least many of the affected vernal pools. As a result, there would be a long-term or permanent loss of sensitive vernal pool species in the PSA. • River/Floodplain Corridor Impacts: These combinations of sediment and floodplain remedial alternatives would result in fragmentation of the contiguous, largely undisturbed forested riparian/floodplain corridor in the PSA. Such habitat fragmentation would displace some species and disrupt the dispersal and migratory movements of 19 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary species that rely on the existing forested riparian corridor to facilitate access and movement. Under all of the combinations of alternatives except SED 2/FP 1 and SED 10/FP 9, these impacts would occur over extensive areas of the Rest of River, as shown by the impacted area acreages in Table ES-5 above. Overall, these impacts would cause severe harm to the animals that the IMPGs were designed to protect. As a result, these combinations of alternatives would have a net negative ecological impact on the Rest of River and thus would not meet the standard of providing overall protection of the environment. Implementation of SED 2/FP 1 would not produce any of these adverse impacts. However, based on EPA’s conclusions in its ERA (which GE strongly disagrees with but has been directed to follow), that combination of alternatives may not be fully protective of the environment due to the number and extent of exceedances of the ecological IMPGs (although the impact of these exceedances on the maintenance of healthy local populations of the wildlife receptors is still uncertain). While SED 10/FP 9 would have some of the above-described short-term and long-term adverse ecological effects in certain areas, it would minimize those impacts relative to the other combinations of sediment and floodplain removal alternatives and would not produce widespread long-term impacts on the overall environment of the PSA. Based on balancing the certain adverse impacts of remedial activities with the, at most, uncertain risks of PCBs remaining in the ecosystem, SED 10/FP 9 would provide overall protection of the environment, since it would (a) reduce the PCB exposure levels of ecological receptors and provide additional protection from the perceived PCB effects reported in EPA’s ERA, while at the same time (b) causing the least amount of environmental damage of any of the combinations involving removal. Control of Sources of Releases: The extent to which the combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives would control sources of PCB releases focuses on the sediment components of those combinations, because the floodplain is not a significant source of PCB releases to the River, as it is generally flat, well vegetated, and depositional in nature. Completed and ongoing source control and remediation measures upstream of the Confluence, along with natural recovery processes, have resulted and will continue to result in significant reductions in the mass of PCBs entering the Rest of River. As noted above, water column data indicate that the upstream source control and remediation actions reduced the PCB concentrations in the water entering the Rest of River by a factor of three to five. EPA’s model estimates that, in 52 years, the upstream remediation and natural recovery processes (reflected in the simulation of SED 2) would result in further reductions of 37% and 41% (relative to current levels) in the mass of PCBs passing Woods Pond and Rising Pond Dams, respectively, and a reduction of 50% in the mass of PCBs transported from the River to the floodplain in Reaches 5 and 6. The sediment components of the other combinations of alternatives would control additional sources within the Rest of River by permanently removing and/or capping PCB-containing sediments, resulting in an 20 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary additional reduction in PCB transport in the River and to the floodplain. The model results indicate that, under SED 10, the mass of PCBs passing both Woods Pond and Rising Pond Dams would decrease by 62% relative to current levels, while the PCB mass transported to the Reach 5/6 floodplain would decrease by 68%. Under SED 3, the modeled total decrease in these three PCB loads (i.e., mass transport) would be 94%, 87%, and 97%, respectively. For alternatives greater than SED 3, the modeled reductions in all three loads level off, and are generally greater than 95%, achieving little additional reduction in the PCB transport passing Woods Pond and Rising Pond Dams and to the Reach 5/6 floodplain despite the remediation of substantially more surface area and the consequent increase in adverse ecological impacts. Moreover, EPA’s model predicts no significant differences among all these alternatives in the extent to which, following their implementation, a large flood event could cause buried sediments to be exposed. Compliance with ARARs: The detailed analyses presented in later sections of this report show the following with respect to the compliance of the combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives with requirements that have been identified as potential ARARs: • Based on forecasts from EPA’s model, SED 2/FP 1 and SED 10/FP 9 would not achieve the federal and state water quality criterion for freshwater aquatic life (0.014 μg/L) in Massachusetts (but would in Connecticut). The other combinations of alternatives would achieve that criterion according to the same model. However, where it is not met, this criterion should be waived under CERCLA on the ground that the actions necessary to achieve it would result in greater risk to the environment than alternatives that do not achieve that criterion, as discussed above under protection of the environment. • Based on EPA's model forecasts, none of the sediment-floodplain combinations would achieve the very low federal and Massachusetts water quality criterion based on human consumption of organisms (0.000064 μg/L) in any of the Massachusetts reaches or in one or more of the four Connecticut impoundments. For that reason, that criterion should be waived under CERCLA as technically impracticable to meet. • SED 2/FP 1 would achieve all the relevant location-specific and action-specific ARARs (since SED 2 would meet the ARARs relating to MNR and there are no ARARs for FP 1). The other combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives could be designed and implemented to achieve certain of the potential location-specific and action- specific ARARs, but there are a number of federal and state regulatory requirements that would not be met (including those relating to the protection of the Upper Housatonic ACEC). To the extent that these requirements constitute ARARs, they would need to be waived by EPA as technically impracticable to meet (or on some other ground) under CERCLA. However, the requirements that would not be met, and 21 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary thus would require waivers, are fewer under SED 10/FP 9 than under the other combinations.13 ES.3.1.2 Consideration and Balancing of Selection Decision Factors A balancing of the Selection Decision Factors favors SED 10/FP 9. For example:14 Long-Term Reliability and Effectiveness: In terms of the magnitude of residual risk, all of the combinations of sediment and floodplain remedial alternatives would result in substantial reductions in PCB concentrations in sediments, surface water, and fish in the Rest of River. For example, based on forecasts using EPA’s model, completed and ongoing upstream source control and remediation measures, along with natural recovery processes, as reflected in the simulation of SED 2/FP 1, would result in reductions of 40% to 60% in fish fillet concentrations relative to current conditions (depending on the river reach).15 The other combinations are estimated by the model to result in greater total reductions in fish fillet concentrations – 50% to 80% for SED 10/FP 9, 75% to nearly 100% for SED 3/FP 3, and mostly greater than 90% to nearly 100% for the remaining combinations. However, the additional reductions achieved by SED 3/FP 3 and the larger alternatives would require the removal of substantially more aquatic habitat, with a corresponding increase in the adverse ecological impacts described above. For example, SED 3/FP 3 would adversely impact more than twice the aquatic habitat as SED 10/FP 9 and the remaining alternative combinations would adversely impact approximately 5 to 6 times more aquatic habitat than SED 10/FP 9. Similarly, while the combinations involving floodplain soil removal would reduce the floodplain PCB concentrations over progressively larger areas − from SED 10/FP 9 to SED 3/FP 3 to SED 5/FP 4 and SED 6/FP 4 to SED 9/FP 8 and finally to SED 8/FP 7 - they 13 In addition, under all of the combinations of alternatives except SED 2/FP 1, it is possible that, in the unlikely event that excavated sediments or soils should be found to constitute hazardous waste under RCRA or comparable state regulations (which is not anticipated), the temporary staging areas for the handling of those materials may not meet certain requirements for the storage of hazardous waste. In that unlikely event, such requirements should be waived as technically impracticable. This possibility applies equally to all of these combinations of alternatives. 14 This section focuses on long-term reliability and effectiveness, short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Attainment of IMPGs was discussed previously under Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. With respect to the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes, none of the combinations of alternatives would include any treatment processes that would reduce the toxicity of PCBs in the sediments or soils; reduction of mobility of PCBs in the River can be assessed in terms of the extent to which the alternatives would reduce the transport of PCBs past Woods Pond and Rising Pond Dams and into the PSA floodplain, as discussed above under Control of Sources of Releases; and the removal volumes are shown in Table ES-5 above. 15 It should be noted that the most recent (2008) adult fish sampling data from Reach 5B/5C and Woods Pond show lower PCB concentrations in those fish than the initial concentrations in EPA’s model. This suggests that, over time, SED 2/FP 1 may achieve even lower concentrations than predicted by EPA’s model. This would need to be confirmed by future fish sampling. 22 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary would also have increasingly greater negative impacts on the diverse ecological habitats within the floodplain and the plants and animals that use them. As discussed above, all of the combinations of sediment and floodplain removal alternatives except SED 10/FP 9 would cause substantial and widespread long-term, and in some cases permanent, adverse impacts on the ecosystem of the PSA. These impacts include alteration of the aquatic habitat for an uncertain length of time, a permanent change in the riverbank habitat in Reaches 5A and 5B (including loss of mature overhanging trees and vertical and undercut banks), a long-term loss of floodplain forests and other wetlands in the PSA, a long-term or permanent loss of many of the vernal pools in the PSA, and fragmentation of the contiguous, largely undisturbed forested riparian/floodplain corridor in the PSA. These impacts would result in a corresponding loss of the many and diverse wildlife species, including state-listed rare species, that rely on those habitats. While SED 10/FP 9 would have some of these impacts in some areas, it would minimize those impacts and would not produce widespread long-term impacts on the overall ecosystem of the PSA. Short-Term Effectiveness: The prognosis is much the same for short-term adverse impacts. Apart from SED 2/FP 1, SED 10/FP 9 would cause the fewest such impacts. Since that combination would affect less surface area and have a shorter duration than any of the other alternative combinations involving removal, it would cause less habitat destruction, less disruption of recreational use of the River and floodplain, and a shorter period of disruption to local communities from construction noise and truck traffic.16 Similarly, when compared to the other combinations of sediment and floodplain removal alternatives, SED 10/FP would result in the fewest emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) – e.g., approximately 18% less than SED 3/FP 3, 2.5 times less than SED 5/FP 4, 5 times less than SED 9/FP 8, and 13 times less than SED 8/FP 7. It would also result in the fewest overall truck trips for transport of excavated and replacement materials, with the lowest attendant risk of traffic accidents, and would have the lowest estimated number of injuries to on-site workers. Implementability: All of the combinations of sediment and floodplain removal alternatives under evaluation would use available and established construction techniques (except for an unproven removal/capping approach suggested by EPA to meet its directives for Reach 5A under SED 9). However, based on available information regarding remedies at other sites, no dredging/removal projects have been identified of the magnitude of several of the combinations of sediment and floodplain alternatives being considered here (i.e., SED 3/FP 3, SED 5/FP 4, SED 6/FP 4, SED 8/FP 7, and SED 9/FP 8) in a setting comparable to the Rest of River. As a result, implementation of those combinations would involve complications and uncertainties that have not been encountered at other sites and that 16 In addition, except for SED 3/FP 3 (which would involve the smallest amount of sediment removal), SED 10/FP 9 would result in the lowest potential for resuspension of PCB-containing sediments during sediment removal. 23 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary would not be faced (or would be less significant) for a smaller-scale combination of alternatives, such as SED 10/FP 9. Cost: Estimated costs are presented in Section ES-4 below for combinations of the combined SED/FP alternatives with the treatment/disposition alternatives. As shown there, this factor also favors SED 10/FP 9 among the combinations of sediment-floodplain alternatives that involve removal. ES.3.2 Evaluation of Treatment/Disposition Alternatives Applying the Permit criteria, GE has concluded that TD 3, disposition in an on-site Upland Disposal Facility, constitutes the best of the treatment/disposition alternatives for the reasons discussed below.17 Since TD 2 (disposition in local in-water CDF(s)) does not appear to be viable and would not meet the General Standard of overall environmental protection,18 this analysis focuses on the other treatment/disposition alternatives. ES.3.2.1 Attainment of General Standards Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment: TD 1 and TD 3 would provide overall protection of human health and the environment through permanent disposal and isolation of removed sediments and soils in a permitted off-site landfill (TD 1) or in an Upland Disposal Facility, which would be constructed with impermeable liners and a cover and would be subject to long-term monitoring and maintenance to ensure its effectiveness (TD 3). TD 4 (chemical extraction) would provide protection by reducing the PCB concentrations in the sediments and soils, followed by appropriate disposal of the treated material. Based on bench-scale study results, it appears that the chemical extraction process could not reduce PCB concentrations in the treated material to levels that would allow on-site reuse. Thus, the treated solid material would be transported off-site for disposal, and the large volumes of wastewater would also be treated prior to discharge, with off-site disposal of the water treatment sludge. TD 5 (thermal desorption) would provide protection by reducing the PCB concentrations in the treated sediments and soils. However, that alternative would produce the greatest amount of greenhouse gas emissions of any of the treatment/disposition alternatives (as discussed further below). Moreover, if a portion of the thermally treated soils is reused as backfill in the floodplain, that reuse would result in long term adverse environmental impacts in the floodplain forest and other wetland areas due to 17 As discussed in the body of this report, three potential locations have been identified for such a facility, all of which are located relatively near the River but outside the 500-year floodplain. 18 The reasons for this conclusion are that in-water CDF(s) (assumed to be constructed in the deep portion of Woods Pond and/or a backwater area): (a) could be used only for certain hydraulically dredged sediments under certain sediment alternatives and would not provide for disposition of the remaining sediments or of floodplain or riverbank soils; (b) would not meet numerous ARARs; and (c) would result in a permanent loss of aquatic habitat in a large portion of Woods Pond and/or the backwater where the CDF(s) would be constructed, as well as a likely loss of flood storage capacity in those areas, thus failing to provide overall protection of the environment. 24 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary the differences in soil characteristics between that material (even after mixing with organic material) and the existing natural soil in those wetland areas. Hence, TD 5 with such reuse would not provide overall protection of the environment. Control of Sources of Releases: All of these treatment/disposition alternatives would meet the standard for control of sources of future releases of PCBs. TD 1 and TD 3 would effectively and permanently isolate the PCB-containing sediments and soils from being released into the environment through placement of those materials into off-site permitted landfills or into a properly designed and monitored Upland Disposal Facility, located outside the floodplain, any of which would be designed to prevent such releases. TD 4 and TD 5 would control future releases through treatment of the sediments and soils, followed by appropriate off-site disposition of the treated material, although these alternatives do present the potential for some leaks or spills during treatment activities. Compliance with Federal and State ARARs: There are no identified ARARs for TD 1, since that alternative would involve off-site transport and disposal. For TD 3, the Upland Disposal Facility could be designed and operated to meet the pertinent ARARs (provided that EPA makes any necessary risk-based approval determination under its Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA] regulations), with the possible exception of certain habitat- related requirements (depending on the location and size of the facility) and certain siting restrictions that could potentially apply in the unlikely event that the materials involved were found to be subject to the state hazardous waste regulations. TD 4 and TD 5 could be designed and implemented to meet most of the potential ARARs (again assuming that EPA makes any necessary risk-based determination under its TSCA regulations); but there are some regulatory requirements that could not be met (and some that might not be met) at the location identified for a treatment facility or in the unlikely event that the materials to be treated were found to be subject to the state hazardous waste regulations. To the extent that any regulatory requirements that could not be met constitute ARARs, EPA would need to waive them under CERCLA as technically impracticable to meet. ES.3.2.2 Consideration and Balancing of Selection Decision Factors An overall balancing of the Selection Decision Factors favors TD 3.19 A full discussion of the application of each of those factors (other than IMPG attainment, which is not relevant here) to the treatment/disposition alternatives is provided in the text of this report. The main reasons are summarized below. Overall Reliability: On-site disposal in a properly designed facility has been used reliably at numerous sites, and would have the highest degree of long-term effectiveness and reliability, 19 The extent to which TD 3 is better suited to meet the Permit criteria than TD 1 increases with the volume of excavated materials to be disposed of and the duration of the implementation period, and is less pronounced with the volumes and durations at and near the lower end of the range. 25 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary particularly for larger volumes of material. Use of off-site disposal facilities (TD 1) is also common for permanent disposal, but as the volume of materials requiring disposal and the length of time required to do so increase, the more uncertainty would exist regarding the future availability of sufficient off-site landfill capacity over the long term. The use of chemical extraction (TD 4) has not been demonstrated at full scale on sediments and soils comparable to those in the Rest of River, and there are uncertainties regarding the extent to which that process can reduce PCB concentrations in such materials. Results from the site-specific bench-scale study indicate that PCB concentrations cannot be reduced to levels that would allow reuse. Moreover, based on those results, there are uncertainties regarding the extent to which the treated materials could be disposed of off-site as non TSCA-regulated materials. Thermal desorption (TD 5) has rarely been used to treat PCB-containing sediments, due in part to the time and cost of removing moisture from the sediments prior to treatment. Mechanical problems can result from treatment of high-organic, high-moisture-content, fine- grained materials, which can clump and clog equipment or otherwise be physically difficult to treat. Further, while thermal desorption has been used at several sites to treat PCB- containing soils, the volumes of materials treated in those cases were substantially smaller and the duration of the treatment operation was substantially shorter than the volumes and duration that could be involved at the Rest of River. Moreover, when on-site reuse of thermally treated materials has occurred, the materials have typically been placed in a small area and covered with clean backfill. In short, the reliability of this process for treatment of a large volume of materials like the Rest of River sediments and soils is unknown, as is the ability to use the thermally treated solids (even after mixing with organic material) as backfill in the floodplain without being covered by other material. Long- and Short-Term Adverse Impacts: All of these TD alternatives would have some negative impacts on the environment and local communities. In terms of local ecological impacts, TD 1 would have no such impacts, TD 4 and TD 5 would result in a temporary loss of habitat at the location of the treatment facility for the period of treatment and some time thereafter, and TD 3 would result in a permanent loss of the existing habitat in the specific area of the disposal facility. The significance of this loss of habitat would depend on the existing habitat type at the facility location and on the size of the facility. For example, for TD 3, the existing habitat at the locations identified for a disposal facility ranges from disturbed land that is or was used as a sand and gravel quarry (where any habitat effects would be minimal) to mature upland forest (where habitat effects would be more significant, but still limited to the area of the facility). For TD 4 and TD 5, the existing habitat at the location identified for a treatment facility consists of open grassland with scattered shrub growth. All of these alternatives would generate increased GHG emissions during their implementation. For the range of removal volumes, TD 3 would produce the fewest such emissions, TD 1 and TD 4 would produce considerably greater GHG emissions, and TD 5 would produce by far the greatest amount of GHG emissions of any of the TD alternatives – 26 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary with the differences among these alternatives increasing as the volumes of material to be disposed of or treated increase. In addition, the thermal desorption process under TD 5 could lead to the volatilization and emission of certain metals (e.g., mercury) and the emission of dioxins/furans which can be formed during the process. All of these alternatives would also cause an increase in truck traffic for the transport of excavated materials from the staging areas to the disposal or treatment facility(ies) (and, for TD 4 and TD 5, from the treatment facility to off-site disposal facilities) and for the delivery of construction materials and equipment to the disposal or treatment facility (for TD 3 through TD 5). This increase in truck traffic would create short-term impacts, including increased noise and an increased risk of accidents, not only for local communities but also for communities along the transportation routes. For example, an estimate of traffic accident risks from the off-site truck traffic associated with these alternatives indicates that, for the range of volumes, TD 1 and TD 4 would cause the most injuries related to such transport, followed closely by TD 5, with far fewer transport-related injuries for TD 3. ES.4 Combined Cost Estimates Estimated costs for combinations of the seven sediment-floodplain alternative combinations under evaluation with the five treatment/disposition alternatives are presented in Table ES-6 below. Table ES-6. Total Cost Estimates for Combinations of SED/FP Alternative Combinations with TD Alternatives1 Alternative TD 1 TD 22 TD 33 TD 4 TD 54 SED 2/FP 1 $ 5 M NA $5 M $5 M $5 M SED 3/FP 3 $251 M NA $204 - 228 M $274 M $337 - 366 M SED 5/FP 4 $483 M NA $362 - 402 M $509 M $679 - 709 M SED 6/FP 4 $612 M $487 M $444 - 493 M $619 M $860 - 891 M SED 8/FP 7 $1,740 M $1,337 M $1,160 M $1,826 M $2,866 - 3,026 M SED 9/FP 8 $729 M $558 M $435 - 512 M $662 M $1,132 - 1,175 M SED 10/FP 9 $183 M NA $121 - 146 M $181 M $283 - 290 M 1. Cost are given in 2010 dollars; $ M = million dollars 2. Where applicable, estimated costs assume placement in CDFs of certain hydraulically dredged sediments and off-site disposal for remaining excavated materials. 3. Range depends on location of Upland Disposal Facility. For sediment-floodplain alternatives in which the removal volume exceeds the capacity of the Upland Disposal Facility at a given location, cost estimates were made only for the location(s) where that entire volume of material could be disposed of. 4. Low end of range assumes reuse in floodplain of half of treated floodplain soils and off-site disposal of remaining treated materials; high end of range assumes off-site disposal of all treated material. 27 Revised Corrective Measures Study Report Executive Summary As can be seen from the above table, the most cost-effective combination of alternatives, apart from those involving SED 2/FP 1, is the combination of SED 10, FP 9, and TD 3, all of which would meet the General Standards in the Permit. Under the National Contingency Plan, where more than one alternative would achieve the threshold criteria, the most cost- effective alternative must be selected (see 40 CFR § 300.430(f)(1)(ii)(D)). ES.5 Overall Conclusion Taking into account EPA’s HHRA and ERA and using EPA’s directives for the CMS, as required under the Permit, GE has concluded that a combination of alternatives SED 10, FP 9, and TD 3 is best suited to meet the General Standards of the Permit, including protection of human health and the environment, in consideration of the Selection Decision Factors, including balancing of those factors against one another. Taken as a whole, this would be a major remedial project – a 5-year project involving the excavation and disposal of over 265,000 cubic yards of sediment and soil, at an estimated combined cost of $121 to $146 million (depending on the location of the local disposal facility). As noted above, this conclusion is subject to GE’s reservations of rights, including its appeal rights, and thus does not constitute a proposal to implement these alternatives. 28 West Reach 5 & 6 GE Plant Site Branch Pittsfield Confluence East Branch Woods Pond Reach 5 Dam Reach 5A Reach 6 Columbia Mi ll Dam Reach 7 Willow Mill Dam Reach 8 Great Glendale Dam Barrington Reach 5B Rising Pon d Reach 9 Berkshire Dam County Housatonic River Massachusetts Reach 5C New York Connecticut Falls Village Dam Reaches 10-17 in CT West Cornwall Reach 6 Woods Pond Litchfield Woods Pond County Dam 0 1 2 Bulls Bridge Miles Dam Reach 8 Rising New Milford Pond Reach 8 Rising Pond Lake Lillinonah Dam Shepaug 0 0.5 1 Dam Miles Lake Zoar LEGEND Stevenson Dam Dams Shoreline Channel States Derby Backwater Counties Lake Pools/Tribs Watershed LOCATOR Dam 1 mg/kg Isopleth Housatonic 10-year Floodplain Figure ES-1. Housatonic River Map Long Island Sound 0 10 20 Miles GENcms OCTOBER 2010 bss - H:\GENcms\DOCUMENTS\reports\Revised_CMS_Report\Figures\Section 1\Figure_1-1.mxd The i~' C.ityo! _ <~ Pittsfteld MASSACHUSETTS Mayor James M. Ruberto EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912 Dear Mr. Cianciarulo, As Mayor of the City of Pittsfield, I would like to comment on General Electric's Reviscd Corrective Measures Study as the EPA considers plans for cleaning the "Rest of the Housatonic River." The City of Pittsfield has experienced an exciting renaissance during my administration, driven in part by the natural beauty of the surrounding region. While Pittsfield remains the commercial, financial, legal and health care center of the region, today our economy is also strongly driven by our role in the arts and our celebration of the natural beauty surrounding us. Building on this momentum. we are also actively partnering with business. civic, and cultural leaders throughout the County to define a new future economic vision for our region. This vision will draw heavily on our region's assets including its natural beauty, a unique quality oflife, and a creative and educated workforce. To sustain and reinforce Pittsfield and the Berkshires as a community and region focused on the Creative Economy, I believe EPA must take into account the economic, environmental and recreational role the Housatonic River Plays in this revival. Over the last 10 years, an aggressive approach has been taken to rid the prime source of PCB contamination in the first two miles of the Housatonic River. While this approach dramatically reduced the level of contamination, unfortunately the bank to bank dredging resulted in substantially altering the ceo system of the Housatonic River. I would urge a different course of action for the balance of the river. Clearly, the principle objectives for the remainder of the river should be to protect our residents' health and the river's ecosystem. This requires a balanced approach by recognizing that the County's economic vitality hinges on our ability to preserve the river's natural beauty and the diversity of life in this sensitive ecological habitat. Finally, we must ensure that the rivcr continues to be recreationally accessible to our residents, visitors, and the sporting community. Ciry Hall, 70 Allen Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201 Tel: 413.499.9321 / Fax: 413.499.9463 / [email protected] Any plan for the rest of the river should recognize that levels of PCBs vary greatly along this stretch of the river, as the river itself has many natural variations, including width, depth, bank height, and estuaries. I believe a "one-size-fits-all" approach should be avoided. Certain areas will require a measured removal of sediment and soil while other areas should be left alone and simply monitored for ecological impact. EPA should also give priority consideration to use of innovative technologies in this stretch orthe river. There ahs been much community conversation around the use of technology to neutralize PCBs in the environment. To date, little has been done in this regard. We now have the perfect opportunity to use the Housatonic as a living laboratory. I encourage the use of emerging science in areas where PCB concentration is low. In closing, I would suggest that the EPA consider a targeted, thoughtful and ecologically sensitive approach for the Housatonic River clean-up that is based on preserving the natural beauty of the river's existing environs while addressing in a targeted fashion those areas of most concern. Dredging should be limited, and take place only where it is absolutely necessary due to the concentration of contaminants. I hope you agree that this is the best way to preserve the river for future generations. Sincerely, James M. Mayor The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Deval L. Patrick GOVERNOR Timothy P. Murray LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Richard K. Sullivan, Jr. Fax: (617) 626-1181 SECRETARY http://www.mass.gov/envir July 23, 2011 EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912 Re: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ summary of its position on the proper remedial approach for the General Electric-Housatonic River Site/Rest of River project Dear Board members: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through its Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (―EEA‖), the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (―MassDEP‖) and the Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game (―DFG‖), appreciates the opportunity to provide a written summary to the National Remedy Review Board (the ―Board‖) of the state’s position on the proper remedial approach for the General Electric-Housatonic River Site/Rest of River project. It is the Commonwealth’s understanding that in late July, EPA’s Region 1 will meet with the Board to present its proposed remedy for the Rest of River (―ROR‖) based on an assessment of the remedial alternatives analyzed by General Electric (―GE‖) in its October 2010 Revised Corrective Measures Study (―CMS‖) and on comments on the CMS by interested stakeholders, including the Commonwealth. On January 31, 2011, the Commonwealth submitted detailed comments on the revised CMS followed by an addendum on February 22, 2011 analyzing in more detail areas within the ROR floodplain that could be excavated without causing significant environmental damage. At the outset, the Commonwealth’s comments highlighted the ecological uniqueness and significance of the Housatonic River watershed as the proper context and starting point for evaluating the impacts and merits of the remedy alternatives in the revised CMS. With that paramount consideration in mind, the Commonwealth’s comments set forth a conceptual remedy proposal for the ROR, based on our conclusion that none of the existing remedy alternatives strike the right ecological balance and will cause substantially more ecological harm than benefit to this unique ecosystem. Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 While this written summary of the Commonwealth’s position outlines the most important themes and points made in our previous comment letters on the CMS, the Board’s page limitations preclude us from providing you with the same level of detailed comments and graphics contained therein. We urge the Board to review the full version the Commonwealth’s comments and information supporting our conceptual remedy proposal, which is attached to this letter as Attachment B. In providing this written summary to the Board, the Commonwealth is at a disadvantage due to the lack of specific information we have about Region 1’s proposed remedy. We asked that the remedy review board process be deferred until there was extensive dialogue with Region 1 concerning the appropriate remedy. This dialogue could result in a consensus on how to proceed, or at least give the Commonwealth a detailed understanding of Region 1’s proposed remedy so that you would have the benefit of a meaningful assessment of that proposal from the perspective of the Commonwealth’s remediation and ecology experts. Unfortunately, that request was not granted. As we write these comments, while we now have a general understanding from Region 1 of their concerns about certain aspects of the Commonwealth’s conceptual remedy proposal, we have not had detailed discussions with Region 1 regarding the scope and ramifications of the sediment, floodplain and disposal components of Region 1’s proposed remedy. We continue to be disappointed that a remedy is being presented to you without the Commonwealth being fully briefed, and believe that this detracts from your ability to evaluate the proposed remedy, and whether it has the support of key stakeholders. For these reasons, the Commonwealth requests that the Board’s comments back to Region 1 include the directive that Region 1 directly engage with the Commonwealth on the specifics of Region 1’s proposed remedy, and then report back to the Board on how Region 1 has considered and addressed the Commonwealth’s interests and concerns, with reference to underlying principles and balancing approach of our alternative remedy proposal. As we will discuss below, the stakes are high for this ROR remedy and it is incumbent on the Board to carefully scrutinize Region 1’s assumptions and balancing approach, mindful of the scope and special character of the Housatonic River ecosystem to Massachusetts and the points raised by our alternative remedy proposal. Introduction The Housatonic River suffers from a legacy of contamination resulting from PCBs that were released from the GE facility in Pittsfield from the 1930s through the 1970s, contaminating the Housatonic River sediment, banks, and floodplain soils. Despite this legacy of contamination, the Housatonic River Watershed encompasses a rich and unique ecosystem supporting many plant and animal species and their associated habitats protected under the MA Endangered Species Act (―MESA‖), including wetlands, floodplains, vernal pools, surface waters, and forested areas. These are natural resources precious to the Commonwealth, and they must be protected, even as we rightfully demand that contamination from decades of industrial abuse be rectified once and for all. However, after extensive review of the remedial alternatives presented to date, the Commonwealth has concluded that none of the current combinations of alternatives achieve the remediation goals without causing irreparable harm to this unique, diverse and vital ecosystem that has been designated by the Commonwealth as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). This reality led us to propose an alternative phased, long-term remedy that minimizes human health risks posed by PCBs in the environment while carefully balancing potential other benefits of remediation against destructive ecological impacts to this rich and unique system that such remediation might impose. Our proposed remedy will protect human health from risks associated with direct contact with PCB’s, but avoids intrusive work on the riverbanks and elsewhere that results in actual damage to unique ecological resources that exceeds the benefits of lower PCB concentrations to affected wildlife. 2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 The Commonwealth’s approach is fully consistent with the nine (9) remedy decision criteria specified in the RCRA permit for the ROR cleanup (―permit criteria‖), which includes an evaluation of how an alternative provides overall protection of human health and the environment, and also requires EPA to carefully weigh the long-term adverse effects on environmentally sensitive areas. Indeed, EPA’s own remediation guidance (EPA 2005, Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites), provides for the weighing of the long and short term benefits of meeting certain ecological Interim Media Protection Goals (IMPGs) against the environmental damage that would be incurred through the remediation actions necessary to achieve those IMPGs. Similarly, in A Risk Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediment (NRC 2001), the National Research Council (―NRC‖) makes the point that there is no ―onesize fits all‖ approach or ―right answer‖ to PCB remediation strategies. Instead, the NRC recommends an iterative approach to risk assessment that takes into account stakeholder and community interests as well as the ecological significance of the contaminated site. With these considerations in mind, our proposed remedy calls for the removal of PCBs when needed to protect human health from risks associated with direct contact with PCBs, but avoids intrusive work solely to meet established ecological interim media protection goals (―IMPGs‖). In that regard, while EPA’s permit criteria include an assessment of the extent to which an alternative will attain ecological IMPGs, an alternative is not disqualified from selection because it will not attain them in every area of the site. This is particularly appropriate in the instant case, where it arises out of a determination that in virtually all instances the actual and inevitable damage to this existing, unique ecological resource will far exceed the theoretical benefit of lower PCB concentrations for the affected wildlife and their habitats. Moreover, in weighing the relevant permit criteria, the Commonwealth necessarily considered the risk intended to be addressed through compliance with the ecological IMPGs, including by drawing on our knowledge of the status and health of wildlife populations. As highlighted below, the Housatonic River watershed supports one of the greatest concentrations of species listed and protected under MESA in the Commonwealth. The existence of large and robust wildlife populations in the Primary Study Area (―PSA‖) for ROR have been reaffirmed through recent field studies conducted by the Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program (―NHESP‖). Despite intensive study by multiple parties and voluminous reporting, there is no meaningful empirical evidence that has been presented to-date showing population- level impacts of PCBs on any wildlife species in the PSA. In fact, as shown by the results of the NHESP surveys and other evidence, the PSA appears to support robust populations of many species. Thus, when considering the potential effects of PCBs on wildlife, it is important to distinguish between the health of wildlife populations, defined at an appropriate scale, as distinct from the risk of morbidity and mortality to individual animals when weighing the relative impacts of not achieving ecological IMPGs against permanently eliminating or altering unique species subpopulations and habitats that depend on ecological features such as the ongoing dynamic action of the meandering river. In addition, while the argument for population-level impacts to individual species hinge largely on models with many assumptions and a great deal of uncertainty, even if populations of certain common species such as mink and otter were to be experiencing localized population-level impacts as a result of PCBs, it is the Commonwealth’s view that the ecological harm that would be caused by implementation of many of the remediation alternatives would still far outweigh the benefits. In saying this we are not discounting potential ecological impacts of PCBs; rather, we are selecting the least damaging ecological choice from a suite of less than ideal options. Many of the species of greatest theoretical concern (e.g. piscivorous carnivores) are common to abundant throughout much of the Commonwealth, being highly mobile and resilient. All of these factors support our conclusion that, on balance, elevating the attainment of ecological IMPGs over the long-term adverse impacts on the affected habitats caused by such remediation cannot be justified, particularly in light of the absence of PCB-caused population-level effects on wildlife. 3 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Finally, while the Commonwealth’s comment letters during the CMS process have emphasized the importance of restoring areas that have been remediated for public health reasons, restoration should not be the determinative consideration when deciding, as a threshold matter, whether to meet an ecological remediation goal at the expense of excavating or reengineering the delicately balanced, dependent ecosystem. Relevant to the implementability permit criterion, it is clear that any remedy that relies upon bank stabilization results in the permanent loss of the dynamic nature of the river. Such a loss cannot be mitigated or restored. This reality warrants according more weight to a remedy approach that demonstrates its long-term reliability and effectiveness by avoiding remediation for ecological reasons unless it can be shown that doing so clearly outweighs the short and long-term impact on the affected wildlife and their habitats. The Commonwealth proposed a conceptual remedy based on the above principles with the following components: Excavate Woods Pond to remove approximately 300,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment and bring the average concentration of PCBs in Woods Pond to 1 ppm, with the highest concentration at 6 ppm. This reduces the downstream risk to public health and safety by eliminating up to 25% of the mass of PCBs in the entire rest of the river from Lenox to the Long Island Sound. It would also increase the sediment trapping efficiency of the pond, protect downstream public health and safety in the event of a dam failure, and enhance recreational uses of the pond – all without causing any significant ecological damage, as there are no MESA state- listed species habitats within the pond, a nearby staging area is available, and a nearby rail line could transport the excavated material off-site. Perform no bank or river excavation and stabilization as such work, by its nature permanently changes the character and ecosystem of the river. Such work is not necessary to meet any of the direct-contact human health goals identified by the EPA and will inevitably cause severe and long-lasting destruction of the Housatonic River ecosystem and state-listed rare species, which far outweighs any environmental benefits from PCB removal. In the floodplain, ensure that EPA’s human health excess cancer risk of 10-4 and a non-cancer risk limit equal to a hazard index of 1 are met for all direct-contact exposure scenarios. Perform further remediation to add an additional layer of protection when it can be done without causing significant environmental damage to highly sensitive rare species habitats. In the less ecologically sensitive areas in the floodplain, a combination of institutional controls, exposure- area averaging, and carefully selected excavation should be used to achieve target risk levels. Transport all excavated material off-site, taking advantage of the nearby rail line. Under no circumstances should there be a hazardous waste landfill constructed in Berkshire County for the excavated material. To site a new hazardous waste landfill here would result in an unacceptable additional adverse impact to the local community given that there are viable alternatives at existing, out-of-state disposal facilities. Perform ongoing monitoring of the success of past and future remediation efforts, ongoing consideration of new technologies as they become available, and reconsider final options as more data is gathered. Implement a more robust, comprehensive set of institutional controls similar to those employed by the Great Lakes states to reasonably address the human health risk associated with fish and waterfowl consumption, including increased signage, best management practices, and public 4 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 education and outreach activities using a range of media, with a particular focus on high use areas. Recognition of the ecological uniqueness and importance of the Housatonic River watershed is at the core of the Commonwealth’s proposal. Summarized below are the dramatic impacts that the remedial measures evaluated in the CMS, including Region 1’s proposal as we understand it, would have on the meandering character of the river, its banks, the floodplain, and on MESA state-listed species and their habitat to underscore the importance of preserving this ecosystem. The Ecological Uniqueness and Significance of the Housatonic River Watershed The Housatonic River watershed is one of the most biologically rich and unique regions of the Commonwealth. Its limestone bedrock creates an exceptional hydrological base, supporting rich, calcareous soils and wetlands found only in this region. These rich soils and wetlands of the valley floor create a unique ecosystem which supports many species found nowhere else in Massachusetts. The Housatonic River watershed is home to 110 species of plants and 51 species of animals that are protected under Massachusetts Endangered Species Act, M.G.L. c. 131A, (―MESA‖) and the MESA regulations at 321 CMR 10.00. It also contains 13 high priority Natural Communities, 12 certified vernal pools and up to 107 potential vernal pools. In addition to the wide range of state-listed species under MESA, the Housatonic River supports a substantial and highly productive fisheries resource. Thirty-seven species of fish have been found in the river and its supporting waters providing important, valuable and diverse recreational fisheries for both warm and coldwater species. Moreover, the Housatonic supports coldwater habitat including the main stem of the Housatonic River and its direct tributaries. These coldwater fisheries are protected under 314 CMR 4.06 of the MA Surface Water Quality Standards (―MA WQS‖) as coldwater habitat. The MA WQS require that both the fish population and habitat be protected and maintained as designated or existing uses. Recognizing these unique resources, the Commonwealth has designated the Upper Housatonic Watershed (which includes the primary study area of the CMS) as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). In that designation, the EEA Secretary found as follows: The Upper Housatonic River Area of Critical Environmental Concern (―ACEC‖) encompasses the 13- mile corridor of the Housatonic River from southern Pittsfield to northern Lee, and portions of the supporting watersheds that drain into the river from the east and west. This section of the Housatonic River includes a complex ecosystem of the river, adjacent wetlands and floodplains, coldwater tributary streams, large expanses of wildlife and rare species habitat, and the steep, forested, western slopes of October Mountain State Forest. There are also historical and archaeological resources, farmland and open space, and scenic and recreational areas. The ACEC includes all nine of the inland resource features listed in the ACEC regulations - including fisheries, wetlands and surface waters, water supply areas, floodplains and steep slopes, agricultural and forested areas, historical and archaeological resources, wildlife and rare species habitats, and public recreational and natural areas. The regionally significant biodiversity and wildlife habitat in the ACEC is indicated by the exceptional number of rare species (32), Certified and Potential Vernal Pools (46), and the combined total of 11,405 acres or 93% of the area delineated as viable habitat by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife’s (DFW) Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP). Of this total, 7,869 acres (64%) of the ACEC is designated as BioMap Core Habitat and Supporting Natural Landscapes, 3,536 acres (29%) as Living Waters Core Habitat and Critical Supporting Watershed. Regulated areas of rare species Priority Habitats and Estimated Habitats total 3,130 acres or 25% of the ACEC, with the majority of these acres included in the BioMap and Living Waters areas. There are more than 21 river miles of Coldwater Fisheries, with breeding populations of native brook trout, and other fishery resources totaling approximately 30 fish species. Common wildlife in the region includes bobcat, coyote, deer, bear, and moose. The extensive 5 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 wildlife habitats of the ACEC, including many rare and unique habitats, illustrate the close ecological interdependence of the various natural and cultural resource features of the ACEC. The area is important for fishing, tourism, recreation, forestry, and agriculture. The Primary Study Area (the ―PSA‖) for the Rest of River remediation extends from the confluence of the East and West Branches of the Housatonic River in Pittsfield, to Woods Pond in Lenox. This stretch of Housatonic River in the PSA is a low-gradient, large river that is free to migrate across hundreds of acres of Commonwealth-protected open space and sculpt the floodplain. The meandering river is constantly reshaping the landscape, creating an incredible diversity of habitats including oxbow wetlands, backwaters, sloughs, and vernal pools (Figures 7-9). The fertile soils, shifting banks and dynamic nature of the river are precisely what make the Housatonic River segments of the PSA an ecologically unique resource among all the major rivers in the Commonwealth. The PSA also supports an abundance of diverse and ecologically sensitive wildlife resources including 25 state-listed species. In addition, the Commonwealth’s Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (―DFW‖), a division of the Department of Fish & Game, owns one or both sides of approximately 85% of the land along the river’s bank in the PSA, including the 818 acre George L. Darey Housatonic Valley Wildlife Management Area (the ―Darey WMA‖). The Darey WMA is spread across multiple parcels consisting of river-front and floodplain and is one of western Massachusetts’ most heavily utilized wildlife management areas for all types of passive recreation, including hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, canoeing, kayaking, bird watching, and wildlife viewing. Thus, in addition to its regulatory interests, the Commonwealth is a major landowner within the PSA, with stewardship responsibilities over a wildlife management area that is highly valued by recreational stakeholders. The PSA is a Critical Area for Biodiversity and State-listed Species The Housatonic River watershed supports one of the greatest concentrations of plant and animal species listed for protection under MESA in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has documented 25 state- listed species within the PSA alone, including 6 species that are listed as ―Endangered‖ and 9 that are listed as ―Threatened.‖ The list of these 25 state-listed species is shown in Table 1. The Commonwealth has divided the PSA into four sections as illustrated in Figure 1. It is striking that almost the entire PSA is mapped as priority habitat for one or more state-listed species by DFW’s Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (―NHESP‖) pursuant to the MESA regulations (Figure 2). Figures 3, 4 and 5, in turn, depict the high degree of overlap between priority habitats of individual species, with some areas being mapped for up to 15 state-listed species at any given point on the ground. See Table 2 for the list of the 15 species in the core habitats. As shown in Figure 6, the PSA contains core areas for 15 species, which covers a majority of the PSA. While all 25 of the state-listed species with habitat in the PSA may experience some level of negative impact due to remediation activities, the 15 species for which core areas have been designated are particularly sensitive to such impacts. From a MESA standpoint, the Housatonic River watershed has long been recognized for its diversity of rare species, many of which are found nowhere else in the Commonwealth. Moreover, recent field surveys conducted by the NHESP have greatly improved our understanding of the distribution of state- listed species, vernal pool-breeding amphibians, and important natural communities. More specifically, 2010 NHESP report entitled, Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts, summarizes the most intensive and comprehensive ecological field study in the history of the NHESP. Nearly 50 people participated in field studies and conducted nearly 2,500 site visits, with a level of effort encompassing 495 days and more than 9000 person-hours. See 6 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Appendix B in the Commonwealth’s January 31, 2011 comments on the revised CMS, which is attached to this letter. The NHESP surveys targeted a total of 60 state-listed species including 31 plants, 3 butterflies and moths, 5 dragonflies and damselflies, 2 freshwater mussels, 4 fish, 2 salamanders, 3 turtles, and 10 marsh birds. The project also targeted 12 priority (S1-S3) natural community types. A total of 47 target species and 21 non-target state-listed species were encountered during these surveys. Among the newly documented species were 10 Endangered, 5 Threatened, and 6 Special Concern species. Moreover, all of the target natural communities were found, plus an additional 4 priority natural community types were documented for the first time in the critical supporting watershed. In short, these recent MESA-related surveys provide fresh documentation of the wide range of robust state-listed species and amphibian populations within the PSA that occur despite PCB contamination. These surveys underscore the critical importance of avoiding and minimizing impacts to these species and their habitats as a core consideration of the Rest of River remedy selection process, and counsel strongly against sacrificing an actual, existing rich ecology in the name of achieving a theoretical ecological benefit from PCB removal. The Importance of Preserving the Meandering and Dynamic Character of the Housatonic River and Floodplain In recognition of the ecological significance of the Housatonic River watershed, the Commonwealth has invested substantial public funds and resources to acquire and protect this unique river and floodplain environment. These natural areas with a high degree of ―ecosystem integrity‖ retain not only a full complement of native plants and animals, but also the natural processes that maintain those species in the long term. Low gradient rivers with intact, undeveloped floodplains move, and it is this channel migration that maintains a diverse mosaic of wetlands and habitats that support species diversity over time. One of the most unique aspects of the Housatonic River and floodplain in the PSA is the degree of meandering of the river and the presence of backwaters, side channels, oxbows, and remnant oxbows that have developed into diverse wetlands. Indeed, it is extremely unusual to see this morphology in rivers of this size in Massachusetts or elsewhere in southern New England. To underscore this critical point, we have included a series of visual representations in Appendix A (Figures 7, 8 and 9) that illustrate the channel migration and wetlands formation process that characterize the Housatonic River system. Figure 7 illustrates the great diversity of wetland types and habitat features created by the meandering Housatonic River within the PSA. Figure 8 illustrates how these vital habitat features are formed by the meandering river. River segments that remain relatively stable allow for the establishment of streamside and aquatic vegetation, while fallen trunks and branches (snags) provide additional aquatic habitat. Gradual channel migration and sudden meander cut-offs greatly increase the variety of habitats available on the floodplain through continual creation of floodplain wetlands, which then undergo gradual vegetation succession. As shown in Figure 8a, gradual erosion occurs on the outer bank of a meander while sediment deposition occurs on the inner bank. This process causes the river to migrate, thereby creating a deeper, more sinuous meander. Eventually, often during a major storm, the river channel cuts off to establish a straighter path, creating an oxbow lake (Figure 8b; Figure 7). Over time, the floodplain ponds reconnect to the river during flood events, leading to sediment deposition in the oxbows, as well as an exchange of organisms. As the oxbows gradually fill with sediment, the changes in vegetation (―succession‖) lead to the great diversity of wetland types found in the 7 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 PSA, including oxbow lakes, vernal pools, sloughs, side channels, shrub swamps, marshes, wet meadows, and various types of floodplain forest (Figures 8c-d). Figure 9 illustrates two recent examples of meander cutoff, oxbow and side channel formation from the 1970s to 1990s. Recent M.S. thesis research by Heather Pierce and Dr. Melinda Daniels of the University of Connecticut, confirms that the Housatonic has undergone considerable channel migration from the 1940s through 2001, with particularly dramatic changes during the 1970s. Among other findings, this research highlights that current geofluvial models do not adequately predict the amount of channel migration that was observed during the study period. Scientists are only beginning to understand complex riverine systems such as the Housatonic, so there is a great deal of uncertainty about the effects of any attempts by humans to manipulate these systems. The implications of this uncertainty for the remediation selection process are discussed later in this letter. In short, for these floodplain ecosystem processes to continue to maintain biological diversity, the stream banks must be ―soft‖ or natural—that is, the river must be able to shape its floodplain and erode and deposit sediment. In the absence of channel migration, floodplain oxbows and wetlands will gradually fill with sediment over time, and the diverse mosaic of wetlands in different states of succession will be lost. Thus, it is important to consider carefully the uniqueness of the Housatonic River system, including the severity of such a loss on the ecology and biodiversity of the Commonwealth and Southern New England, when selecting a remedy for the Rest of River. We cannot stress enough that there simply are no other rivers in Massachusetts (and few in New England) of the size of the Housatonic with the kind of floodplain dynamics illustrated in Figures 7 through 9. These defining characteristics of the Housatonic River, in turn, weigh heavily in the Commonwealth’s development of its proposed remediation approach. Reduction of Human Health Risks – A Commonwealth Priority The Commonwealth strongly supports remedial alternatives that reduce the level of risk to human health from the PCBs in the system. The Human Health Risk Assessment (―HHRA‖) report for ROR evaluated three primary exposure scenarios through which people may be exposed to PCBs, including direct contact with soil and sediment during recreational, residential, commercial and agricultural activities in the floodplain; consumption of fish and waterfowl taken from the river; and consumption of agricultural products produced in the floodplain such as milk, eggs and plants. The results of the HHRA demonstrated that remedial actions for the ROR are necessary to reduce human health risks. The revised CMS presents an analysis of the ability to achieve certain human health risk standards through a combination of various sediment and floodplain alternatives. For consumption of agricultural products, all proposed alternatives will meet acceptable risk standards, including the Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) option. For direct contact with soil and sediment, current conditions do not meet human health standards in many of the floodplain areas and in one sediment area (located within the banks of Woods Pond). Using highly protective assumptions about human health exposure frequencies, EPA has established a range of acceptable concentration limits to guide the remedy selection. The Commonwealth supports this range, and advocates remediation of floodplain soils to meet the EPA’s human health excess cancer risk of 10-4 and a non-cancer risk limit equal to a hazard index of 1, as well as further remediation to add an additional layer of protection when it can be done without causing significant environmental damage. Consistent with these principles, the Commonwealth’s proposed remedy calls for no river excavation or bank stabilization because the upper bound limit of 10-4 for direct contact exposure is already met in these 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 areas and to require further remediation will cause irreversible damage to the meandering character of the Housatonic River ecosystem and to the associated state-listed species and their habitats. Fish and waterfowl consumption as a key driver for the scale of Region 1’s proposed river and bank remediation Region 1 has indicated to the Commonwealth that a key driver for the scope of river excavation and bank stabilization in ROR is the need to ensure that the public is adequately protected from the human health risks associated with consuming fish and waterfowl taken from the river. To put this issue in perspective, the decades-long history of the PCB contamination of the Housatonic River is well known to residents and sportsmen in Berkshire County, and there does not appear to be a significant subpopulation of persons who fish the river for subsistence purposes. This long-standing and widespread awareness of the PCB contamination in the river, together with the absence of evidence that fish and waterfowl consumption has been a significant problem, support the Commonwealth’s view that an enhanced institutional controls can serve as a reasonable risk management measure in this area. Moreover, GE’s analysis of the alternatives in the CMS indicates that none of the proposed alternatives, including the most aggressive ones, will allow for unrestricted consumption of fish and waterfowl within a reasonable time period. We understand that EPA Region 1 may be focusing on the lesser goal of restricted fish consumption, i.e. 14 meals a year. This goal was modeled, and the CMS indicates that there is one remedy (SED 8/FP 7) that could achieve this goal for adults and children for all reaches within 23-74 years, depending upon the specific reach. The Commonwealth questions whether a fourteen meal goal is appropriate public policy. Presumably, if the EPA mandates this goal and orders a remedy to meet it, the existing signs warning against any fish consumption from the river would be replaced with warnings indicating that fourteen meals a year for children and adults, or adults only (depending upon the remedy) is appropriate. Yet there would still need to be warning against fish consumption in excess of that amount, since the modeling results indicate an unacceptable risk above 14 meals per year. This sends a diluted and ambiguous message about the health risks of eating fish in this river, and increases the likelihood that there would be fish consumption above the levels deemed safe. In contrast, signage warning against any fish consumption is clear and unambiguous, and much less likely to be transgressed. Moreover, to achieve the goal of 14 meals a year for adults and children, the amount of ecological damage is simply staggering. SED 8/FP 7, the only remedy that achieves this goal, involves removal of sediment in the river of 351 acres, and removal of soil in the floodplain in 377 acres, 14 miles of riverbank stabilization, 97 acres impacted by staging roads and access areas, and will take 52 years! See CMS Executive Summary, p. 12. It will result in a take of 32 rare species, and for 22 of these species, the take would likely impact a significant portion of the local population, which is not allowed under MESA. CMS, Table 8-6, p. 8-40.1 Perhaps most importantly the 14 miles of bank stabilization will permanently and irrevocably destroy the crucial feature of this river—its meandering nature, which creates a wide array of successional habitats for a uniquely rich and diverse collection of species. We emphasize that there is no possible mitigation or restoration for this impact. 1 The modeling results indicate that two of the other remedies (SED 5/FP 4, SED 6/FP4, and SED 9/FP 8) would allow adults to eat 14 meals of fish in some or all of the reaches. But a warning system that sends the message that limited fish consumption is acceptable for adults, but not children, is diluted and ambiguous. And these other remedies would still require enormous destruction of the river bottom, the stabilization of the banks, and takes of significant portions of the local populations of rare species. 9 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Regardless of PCB contamination, there are other limitations on the consumption of fish from the Housatonic River. First, there is comprehensive fish consumption advisory in place recommending that a large percentage of the population – children under 12, nursing mothers, pregnant women and women who may become pregnant – refrain from eating any fish caught in any freshwater body in Massachusetts due to the presence of mercury.2 (Massachusetts is one of over two dozen states with such an advisory, including all six New England states.3) If the message is, ―Don’t eat the fish‖, it does not matter if the warning is due to the presence of mercury alone or combined mercury and PCB contamination. Considering that the widespread presence of mercury in the environment will necessitate the continuation of these advisories into the foreseeable future, a PCB remedy based primarily on the goal of unrestricted fish consumption is illusory. The Commonwealth’s position is that a pro-active, robust set of outreach activities, including implementing recent research on effective fish advisories (such as those described for the Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisories, http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/pdf/ID1540.pdf) are an appropriate means of addressing the human health risks in this area. Such measures include best management practices and public education and outreach activities using a range of media, with a particular focus on high use areas. This approach is also warranted when viewed within the context of the Commonwealth’s overall remedy proposal, which is predicated on the principal of adaptive management. Thus, in addition to a comprehensive program of institutional controls and outreach, our remedy proposal calls for ongoing monitoring, including routine sampling and analysis of fish tissue together with regular audits of the effectiveness of the institutional controls. If these evaluations demonstrate that there remains an unacceptable risk to human health from consumption of fish and waterfowl from the river, then appropriately scaled remediation could be considered. This adaptive management approach has a second benefit — it would enable the decision makers to assess how effective the source control measures in the first stretch of the river have been before taking actions that would cause irreversible damage. Analysis of fish tissue data since 1994 (CMS Figures 6-2a, 6-2b, 6-3a, and 6-3b and Table 6-12) suggests that initial efforts on source removal and remediation of the first two miles of river have already begun to reduce PCB fish tissue concentrations. It is premature to commit remedial actions that will have irreversible effects on this ecosystem before the full beneficial effects of the completed source reduction measures have been established. In short, given the scale and irreversible nature of alterations to the ROR ecosystem resulting from river and bank remediation solely to meet a fish and waterfowl consumption goal and the limited benefit of reducing PCB concentrations to allow for a limited number of fish meals for a limited segment of the population, the Commonwealth insists in the strongest possible terms that this trade-off is unacceptable. , The mass removal of PCBs from and periodic dredging of Woods Pond is an additional, alternative means of addressing risk At the outset, we want to highlight that the removal of PCBs in Woods Pond will not cause any significant ecological harm because there are no state-listed rare species habitats within the pond or surrounding area, and the non-listed species would actually benefit from sediment removal by restoring open-water habitat and water quality such as dissolved oxygen. Given this absence of environmental harm, the removal of a major source of PCBs in the river system by dredging Woods Pond is an additional, alternative means of addressing risk. As discussed in more detail in its comment letter on the revised CMS, the Commonwealth’s conceptual remedy calls for a scope of removal that results in a pond-wide average of 1 ppm with no area exceeding 2 See: http://www.mass.gov/dph/fishadvisories 3 See: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishshellfish/fishadvisories/tech2008.cfm#figure2 10 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 6 ppm. Most of the PCB contamination in the ROR system is located between the confluence of the East and West branches of the river and Woods Pond Dam, with some of the highest concentrations found within Woods Pond. Further, based on the estimate contained in the 2003 ROR RCRA Facility Investigation Report, approximately 15 to 25% of the PCB mass in the entire ROR system is in Woods Pond itself. Remediation to an average of 1 ppm level would result in the removal of approximately 300,000 cubic yards of sediment, equating to approximately 92% of the PCBs in the pond. Finally, as important to achieving the above objective, the Commonwealth’s remedy proposal calls for the subsequent periodic dredging of excessive amounts of contaminated sediment that accumulate behind Woods Pond dam to maintain an average of 1 ppm PCBs throughout the pond. The Commonwealth believes that the above described scope of removal of PCB mass from the pond will also increase Woods Pond’s PCB trapping efficiency, thereby improving and enhancing the natural ability of the pond to capture contaminated sediment eroding from the upstream banks. In addition, removing significant quantities of PCBs behind Woods Pond Dam will protect public health against downstream contamination if there were ever a dam failure. As an ancillary benefit, this dredge would deepen the pond from its current depth of 2.5-5.5 feet to a range of 4.7-9.8 feet, thereby greatly enhancing recreational opportunities. Region 1 has indicated to the Commonwealth that it is unacceptable to EPA as a matter of policy to propose mass removal of PCBs as a remedy component that is not based on corresponding reductions in risk to humans or the environment. In response, the Commonwealth states that its approach to Woods Pond would reduce risk in both areas by eliminating large quantities of PCBs from the river system and from behind the dam. By any reasonable measure, these actions lower the overall risks of PCBs to humans and the environment in ROR, and in particular, the risk of downstream contamination associated with a dam failure. Indeed, Region 1’s own description of the ―control of sources of releases‖ permit criterion requires an evaluation of ―the extent to which each alternative would eliminate the effects of a flood that would cause contaminated sediments to become available for human and ecological exposure.‖4 In short, under the Commonwealth’s proposal, a major quantity of PCBs would be removed from Woods Pond at the outset, and the excavated pond, which would be periodically dredged, would serve as a sediment trap for PCBs moving downstream from the river on an ongoing basis. From a permit criteria standpoint, the Commonwealth’s approach to Woods Pond properly addresses the reduction and control of sources of PCB releases, while ensuring that the unique ecological character of the ROR system is preserved. An adaptive management approach is particularly appropriate for this ROR remedy As highlighted above, the Commonwealth’s conceptual remedy requires compliance with human health standards on an ongoing basis. This means requiring GE to perform ongoing monitoring and assessment of areas remediated for human health reasons, and additional remediation to the extent necessary to meet and maintain human health standards as determined by such monitoring and assessment. In addition the Commonwealth proposes the removal of excessive amounts of contaminated sediment that accumulate behind Woods Pond dam to sustain an average of 1 ppm throughout the pond. From a big picture perspective, the continuing source control upstream of the Rest of River system as well as the work proposed in the floodplain and in Woods Pond will likely alter PCB levels, and reassessment will allow for the collection of data that are representative of these new conditions and relevant to the implementation of subsequent, phased remedial work. First, the Commonwealth proposes that monitoring and assessment be conducted to evaluate how successful/effective the remedial measures have been to eliminate the human health risks and control the 4 Housatonic River Public Charette document (May 7, 2011), p.9. 11 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 continuing sources. This would include qualitative evaluation of the institutional controls on consumption of fish and waterfowl from the river, quantitative assessment of potential recontamination of the floodplain, and a quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of a Woods Pond sediment trap. Second, the assessment would evaluate the potential for implementing additional response actions to address the remaining contamination in the river and floodplain, considering new technologies and methodologies, as well as the success of similar restoration projects on the Housatonic River (e.g., cleanup and restoration of vernal pools) or on analogous river systems. Monitoring would include routine sampling and analysis of fish tissue, river sediment, Woods Pond sediment, and floodplain soil. Periodic evaluations of the ecosystem (i.e., fluctuations of threatened/endangered species and habitat changes) will also be necessary. These assessments would continue until the conditions in the river are documented to pose no significant risk to human health and the environment. Third, the Commonwealth proposes that GE be required to evaluate on a regular basis the availability of innovative remedial approaches and technologies that can be utilized to reduce human health and ecological risks without unacceptable consequences to the ecosystem, and that GE implement, to the extent feasible, such approaches and technologies should they become available. In sum, the Commonwealth believes that consistent with the implementability permit criterion, adaptive management must be a core component of the selected ROR remedy to ensure that remedial approach is phased and flexible enough to act on new data, science, technologies, and site-specific conditions. Preserving the Special Character of the Housatonic River Ecosystem – A Commonwealth Priority At the outset of this summary to the Board, the Commonwealth highlighted the uniqueness and importance of the Housatonic River ecosystem, underscoring its exemplary value from a MESA and biodiversity perspective and the dynamic nature of the meandering action of the river in creating and maintaining habitats. For these reasons, the Commonwealth’s assessment of the merits of various remedy approaches is properly focused on the extent to which the alternative would result in short and long term adverse impacts on the defining ecological features of the ROR ecosystem. The Commonwealth’s remedy is predicated on a common sense approach of weighing the comparative ecological costs and benefits associated with remediating or preserving a particular area for ecological reasons – an approach that is fully consistent with the permit criteria to be applied by Region 1. As discussed below, when we weigh these comparative ecological costs and benefits, it is clear to us that any potential benefits associated with meeting the ecological IMPGs would be far outweighed by the short and long term damage to the river and floodplain. Our balancing approach focuses on protecting human health, while according proper weight to unique, ecological character of the ROR system, as envisioned under any meaningful application of the permit criteria. Expected impacts of remedy alternatives evaluated in the CMS Set forth below are the Commonwealth’s conclusions about the expected impacts of the alternatives in the revised CMS (except for monitored natural recovery) on the Housatonic River ecosystem. 1. Extensive bank and river bottom stabilization associated with sediment remediation alternatives SED 3 – SED 10 (+/-14 linear miles) are proposed solely to address perceived ecological risks from PCB contamination; none of these proposals are needed to meet EPA’s human health goals for direct contact with soil and sediment. Yet all of these alternatives will have a particularly severe and long- lasting impact on the integrity of the Housatonic River-floodplain ecosystem as well as on state-listed species and their habitats. 12 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 2. The short and long-term impacts of floodplain remediation on state-listed species and the Housatonic River-floodplain ecosystem, are in some cases substantial and should be avoided, but are generally less of a long term concern when compared to the scope and long lasting impact resulting from large scale bank and river bottom stabilization in the PSA. 3. The Commonwealth believes that any potential benefits associated with remediation to achieve ecological IMPGs would be far outweighed by the short and long-term damage to the meandering character of the Housatonic River ecosystem and to the associated state-listed species and their habitats. Consequently, as discussed elsewhere in this submission, the selected ROR remedy should focus on eliminating public health hazards associated with direct contact exposure to PCBs. Specific impacts on the integrity of the Housatonic River and Floodplain Ecosystem As discussed in detail earlier in this letter, the natural riverine processes of meandering, erosion, and channel migration lead to creation of floodplain wetlands and landforms including levees, side channels, backwaters, sloughs, and oxbows. These wetlands and landforms develop and evolve on a time scale of tens to hundreds of years. The resulting floodplain comprises complex heterogeneous patches (i.e., ―mosaics‖) of different successional stages, including herbs, grasses, deciduous trees, and conifers, creating high species diversity. The effects of armoring and stabilizing the river banks on the floodplain wetlands created by the above natural processes are as follows: First and foremost, the armoring or stabilization of the banks will eliminate the meandering and channel migration of the river. The affected portions of the river would evolve into a single- thread channel without the complex mosaic of floodplain wetlands that currently exist. If the channel migration process is eliminated, the existing wetland habitats will eventually fill in with fine sediment, re-forest, and meld into one homogenous habitat, with lower species diversity. The species that rely on the mosaic of wetlands and plants for foraging, refugia, and/or rearing will also vanish. These habitats, functions, and values cannot be fully re-created or restored by human intervention, because the habitats result from interactions of complex processes operating over hundreds of years. ―Soft‖ engineering methods for bank stabilization will have the same impact on floodplain wetlands as bank armoring. Both are designed to prevent erosion and channel migration. While soft engineering methods may look better aesthetically, they will not prevent or mitigate the above described impacts to floodplain wetlands. Additional functions and values that would be lost or degraded by armoring or stabilizing the river banks include: o Energy dissipation (slowing down the flood waters); o Surface and subsurface water storage and exchange (making water available to animals and underground aquifers); o Landscape hydrologic connections (connecting habitats together for wildlife and plants); o Trapping, retaining, and cycling of elements and compounds (e.g. nutrients) 13 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 o Particulate detention (holding sand, silt, and clay in the floodplain); o Organic matter transport (moving organic matter around); o Detrital biomass (creating and storing decaying leaves and other organic debris); o Spatial structure of habitats (providing multiple places for wildlife and plants to live); o Connectivity of habitats and movement routes (providing a means of connecting different types of habitats together and allowing movement of animals). In short, the impacts associated with the implementation of the SED 3–SED 10 remediation alternatives would have long-lasting and potentially irreversible adverse effects on the natural process of channel migration. This result would, in turn, fundamentally alter the integrity of a riverine system that supports and maintains the diversity of unique ecological features, species and habitats that are the hallmarks of the Housatonic River in the PSA. In the floodplain, the impacts associated with excavation include alteration of soils, vegetation, and hydrology in certain wetland types such as marshes and vernal pools. This outcome will make successful restoration challenging, and the loss of mature floodplain forest will take many decades to regenerate. Moreover, excavation of the floodplain results in habitat fragmentation associated with road and staging area construction, causes impacts to state-listed species, and increases the risk of introducing invasive species. For these reasons, the selected ROR remedy should prioritize the excavation of floodplain areas for the protection of human health, and avoid intrusive work when performed solely for perceived ecological benefit. Specific Impacts to State-Listed Species protected by MESA The revised CMS contains detailed analyses of the extent to which various remedial alternatives will impact state-listed species and their habitats, as well as an analysis of the feasibility of restoring various habitat types, post-remediation. Although the Commonwealth disagrees with some of the methods used, and some of the species-specific impact analyses, the Commonwealth agrees with the general conclusion that except for monitored natural recovery, all of the remedial alternatives identified in the revised CMS will result in the ―take‖ of numerous state-listed species. For example, in a preliminary analysis, we estimate that combined alternatives SED3/FP3 and SED10/FP9 may result in the take of 26 and 22 state-listed species, respectively. We further determined on a preliminary basis that SED3/FP3 and SED10/FP9 have the potential to result in a significant impact to the local populations of 9 and 6 state-listed species respectively. As discussed earlier in this submission to the Board, we are particularly concerned about the potential for moderate to severe long- term impacts to the 15 species found in ―core areas‖ in the PSA (listed in Table 2), which, due to their distribution, life history characteristics, and/or challenges associated with restoration of their habitat, are particularly vulnerable to remediation activities. Disposal of all removed material must be out of state utilizing rail transport. The Commonwealth has made clear to Region 1 that we vigorously oppose two disposal options outlined in the revised CMS that call for disposal of removed material to be sited within Berkshire County. These two options include a Confined Disposal Facility (―CDF") to be built within a local waterbody and the installation of an Upland Disposal Facility constructed in an area near the River. The Commonwealth opposes the creation of new landfills, given that there are existing, off-site, permitted disposal facilities that are equipped to accept this material. 14 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Woods Pond is a potential location for both the CDF and the Upland Disposal Facility5. However, as highlighted at the outset, the Upper Housatonic River Area has been designated by the Commonwealth to be an ACEC. The ACEC includes all nine inland resource features as designated by regulation, including fisheries, wetlands and surface waters, water supply areas, floodplains and steep slopes, agricultural and forested areas, historical and archaeological resources, wildlife and rare species habitats, and public recreational and natural areas. A disposal facility in or around Woods Pond is clearly not appropriate in this type of area, and the prohibition against siting a landfill in an ACEC has previously been identified as an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR) by the Commonwealth. In addition, installation of a disposal facility would not meet the requirements of several of the Commonwealth’s regulations including the Massachusetts Water Quality Certification regulations (314 CMR 9.06) and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act regulations (310 CMR 10.00). The CDF would also reduce necessary flood compensatory storage area. Installation of a disposal facility in Berkshire County would also have extremely negative impacts to the communities surrounding the facility including economic, aesthetic, recreational, and potential health impacts should the facility fail. Reliance on tourism is a significant economic factor for Berkshire County communities and the landfill would potentially have both short terms and long term damaging impacts to this very important industry. Further, construction of yet another such facility just expands the number of locations that would be affected by PCB-contamination, requiring additional long-term monitoring, operation and maintenance beyond what is already a long-term burden on the community, which runs counter to the concept of the anti-degradation provisions incorporated into the Massachusetts waste site cleanup regulations. The costs (including the social costs) of such a facility must be weighed against the simplicity and finality of disposal of this material in a pre-existing facility. The Commonwealth therefore supports disposal at an existing, out of state disposal facility properly permitted to receive such materials, and believes that rail is a feasible alternative to transport the material. The current freight rail system owned by Housatonic Railroad Company, Inc. (HRRC) runs adjacent to the portions of the Housatonic River subject to removal actions under our concept, including Woods Pond. GE evaluated the feasibility of utilizing rail transport in the CMS but determined to not consider it due to ―fewer logistical issues‖ with truck transportation. Based on our experience on other projects, the scope of the Commonwealth’s concept, and data presented in the CMS, the Commonwealth believes that rail would be a cost-effective and efficient way to transport contaminated media generated under the Commonwealth’s concept for Rest of River. The Commonwealth notes rail transport to a rail-served landfill is successfully being conducted for PCB-contaminated sediment being dredged from the Hudson River near Fort Edward, New York6. The CMS (Appendix B) presents the results of an evaluation, conducted by R.L. Banks and Associates, Inc. (RLBA) of Arlington, Virginia, a rail consulting firm, examining the feasibility of using rail to transport contaminated media. RLBA concluded that rail transport of excavated materials would be technically feasible. The main issue cited by GE in the CMS regarding use of rail transportation was the need to construct access roads and staging areas in certain areas of the river to transport excavated sediments and soils to the rail line. RLBA acknowledged that the availability of loading areas within the project area is an important factor in determining the feasibility of using rail transport. However, their preliminary review indicated that ―potential loading sites exist adjacent to or in very close proximity to HRRC tracks‖ and depending on the viability of these sites would eliminate the need to construct entirely new staging/loading tracks. Under the Commonwealth’s concept, the principal removal volumes would be generated from Woods Pond, which is adjacent to existing HHRC tracks. 5 There are also two additional upland disposal facility locations identified including Forest Street in Lee and near Rising Pond. 6 U.S. EPA, Region 2 News Release, EPA Marks the Startup of the Final Phase of Hudson River PCB Dredging; 500 Jobs Created By This Cleanup Project, 06/10/2011. 15 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 RLBA’s evaluation noted that outbound loaded railcars could be moved by HRRC to an interchange with a longer-haul railroad to access off-site, permitted disposal facilities. Such an interchange exists with CSX in Pittsfield. This interchange can hold over 200 cars to which HRRC currently sends and receives a train every day, which averages 30 to 35 cars per day. From that location, there are many rail-served landfills that could accept these materials as is currently being done with excavated Hudson River sediment near Fort Edward, New York. Finally, RLBA considered the range of removal volumes and projected project durations presented in the CMS in further evaluating the feasibility of rail transport. The Commonwealth’s concept is within the range of removal volumes and project durations presented in the CMS. RLBA concluded that the maximum removal scenario and project duration presented in the CMS could be managed by rail transport. Based on the information regarding the existing rail infrastructure presented in the CMS and the successful use of rail transport for other similar projects, the Commonwealth believes that it is feasible and cost effective to utilize rail transport for the removal actions under our concept. Conclusion In conclusion, the Commonwealth believes that the true driver for an appropriate remedy for the Rest of River is the unique and irreplaceable character of this river ecosystem. It should be the threshold consideration that underlies and shapes the balancing of the permit criteria that will result in EPA’s selection of the remedy. The Commonwealth has been clear that it supports taking all reasonable measures to protect the public from exposure to PCBs; commensurate with the demonstrated risk. Our key concern is that Region 1’s remedy proposal will not strike the right balance between protection of public health and preserving the core, defining ecological features of the ROR. As acknowledged by EPA, a sound remediation approach involves complex balancing of competing interests and values. The Commonwealth believes that the conceptual remedy alternative that we put forth in our comments on the revised CMS meets the RCRA permit criteria and represents a common sense, incremental approach to cleaning up the Housatonic River, achieving the goal of protecting the health of our citizens while preserving the integrity of this unique place for the benefit of future generations. We urge you to carefully scrutinize Region 1’s remedy proposal with reference to the Commonwealth’s assessment of the ecological features, diversity and robustness of the ROR system and our risk and impact evaluation of the remedy alternatives. At this point in the process, it is critical that Region 1 be directed by the Board to meaningfully engage with the Commonwealth on our concerns and critique of their remedy approach. EPA must err on the side of ensuring that Region 1’s remedy decision is fully informed by the interests and concerns of the Commonwealth and the Berkshire community. The Commonwealth much prefers to work cooperatively with EPA to craft a remedy for the Rest of River that appropriately balances the ecological costs and benefits associated with remediating or preserving a particular area for ecological reasons. However, in the event EPA proposes a remedy that fails to properly account for the unique ecological character of the ROR system, the Commonwealth will not hesitate to exercise all of its rights and authorities to challenge such a remedy. For example, the Dispute Resolution provisions of the Consent Decree provide the Commonwealth with numerous opportunities to review and comment on positions to be advanced by EPA in the dispute resolution process. The Commonwealth fully expects that EPA will provide it with a meaningful opportunity for such review and comment, which must include an adequate timeframe for the Commonwealth to conduct its review and a demonstration by EPA that the Commonwealth’s comments have been appropriately taken into account and addressed. Should EPA fail to provide the Commonwealth with such a meaningful opportunity for review and comment, the Commonwealth will 16 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 seek immediate review by the District Court, which has retained jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Consent Decree pursuant to Paragraph 211. In addition, Paragraph 22.bb of the Consent Decree expressly provides the Commonwealth with the right to challenge the waiver of an ARAR by EPA, both to the Environmental Appeals Board and the Court of Appeals. During the CMS review process, the Commonwealth identified numerous state ARARs that are essential to ensuring that the selected remedy’s impacts are avoided, minimized and mitigated in accordance with the Commonwealth’s laws, regulations and requirements. Such state ARARs include, but are not limited to, the MA Endangered Species Act, which plays a central role in protecting the diverse array of state-listed species and their habitats in the ROR, and the other state ARARs resulting from the designation of the Upper Housatonic River Area as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, which encompasses the 13-mile corridor of the Housatonic River from southern Pittsfield to northern Lee, and portions of the supporting watersheds that drain into the river from the east and west. Should EPA waive a state ARAR without the Commonwealth’s prior agreement, the Commonwealth shall take whatever action it deems necessary to protect this extraordinary natural resource. Finally, it is our position that the avenues described above to challenge an unacceptable EPA remedy are in addition to the Commonwealth’s rights and authorities to challenge such a remedy under RCRA, its implementing regulations, and other applicable laws and regulations including, without limitation, 40 C.F.R § 124.19. Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views to the Board on this momentous remedy decision. Sincerely, Richard K. Sullivan, Jr. Secretary, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Kenneth L. Kimmell Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Mary Griffin Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game7 cc: Region 1: – Curt Spalding, Ira Leighton, Susan Svirsky, Tim Conway, Dean Tagliaferro, Holly Inglis MassDEP: – Mike Gorski, Eva Tor, Jeff Mickelson, Paul Locke, John Ziegler DFG/DFW: – Wayne F. MacCallum, Mark Tisa, Jon Regosin, Beth Lambert, Richard Lehan GE: – Michael Carroll, Andrew Silfer Attachment A - Tables & Figures Attachment B - The Commonwealth’s January 31, 2011 Massachusetts Comments on Housatonic River - Rest of River Revised Corrective Measures Study, which includes the NHESP 2010 Report: Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts (Appendix B) 18 Attachment A Tables & Figures Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Table 1. State-listed species occupying the PSA Common Name Scientific Name Status Foxtail Sedge Carex alopecoidea Threatened Hairy Wild Rye Elymus villosus Endangered Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Endangered Tuckerman’s Sedge Carex tuckermanii Endangered Zebra Clubtail Stylurus scudderi Special Concern Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Special Concern Bristly Buttercup Ranunculus pensylvanicus Special Concern Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Special Concern Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum Special Concern Ostrich Fern Borer Papaipema sp. 2 Special Concern Rapids Clubtail Gomphus quadricolor Threatened Arrow Clubtail Stylurus spiniceps Threatened Gray’s Sedge Carex grayi Threatened American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Endangered Crooked-stem Aster Symphyotrichum prenanthoides Threatened Water Shrew Sorex palustris Special Concern Spine-crowned Clubtail Gomphus abbreviatus Endangered Narrow-leaved Spring Beauty Claytonia virginica Endangered Triangle Floater Alasmidonta undulata Special Concern Brook Snaketail Ophiogomphus aspersus Special Concern Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta Special Concern Mustard White Pieris oleracea Threatened Wapato Sagittaria cuneata Threatened Riffle Snaketail Ophiogomphus carolus Threatened Intermediate Spike-seed Eleocharis intermedia Threatened Table 2. State-listed species for which Core Areas were delineated. Common Name Scientific Name Status American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Endangered Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Special Concern Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta Special Concern Triangle Floater Alasmidonta undulata Special Concern Rapids Clubtail Gomphus quadricolor Threatened Riffle Snaketail Ophiogomphus carolus Threatened Ostrich Fern Borer Papaipema sp. 2 Special Concern Mustard White Pieris oleracea Threatened Gray’s Sedge Carex grayi Threatened Tuckerman’s Sedge Carex tuckermanii Endangered Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Special Concern Bristly Buttercup Ranunculus pensylvanicus Special Concern Narrow-leaved Spring Beauty Claytonia virginica Endangered Hairy Wild Rye Elymus villosus Endangered Wapato Sagittaria cuneata Threatened A -1 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Figure 1. Housatonic “PSA” habitat sections. A -2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Figure 2. Regulatory habitat within the PSA. A -3 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Figure 3. Overlap of Priority Habitats in the PSA. A -4 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Figure 4. Overlap of Priority Habitats in habitat sections 1 and 2 of the PSA. A -5 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Figure 5. Overlap of Priority Habitats in habitat sections 3 and 4in the PSA. A -6 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Figure 6. Core Areas for 13 species within the PSA. A -7 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Figure 7. Meander, Oxbow, and Floodplain N Processes Housatonic River Very old oxbows filled in by sediment and wetland Younger oxbows in the meanders vegetation process of filling in Active meanders; will eventually cutoff and form oxbows Recently Direction abandoned of flow channel segment A -8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Figure 8. Housatonic River Habitat-forming Processes A -9 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submission to NRRB July 23, 2011 Figure 9. Recent Examples of Meander Cutoff and Side Channel Formation in the PSA Channel meander. Note proximity of a) upstream and downstream ends. b) a. Locations of post-1971 channel change b. Example a. 1971 aerial photo of the Housatonic examples a) and b) River. Screen shot from aerialphotos.com. Meander cut-off Meander cut-off Former main thread of channel; now an isolated oxbow wetland c. Example a. 1997 aerial photo of the Housatonic d. Detailed view of meander cutoff from River. Screen shot from aerialphotos.com. MassGIS 2005 aerial photo. e. 1971 aerial photo. Arrow shows location f. 1997 aerial photo. Arrow shows location of 1997 side channel. of new side channel. A -10 Attachment B January 31, 2011 Massachusetts Comments on Housatonic River Rest of River Revised Corrective Measures Study [Attachment B is also available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/region1/ge/thesite/restofriver/reports/cms/477441.pdf] Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife July 2010 a b Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Prepared for: Trustee Sub-Council for Massachusetts Natural Resource Trustees for the GE/Housatonic River NRDAR Case Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and United States Fish and Wildlife Service In partial completion of Proposal 18: “Rare Species Recovery on the Housatonic River” Prepared by: Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581 July 2010 c Acknowledgments This project was funded through the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Res- toration (NRDAR) Programs of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & En- vironmental Affairs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, using funding via the Mas- sachusetts Sub-Council of the Housatonic River Trustee Council under the auspices of the Massachusetts and Department of the Interior (DOI) Natural Resource Dam- age Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) Programs, as part of a legal settlement with the General Electric Company for releasing polychlorinated biphenyls into the Housatonic River and its floodplain. The Trustee Representatives of the Massachusetts Sub-Council, Dale Young (EEA) and Veronica Varela (USFWS), provided encour- agement and constructive oversight. Jennifer Loose Ryan wrote NHESP’s original proposal. Thanks are due to Andrew Madden, DFW’s Western District Manager, for providing housing for several biologists during their surveys. The many biologists con- tracted for the project are listed in the report. Many others have contributed for many years to the knowledge of the biodiversity of the Housatonic; this report built on the existing information without which this project would mean less and would have been much more difficult. Biodrawversity LLC worked with NHESP staff to analyze results of field surveys and produce the technical report. Photographers are credited throughout the report. d e Contents Executive Summary...... 1 Introduction...... 2 Study Area Descriptions...... 4 Target Taxa and Natural Communities...... 7 Methods...... 11 I. Ecological and Endangered Species Surveys...... 12 II. Data Synthesis and Reporting...... 14 III. Establishing Priorities for Protection, Restoration, and Management...... 14 Results...... 14 I. Target Taxa and Natural Communities...... 14 II. Quantitative Performance Measures...... 22 Discussion...... 22 I. Priority Areas...... 22 II. Threats...... 27 III. Next Steps...... 29 Literature Cited and Further Reading...... 31 f g Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Housatonic River watershed is critical to biological conservation in Massachusetts. The Western New England Marble Valleys ecoregion that spans the lowlands of the Housatonic watershed is characterized by calcium-rich conditions that support some of the rarest plants, animals, and natural communities in the state. The watershed currently contains 110 plant species and 51 animal species protected by the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA). As part of the legal settlement with the General Electric Company for releasing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the Housatonic River and its floodplain, the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) was awarded funds via the Massachusetts Sub-Council of the Housatonic River Trustee Council under the auspices of the Massachusetts and Department of the Interior (DOI) Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) Programs. It used these funds to undertake the most intensive and comprehensive ecological field study in the Program’s history. The study focused on protected species and priority natural communities known to occur in the critical supporting watershed of the Housatonic River. Nearly 50 people participated in field studies and conducted nearly 2,500 site visits, with survey effort including approximately 495 days and more than 9,000 person-hours for fieldwork alone. Studies targeted a total of 60 state-listed species including a variety of plants (31), butterflies and moths (three), dragonflies and damselflies (five), freshwater mussels (two), fish (four), salamanders (two), turtles (three), and marsh birds (ten). The project also targeted 12 priority (S1-S3) natural community types. A total of 47 target species and 21 non-target state-listed species were encountered during the studies. Among the newly documented species were ten Endangered, five Threatened, and six Special Concern species. All of the target types of natural communities were found and an additional four priority natural community types were documented for the first time in the critical supporting watershed. The survey results greatly enhance resource protection afforded under MESA and the Wetlands Protection Act and will also help establish conservation priorities for federal, state, and local governments as well as non-government conservation organizations. Field studies described in this technical report, combined with existing natural resource data for the study area, will form the basis for a biodiversity conservation plan that includes priorities and recommendations for habitat protection, restoration, and management in the critical supporting watershed of the Housatonic River. The plan will be disseminated to stakeholders in the form of reports to each of 19 towns in the critical supporting watershed and a non-technical summary that appeals to the public and helps raise public awareness for watershed conservation efforts. 1 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Housatonic River near Canoe Meadows Wildlife Sanctuary, Pittsfield. Ethan Nedeau INTRODUCTION to marble during the Acadian Orogeny 350-400 million years ago (reviewed in Woodlot Alternatives 2002). Al- The Housatonic watershed of western New England spans though the last glaciers—which left the Housatonic only approximately 1,950 square miles of strikingly varied 10,000-14,000 years ago—and the erosive forces of water landscape, from the glacially scoured Taconic Mountains shaped current landforms in the watershed, it is the un- and Berkshire Highlands south through the highlands of derlying marble that makes the Housatonic watershed one western Connecticut to the Atlantic coastal plain. The of the most biologically distinctive areas in Massachusetts. Housatonic River flows through the heart of its water- The principal characteristics of the Western New Eng- shed, meandering through expansive pastoral lands and land Marble Valleys ecoregion are extensive groundwater cutting sharply through steep rocky ravines along its 149- aquifers and calcium-rich soil and water, which provide mile path to the Long Island Sound. The Housatonic Riv- er watershed spans 545 square miles of southwestern Mas- N sachusetts (Figure 1) and includes 54 miles of the upper Housatonic River. The entire Massachusetts length of the Housatonic River flows through the Western New Eng- land Marble Valleys ecoregion1 (Figure 2), a relict of an ancient shallow marine sea that was lost when continents drifted toward each other to connect along a seam that separates what is now New York and the Lake Champ- lain basin from the rest of New England. The calcium-rich marine sediments of the ancient seafloor were transformed 1Ecoregions (or ecological regions) are areas of relatively homogeneous ecologi- cal systems, including vegetation, soils, climate, geology, and patterns of human Figure 1. Location of the Housatonic River watershed in southwest- uses) ern Massachusetts. Data source: MassGIS. 2 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Calcareous natural community types, such as this calcareous rock outcrop at Renee’s Cobble in Sheffield, contribute to the high biological diver- sity in the Housatonic River watershed. Michael Batcher. hydrological and chemical conditions preferred by plants ed species in Massachusetts (Barbour et al. 1998). Within and animals found nowhere else in the Commonwealth these two ecoregions, most of the rare species occur within (Barbour et al. 1998, NHESP 2001). four broad groups of natural community types: rich me- Two of the ecoregions that occur in the Massachusetts sic forests, calcareous wetlands, river and stream commu- portion of the watershed—the Taconic Mountains and nities, and emergent marshes. In addition to the species the Western New England Marble Valleys—are among whose presence results from unique habitat conditions, the four ecoregions with the highest densities of state-list- the watershed is at the edge of the range for several state- listed species such as the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenber- gii) and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa). The Housatonic N watershed is currently known to support 110 species of plants and 51 species of animals that are protected by the Housatonic River Watershed Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and its Ecoregions Berkshire Highlands implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00) (NHESP Lower Berkshire Hills database). Only 15 percent of Berkshire County lands lower than 1,000 feet in elevation – home to 112 state- Taconic Mountains Western New England listed species – receive the benefits of state protection Marble Valleys (Barbour et al. 1998). In contrast, high elevation areas of the county are inhabited by 25 state-listed species and are relatively well protected—61 percent of lands higher than 2,500 feet in elevation are protected. Lowlands of Berk- shire County, especially the Housatonic River valley, are an urgent conservation priority in Massachusetts. Figure 2. Ecoregions of western Massachusetts, showing the West- ern New England Marble Valleys through which the Housatonic River In 2005, the Natural Heritage and Endangered Spe- flows. Data source: MassGIS. cies Program sought funds via the Massachusetts Sub- 3 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts The confluence of the East and West Branches of the Housatonic River in Pittsfield.Ethan Nedeau. Council of the Housatonic River Trustee Council under (Objective 3) to towns in the form of reports that are ex- the auspices of the Massachusetts and Department of the plicit about the rare species or exemplary natural com- Interior (DOI) Natural Resource Damage Assessment munities that occur in each town and where protection, and Restoration (NRDAR) Programs, as part of the le- restoration, or management activities should be directed. gal settlement with the General Electric Company for The town reports will also incorporate new BioMap Core releasing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the Hou- Habitats and are therefore expected to be completed soon satonic River and its floodplain. NHESP received these after BioMap 2 is completed late in 2010. In addition to funds in 2007. Central to the proposal was the long-held the original objectives described above, NHESP will pro- conviction that the Housatonic watershed was critical to duce a non-technical summary of the work accomplished statewide biodiversity protection and the belief that state with NRD funds that will be engaging and appealing to agencies, municipalities, private landowners, and corpo- general audiences and help build momentum for water- rate entities had a shared responsibility to protect and re- shed conservation efforts. store the watershed. The project had three main objectives regarding the identification, prioritization, and protection STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION of critical natural resources: • Conduct ecological and endangered species surveys of Ecological and rare species studies were conducted select habitats and taxonomic groups, especially those within the Massachusetts portion of the Housatonic species most closely associated with the Housatonic River watershed (Figure 3), specifically in areas closely River, its system, and tributaries, to define possible tied to the Housatonic River. The study area was termed protection and restoration strategies. the critical supporting watershed and its boundaries • Identify and prioritize sites for habitat protection, res- (Figure 4) were determined using a grid-based watershed toration, and management. delineation model (“AQUALAND”) developed at the • Provide conservation planning materials to the 19 University of Massachusetts (McGarigal et al. 2003). The municipalities within the primary study area. critical supporting watershed included the Housatonic River and its floodplains, lower portions of major and This technical document primarily describes accom- minor tributaries, and nearby wetlands and terrestrial plishments toward the first objective. Site prioritization lands that may support aquatic and riparian species. Rare (Objective 2) is summarized in this document but is a species and natural communities in higher elevations of collaborative effort that will evolve in 2010 and beyond. the watershed, as well as most lakes, were excluded from NHESP will provide conservation planning materials the study. 4 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Figure 3. Housatonic River watershed boundaries, 10 miles town boundaries, and major waterbodies. Towns in bold black fall within the critical supporting wa- tershed (see Figure 4) and are the focus on con- Cheshire servation planning efforts. Data source: MassGIS. Hancock N Lanesborough Pontoosuc Lake Windsor Dalton Onota Lake East Branch West Branch Pittsfield Hinsdale Sackett Brook Peru River Richmond Housatonic Lenox Washington Woods Pond Middlefield Stockbridge Bowl West Stockbridge Lee Stockbridge Goose Pond Housatonic River River Hop Brook Becket Williams Brook Alford Tyringham Konkapot Great Barrington Otis Green River Monterey River Egremont Housatonic Hubbard Brook River Konkapot Sandisfield Mt. Washington Sheffield New Marlborough Tolland 5 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Figure 4. Entire Housatonic River watershed ver- N sus critical supporting watershed boundaries. Town boundaries are shown but see Figure 3 for town names. All waterbodies are shown but the map does not differentiate between lakes and large wetlands. Data source: MassGIS. Housatonic River Watershed Critical Supporting Watershed 5 miles 6 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts TARGET TAXA AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES Table 1. Definition of regulatory (Massachusetts Endangered Species Act) and non-regulatory status ranks used for species and natural communities in this report. Surveys focused on state-listed plants and animals, priority natural communities (see Table 1 for ranking definitions), Status Ranks Definition and vernal pools that were known, or suspected, to occur Regulatory (MESA) Endangered Endangered (E) species are native species in the critical supporting watershed (Table 2). Existing which are in danger of extinction throughout all element occurrences (EOs) are carefully tracked and or part of their range, or which are in danger of extirpation from Massachusetts, as documented updated by NHESP and helped direct the selection of by biological research and inventory. survey targets and survey sites. EOs are defined as areas Threatened Threatened (T) species are native species where a rare species population or natural community is which are likely to become endangered in the forseeable future, or which are declining or (or was) present and which have practical conservation rare as determined by biological research and value for the species or community. In addition to EOs, inventory. Special Concern Special concern (SC) species are native species NHESP also tracks some information on EO sources, which have been documented by biological including all the individual plants or animals that might research or inventory to have suffered a decline constitute a single EO. In this report, EO sources are that could threaten the species if allowed to continue unchecked, or which occur in discussed specifically for the botanical surveys that such small numbers or with such restricted targeted both EOs and EO sources. One of the primary distribution or specialized habitat requirements reasons that this survey targeted existing or historic EOs that they could easily become threatened within Massachusetts. (occurrences with the most recent record more than 25 Non-Regulatory years old are called historic) is that EOs only receive Watch List The plant Watch List (WL) is an unofficial, non- MESA protection for 25 years since the last observation. regulatory list of plants of known or suspected conservation concern that NHESP is interested EOs with older records might or might not continue to in tracking. support rare species, but without updates verifying the State Ranks (S rank) The state rank (S) reflects the rarity and threat within Massachusetts. The non-regulatory ranks continued presence of rare species they receive no legal for communities: S1 is least common, S5 most protection. Thus, there is a continual need to update EOs common; to maintain the legal protections provided to rare species S1 Typically 5 or fewer occurrences, very few remaining individuals, acres, or miles of stream and their habitats. Some of the more recent EOs in the or especially vulnerable to extirpation in NHESP database were not targeted for the NRD surveys Massachusetts for other reasons. S2 Typically 6 - 20 occurrences, few remaining because of the long time before they would expire and the individuals, acres, or miles of stream or very need to focus efforts on older EOs. vulnerable to extirpation in Massachusetts for The life history and dispersal ability of target other reasons. S3 Typically 21 - 100 occurrences, limited acreage, taxonomic groups were considered when defining the or miles of stream in Massachusetts. geographic scope of studies; central goals were to locate S4 Apparently secure in Massachusetts. source populations that might recolonize impacted S5 Demonstrably secure in Massachusetts areas and to protect dispersal routes to facilitate natural recovery. For example, dragonfly, wood turtle, fish, and marsh bird surveys were often conducted far up tributaries the study area, (3) assess the spatial extent and condition and in more remote areas because these mobile species of habitat supporting EOs, and (4) assess threats to, and may be able to replenish depleted populations nearer the management needs of, rare plants and their habitats. Housatonic River or elsewhere in the critical supporting watershed. Targets are briefly described below. Moths and Butterflies: Two species of butterflies associated with wetland habitats were targeted for surveys: Plants: A total of 83 state-listed or Watch List plant species the Dion Skipper (Euphyes dion) and Mustard White were known from the critical supporting watershed prior (Pieris oleracea). Both species are listed as Threatened in to NRD surveys, with eight additional species considered Massachusetts. The Dion Skipper inhabits sedge wetlands, to have been historically present. From among the pool of and it nectars in open wetlands and upland fields. Berkshire 91 rare plant species, surveys primarily targeted 31 species County contains eight of the nine known locations in expected to occur in wetlands and forests in the floodplain Massachusetts; these records comprise the northeastern of the Housatonic River (Table 2), whereas high-elevation edge of the species’ range. The Mustard White inhabits a species were not targeted. There were four objectives: variety of habitats, including riparian floodplains, margins (1) update EO records in the study area, (2) conduct of fens and marshes, wet meadows, fields, and pastures. searches for new rare plant species and occurrences in The species has been found at only six locations in 7 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Table 2. State-listed species and priority natural communities either specifically targeted or found during NRD surveys. Ranks: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SC = Special Concern, EXT = Extirpated, NL = Not Listed, S-ranks (natural community types) described Table 1. Common Name Latin Name Rank Common Name Latin Name Rank Plants Rapids Clubtail Gomphus quadricolor T Black Maple Acer nigrum SC Harpoon Clubtail Gomphus descriptus E Black Cohosh Actaea racemosa E Ocellated Darner Boyeria grafiana SC Climbing Fumitory Adlumia fungosa SC Stygian Shadowdragon Neurocordulia yamaskanensis SC Small-flowered Agrimony Agrimonia parviflora E Total Species 10 Green Dragon Arisaema dracontium T Freshwater Mussels Mountain Spleenwort Asplenium montanum E Triangle Floater Alasmidonta undulata SC Smooth Rock-cress Boechera laevigata T Creeper Strophitus undulatus SC Purple Cress Cardamine douglassii E Total Species 2 Foxtail Sedge Carex alopecoidea T Fish Davis's Sedge Carex davisii E Burbot Lota lota SC Gray's Sedge Carex grayi T Trout Perch Percopsis omiscomaycus EXT Hairy-fruited Sedge Carex trichocarpa T Bridle Shiner Notropis bifrenatus SC Tuckerman's Sedge Carex tuckermanii E Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus SC Cat-tail Sedge Carex typhina T Total Species 4 Narrow-leaved Spring Beauty Claytonia virginica E Salamanders Hemlock Parsley Conioselinum chinense SC Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum NL Showy Lady's-slipper Cypripedium reginae SC Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum SC Wright's Spike-rush Eleocharis diandra E Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum T Intermediate Spike-sedge Eleocharis intermedia T Total Species 3 Ovate Spike-rush Eleocharis ovata E Turtles Hairy Wild Rye Elymus villosus E Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta SC Dwarf Scouring-rush Equisetum scirpoides SC Bog Turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii E Frank's Lovegrass Eragrostis frankii SC Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene c. carolina SC Andrews' Bottle Gentian Gentiana andrewsii E Total Species 3 Giant St. John's-wort Hypericum ascyron E Marsh Birds Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica E Virginia Rail Rallus limicola NL Hairy Honeysuckle Lonicera hirsuta E Sora Porzana carolina NL Many-fruited False-loosestrife Ludwigia polycarpa E American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus E Winged Monkeyflower Mimulus alatus E Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis E Comb Water-milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum E King Rail Rallus elegans E Tiny Cow-lily Nuphar microphylla E Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus SC Drooping Speargrass Poa saltuensis ssp. languida E Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps E Hill's Pondweed Potamogeton hillii SC Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis E Ogden's Pondweed Potamogeton ogdenii E Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris NL Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa SC Green Heron Butorides virescens NL Yellow Oak Quercus muehlenbergii T Total Species 10 Bristly Buttercup Ranunculus pensylvanicus T Priority Palustrine Natural Community Types Swamp Dock Rumex verticillatus T Acidic Graminoid Fen S3 Wapato Sagittaria cuneata T Alluvial Red Maple Swamp S3 Long-styled Sanicle Sanicula odorata T Black Ash Swamp S2 Wild Senna Senna hebecarpa E Black Ash-Red Maple-Tamarack Calcareous Seepage Swamp S2 Shining Wedgegrass Sphenopholis nitida T Calcareous Basin Fen S1 Small Dropseed Sporobolus neglectus E Calcareous Sloping Fen S2 Crooked-stem Aster Symphyotrichum prenanthoides T Level Bog S3 Culver's-root Veronicastrum virginicum T Major-River Floodplain Forest S2 Barren Strawberry Waldsteinia fragarioides SC Red Maple-Black Ash-Bur Oak Swamp S2 Total Species 46 Small-River Floodplain Forest S2 Butterflies and Moths Spruce-Fir Boreal Swamp S3 Dion Skipper Euphyes dion T Transitional Floodplain Forest S2 Mustard White Pieris oleracea T Priority Terrestrial Natural Community Types Ostrich Fern Borer Papaipema sp. 2 near pterisii SC Calcareous Forest Seep S2 Total Species 3 Calcareous Rock Cliff S3 Dragonflies Calcareous Rocky Summit/Rock Outcrop S2 Arrow Clubtail Stylurus spiniceps T High Terrace Floodplain Forest S2 Zebra Clubtail Stylurus scudderi SC Rich Mesic Forest S3 Brook Snaketail Ophiogomphus aspersus SC Ridgetop Pitch Pine-Scrub Oak S2 Riffle Snaketail Ophiogomphus carolus T Yellow Oak Dry Calcareous Forest S2 Skillet Clubtail Gomphus ventricosus SC Total Natural Communities 19 Spine-crowned Clubtail Gomphus abbreviatus E Massachusetts, all in central Berkshire County, and these in the Housatonic River floodplain, where it is associated populations comprise the southernmost extent of the with stands of ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) in species’ range in eastern North America. The Ostrich Fern mature floodplain forests and wooded swamps. Borer (Papaipema sp. 2 near pterisii), a Special Concern moth species, was also targeted for NRD surveys. Most of Dragonflies and Damselflies:Prior to the NRD surveys, the known occurrences for this species in Massachusetts are five state-listed dragonfly species and one state-listed 8 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Four of the target state-listed species, including triangle floater (top left), Jefferson salamander (bottom left), wood turtle (top right) and Least Bittern (bottom right). In the order mentioned: Ethan Nedeau, Steve Johnson, Ethan Nedeau, Patricia Serrentino damselfly species were known from the critical supporting prior to NRD surveys: the triangle floater (Alasmidonta watershed, but the whole region was undersurveyed and undulata) and creeper (Strophitus undulatus). NHESP there was high potential for finding several more state- had only five site records for the triangle floater and four listed species. Thus, surveys targeted all riverine dragonflies site records for the creeper, but thorough and systematic in the mainstem Housatonic River and its tributaries mussel surveys had never been conducted in the watershed. rather than focusing on small areas or single species. Both species occur in small to large streams and rivers Damselflies were not specifically targeted because they throughout central and eastern Massachusetts and are tend to be far less diverse in riverine environments and also known from several sites in the Connecticut portion because the only state-listed damselfly previously known of the Housatonic watershed. For the NRD project, from the critical supporting watershed, the Tule Bluet surveyors targeted all freshwater mussel species because of (Enallagma carunculatum), prefers larger lakes. Primary their importance to stream ecosystems and because they targets were rare dragonfly species in the genera Stylurus, are indicators of the quality of water and habitat. Ophiogomphus, Gomphus, and Boyeria. The life cycle of dragonflies includes an aquatic larval stage and aerial Fish: Three state-listed fish species and one species adult stage. From May through September (depending on considered extirpated in Massachusetts have been reported the species), larvae emerge from the water when ready to in the Housatonic River watershed in Massachusetts. All metamorphose into adults; when they find an appropriate four were targeted for the NRD surveys. Two species, the surface the adult form will shed their larval exoskeletons longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) and bridle shiner (called exuviae), unfurl and dry their wings, and then take (Notropis bifrenatus)—both listed as Special Concern flight. Surveys focused on larvae, exuviae, and adults. in Massachusetts—have been recently collected in the watershed. The longnose sucker occurs in cool rocky Freshwater Mussels: Two state-listed freshwater mussel sections of streams and rivers in western Massachusetts, species were known from the Housatonic watershed including the Deerfield, Housatonic, Hoosic, and 9 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Plant and natural communities conducted in 2008 also noted presence of ostrich fern stands in floodplain forests, which were then targeted for Ostrich Fern Borer moth surveys in 2009. Michael Batcher. Westfield watersheds. The bridle shiner occurs in slack water. The marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), areas of streams and rivers, as well as ponds and lakes, which is listed as Threatened in Massachusetts, was not especially among submerged aquatic vegetation. targeted for NRD surveys because it had never been Two target fish species were historically reported reported in the watershed. It occupies similar habitat as from the watershed or occur in nearby Connecticut. Jefferson salamanders but has a more central and eastern The burbot (Lota lota), a species of Special Concern in distribution in Massachusetts and a more southern Massachusetts, occurs in tributaries in the Connecticut distribution range-wide. As described in the results, this portion of the Housatonic watershed. The trout perch species was documented in the Massachusetts portion of (Percopsis omiscomaycus), a species more common west of the Housatonic watershed for the first time ever. New England, has not been seen in Massachusetts since 1942 when it was found near the mouth of the Green Turtles: Surveys targeted two state-listed turtle species River and the species is now considered extirpated. that occur in the Housatonic watershed. These include the wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) and bog turtle Salamanders: Only two state-listed salamander species (Glyptemys muhlenbergii). The wood turtle is listed as were known from the study area prior to NRD surveys: Special Concern in Massachusetts, and it is widespread the Jefferson salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum) but uncommon from the coastal plain to the Housatonic and four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum). watershed. It prefers slow-moving mid-sized streams with The Jefferson salamander is listed as Special Concern in sandy bottoms and vegetated riparian areas. The bog Massachusetts and is thought to occur primarily in the turtle is listed as Endangered in Massachusetts and is also western half of the state. They live in upland deciduous or federally listed as Threatened by the United States Fish mixed forests within one mile of their breeding wetlands. and Wildlife Service. The bog turtle inhabits calcareous The four-toed salamander was removed from the MESA fen wetlands in the Housatonic watershed and known list in 2008 after NRD surveys had been initiated. They populations are extremely isolated. A third state-listed occur throughout Massachusetts in a variety of forested turtle species, the eastern box turtle (Terrapene c. carolina) wetlands and boggy habitats and nest in Sphagnum has been reported in the lower Housatonic watershed in mounds (sometimes tussock sedge mounds) over standing Massachusetts (including one old carapace) but natural 10 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts amounts of cattail (Typha spp.), tussock sedge (Carex stricta) and other wetland sedges, low shrubs, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and the non-native common reed (Phragmites australis). Vernal Pools: Vernal pools are temporary bodies of freshwater that either fill in the fall and hold water until the following spring (“autumnal pools”) or fill in the springtime by spring rains and snowmelt and dry later in the summer. Most dry annually (with some variation due to size and depth of the vernal pool and precipitation) and therefore do not support fish populations. Many vernal pools throughout Massachusetts are critical breeding habitats for rare species, especially mole salamanders (Ambystoma spp.) and might also be foraging areas for other important wildlife species. A total of 786 potential vernal pools (PVPs) had been identified in the Housatonic watershed based on analysis of aerial photography (NHESP 2001), but only 70 were certified prior to 2008. Certified vernal pools are protected by the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) as well as other state and local laws. NHESP administers the official vernal pool certification program in Massachusetts and protects state-listed species associated with these habitats. Therefore, NRD surveys targeted both vernal pools and the state-listed species that could potentially inhabit them. Though not rare, fairy shrimp (top) and wood frogs (bottom) are obli- gate vernal pool species and were targeted to confirm whether pools Natural Communities: Natural communities are groups met biological criteria for certification. Steve Johnson. of plants and animals that are found in recurring patterns and can be classified and described by their dominant populations have never been detected and historic reports physical and biological features. Each type of natural might be escaped pets. A modest survey was conducted in community receives an element rank that reflects its 2009 but a much more intensive effort would be needed rarity and threat within Massachusetts. Priority natural to detect low-density populations (if they exist). communities are generally ranked from S1 (highest) to S3; lower-ranked communities (S4 and S5) are more Marsh Birds: Ten marsh bird species were targeted for common and widespread in the state. Prior to the NRD surveys (Table 2), including five that had been recently surveys, there were nine types of priority freshwater confirmed in the study area, one historic species, and four communities and three types of priority terrestrial species for which little prior information was available. communities in the critical supporting watershed (Table Only six of the ten species are state-listed in Massachusetts 2). Among these were one S1 community (Calcareous (four Endangered, one Threatened, one Special Concern). Basin Fen, two occurrences), six S2 communities, and five Marsh birds are the only taxonomic group for which non- S3 communities. These were the primary targets for the MESA listed species were surveyed: the four non-listed NRD surveys, although the survey had a second major species occur in habitats similar to those of the listed objective of documenting new or additional priority marsh birds, and are often surveyed with them. Two of types of natural communities in the critical supporting the four (Sora and Green Heron) are included In the watershed. Massachusetts Wildlife Action Plan2 (WAP), a project to support conservation efforts aimed at preventing wildlife METHODS from becoming endangered. Surveys targeted large open wetlands throughout the watershed containing variable NHESP solicited proposals for ecological and state- protected species work and contracted with expert 2Website: www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/habitat/cwcs/cwcs_background consultants, academic researchers, and graduate students 11 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Table 3. Contractors and NHESP staff that contributed to fieldwork and preparation of the technical report. Contractors (Principal Investigator) Affiliation (s) Category/Project Focus Year James Gibbs and Angela Sirois State University of New York, ESF Bog Turtles 2008-2009 Tom Lautzenheiser Massachusetts Audubon Society Butterflies 2008-2009 John Baker Clark University Fish 2009 Kimberly Ogden University of Massachusetts Amherst Four-Toed Salamanders 2008 Ethan Nedeau Biodrawversity Freshwater Mussels 2008-2009 Noah Charney University of Massachusetts Amherst Jefferson Salamanders, Vernal Pools 2008-2009 Jennifer Strules Independent Wildlife Biologist Marsh Birds 2008 Patricia Serrentino Independent Wildlife Biologist Marsh Birds 2009 Michael Batcher Independent Ecologist Natural Communities 2008-2009 David Wagner, Alexander Meleg, University of Connecticut Odonate Surveys 2008 Michael C. Thomas, and Greg Hanisek Fred Morrison A Natural Focus Odonate Surveys - Northern tributaries 2009 Ethan Nedeau Biodrawversity Odonate Surveys - Southern tributaries 2009 Suzanne Fowle Independent Wildlife Biologist Turtles 2009 Marybeth Hanley Independent Botanist Vascular Plants 2008-2009 William Moorhead Independent Botanist Vascular Plants 2008-2009 Michael Jones University of Massachusetts Amherst Wood Turtle 2008 Ethan Nedeau Biodrawversity Data analysis, report coordination, and writing 2009-2010 NHESP Staff Chris Buelow NHESP Marsh Birds 2008-2009 Michael Nelson NHESP Ostrich Fern Borer Moth 2009 (Table 3). Specific objectives, survey locations, methods, sites where large concentrations of ostrich fern had been and reporting expectations varied among the different noted during the first year of the NRD funded surveys; projects. Contractors closely coordinated with one or larval surveys were conducted in 67 acres of potential more NHESP staff to ensure that reports and data were habitat in the summer of 2009. Ostrich Fern Borer larvae submitted in a manner that would ensure their inclusion were collected and reared to the adult stage to confirm in NHESP’s rare species database and conservation their identity. Presence of host plants and the approximate planning efforts. This report briefly describes the methods extent of suitable habitat were noted at each survey site used for each taxonomic group, vernal pools, and natural where the target species were found. communities. Methods are usually described in greater detail in the full submissions from contractors. Dragonflies and Damselflies: In 2008, Dr. David Wagner of the University of Connecticut led a team that I. Ecological and Endangered Species Surveys surveyed for dragonflies along nearly 51 miles of the Housatonic River, including 72 “sites” of varying length Plants: Marybeth Hanley and William Moorhead (both for a total of 104 site visits. In 2009, the consulting firms independent contractors) completed the botanical studies. Biodrawversity LLC and A Natural Focus completed The project focused on rediscovering and updating existing dragonfly and damselfly surveys in tributaries, collectively EOs and EO sources. Surveys primarily targeted wetland surveying 51 sites in 31 tributaries for a combined 85 site and upland plant species within the floodplain in Sheffield, visits. Surveys focused on aquatic larvae in wadeable areas, Great Barrington, Lenox, and Pittsfield. Approximately exuviae and tenerals (pre-flight adults) along riverbanks, 308 sites or EOs were visited. Field forms were completed and aerial adults along rivers and in adjacent uplands. according to NHESP specifications. Fieldwork was Larval sampling was conducted in a representative range performed in 2008 and 2009 (two botanists, 120 days). of habitats at each survey site. Sites with habitat that appeared promising for rare species were usually revisited Moths and Butterflies: Tom Lautzenheiser of the during the peak emergence period to find exuviae and Massachusetts Audubon Extension Services led the adults. Community composition and habitat descriptions butterfly surveys. Eight locations were surveyed for were recorded to establish baseline conditions for the Mustard White, including five where it had been survey sites. previously documented and three with potential habitat. Surveys were conducted on sunny days during the flight Freshwater Mussels: Ethan Nedeau of Biodrawversity period in April and May of 2008. Seven sites were LLC led a two-year freshwater mussel study in the surveyed for Dion Skipper on sunny days during the Housatonic River (44 sites) and five tributaries (eight July flight period in 2008. Michael Nelson of NHESP sites) between Pittsfield and the Massachusetts border. surveyed for the Ostrich Fern Borer at seven floodplain Two biologists spent a total of 13 days conducting 12 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts qualitative and quantitative surveys over a total distance Science and Forestry) undertook bog turtle research in of 8,765 meters (5.5 miles) for an average survey distance 2008 and 2009. Six sites were surveyed in the watershed of 170 meters per site and a range from 25-800 meters. between May and September of each year, including two Surveys were primarily done by snorkeling or wading with where bog turtle populations were known to occur, one clear-bottom buckets. Surveyors recorded data on mussel historic (1966) site, and three with promising habitat but species composition, abundance, demographics, shell no prior records. Radiotelemetry studies were conducted condition, habitat preference, and habitat conditions. at two sites to investigate habitat use. Previously unmarked bog turtles were marked with a unique number, aged, and Fish: In 2009, Dr. John Baker of Clark University led a sexed. Females were palpated to determine presence of team that surveyed fish at 27 sites in six tributaries but eggs and surveyors attempted to locate nests and monitor not in the mainstem Housatonic River. Studies were hatching success. conducted between June and August. Five collection methods were used, including (1) backpack electrofishing Marsh Birds: Marsh bird surveys were completed by device, (2) bag seines, (3) aquatic dip nets, (4) minnow Jennifer Strules (2008) and Patricia Serrentino (2009) traps, and (5) visual observations. The team attempted to (independent contractors) and by staff and technicians at survey at least 100 meters of habitat at each survey site. NHESP (led by Chris Buelow). A total of 100 potential Captured fish were counted, identified to species, and sites were originally selected, and preliminary site visits habitat data were collected. narrowed the list to 81 sites that had appropriate habitat characteristics for target species. All were open marsh Salamanders: Kimberly Ogden, a graduate student at habitats greater than two acres in size and comprised the University of Massachusetts, conducted the four- a total of 1,504 acres. A total of 50 sites were surveyed toed salamander survey with fieldwork supplemented by in 2008 and 31 were surveyed in 2009. Each site was NHESP staff. Using a computer model to predict potential typically surveyed three times within the survey window habitat (primarily forested wetlands and to a lesser extent of May 1-July 10 of each year. Using standard protocols, bogs), 32 survey sites were selected for field visits to locate marsh bird vocalizations were broadcast into marshes at nests and adult females in suitable nesting substrates. 200-meter intervals and presence (audible or visual) of Noah Charney, also a graduate student at the University target species was noted. Three target species—Green of Massachusetts, led the Jefferson salamander survey. Heron, Marsh Wren, and Sedge Wren—were surveyed He visited a total of 520 sites that were either selected primarily by listening or watching because vocalization from among the Massachusetts Potential Vernal Pool broadcasts have proven ineffective for detecting them. (PVP) GIS datalayer (NHESP 2001) or encountered en The composition and spatial structure of marsh plant route to other sites. Presence of Jefferson salamanders was communities were recorded within a 100-meter radius determined by visual surveys for egg masses, larvae, and of each broadcast point, and surveyors also noted water adults during the April-May breeding period. Additional levels, presence of beavers, degree of beaver influence on methods for the vernal pool studies are described below. water levels, and presence of invasive plant species. Turtles: Dr. Michael Jones, while a graduate student at Vernal Pools: Noah Charney, a graduate student at the the University of Massachusetts, conducted wood turtle University of Massachusetts, led a two-year vernal pool surveys in 2008 and Suzanne Fowle continued the work survey. He visited a total of 520 sites that were either in 2009. Contractors surveyed 40 sites, including eight selected from among the Massachusetts Potential Vernal sites in the Housatonic River and 32 sites in 15 tributaries, Pool (PVP) GIS datalayer (NHESP 2001) or encountered covering nearly 48 miles of potential aquatic and upland en route to other sites. In 2009, only PVPs greater than habitat. Turtles were captured by hand by searching 1,000 meters away from 2008 survey sites were visited shallow water, streambanks, and riparian clearings. All to ensure adequate coverage of the watershed. Surveys captured turtles were marked with a unique number, aged, were conducted primarily for vernal pool obligate species and sexed. Radiotelemetry studies were conducted at five including spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum), sites (21 animals) to monitor movement and assess the Jefferson salamanders, wood frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus), extent of suitable habitat. Suzanne Fowle also conducted and fairy shrimp (Eubranchipus spp.). Surveys were eastern box turtle surveys in 2009 at four locations where completed in April and May during the peak amphibian the species had been historically reported but not verified. breeding season and included visual or auditory surveys Angelo Sirois and Dr. James Gibbs of the State for spermatophores, egg masses, larvae, adult salamanders University of New York (College of Environmental and wood frogs, and fairy shrimp. Obligate vernal pool 13 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts species were documented with photographs, and audio all state-listed species, which for species include recordings were taken of vocalizing wood frogs. Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern. There are also some rare plants on a “Watch List,” Natural Communities: Michael Batcher completed the because more information is needed to determine if natural community surveys. A preliminary list of 48 MESA protection is warranted or because they were survey sites was developed using existing field data, GIS removed from the MESA list. Natural communities data, and consultation with NHESP. The contractor are ranked from S1 (critically imperiled) to S5 visited 26 of these sites in 2008 and evaluated conditions (common, widespread, and abundant). Priority using NHESP protocols. Field data were analyzed and natural communities in Massachusetts are those subsequent site visits (21 more sites) targeted important ranked as S1, S2, or S3. data gaps. One site was posted and could not be visited 2. � Species Occurrence Ranks (or Viability Ranks): because the owners could not be contacted. Final field All species and natural community occurrences forms, maps, and photographs were compiled and are assigned a rank on an A-D scale that indicates submitted according to NHESP standards. Fieldwork was their probability of persisting over time. A-ranked completed over a total of 41 days in 2008 and 2009. occurrences have the highest probability of long- term persistence and D-ranked occurrences have II. Data Synthesis and Reporting the lowest. Ranking is based on size, condition, and landscape context for each species, species habitat, The enormous amount of data gathered during this project, or natural community. resulting from combined effort of NHESP staff and 17 contracted biologists (plus their technicians, students, Land protection status and a variety of other considerations or volunteers), required a high degree of organization may also be part of the prioritization process, depending and synthesis to produce a comprehensive report. on the amount of information available for an EO and NHESP staff overseeing the fieldwork of contracted the best professional judgment of NHESP staff and biologists ensured that data submissions were complete other experts. The prioritization process will be adjusted and accurate. However, because not all contractors were for different objectives including habitat protection, required to write summary reports, submissions ranged restoration, or management. from GIS files and datasheets to detailed technical reports. Data managers and GIS experts at NHESP collaborated RESULTS with other staff and contractors to update the NHESP database and to modify existing—or draw new—rare I. Target Taxa and Natural Communities species or priority natural community polygons based on fieldwork. NHESP hired a consultant to summarize Plants: A total of 308 “sites” were surveyed during the results from all field studies, extract performance measures two-year study. Of these, 206 were prior EOs or EO (e.g., units of effort, number of new EOs located, etc.), sources within the critical supporting watershed. Surveys help with GIS analysis and site prioritization, and prepare updated 67 prior EOs and documented thirty new EOs a technical report. The same consultant will also help during the course of the study. A total of 46 state-listed prepare conservation planning materials for towns and a plant species and 165 EOs (not including EO sources) non-technical summary report. are now documented within the critical supporting watershed, including 46 Endangered, 68 Threatened, III. Establishing Priorities for Protection, Restoration, and 51 Special Concern species EOs. Surveys increased and Management the number of plant EOs within the critical supporting watershed by 20 but with a much higher increase in the One of the primary goals of the project was to identify and number of EO sources. Figure 5 shows the current (as prioritize sites for conservation of rare species and priority of spring 2010) distribution of all rare plant EOs in the natural communities based on up-to-date rare species and Housatonic watershed. natural community data. The prioritization process is an Eleven of the original 31 target species had not ongoing collaborative process, and final results are not previously been recorded within the critical supporting presented in this report. NHESP will base prioritization watershed; however, the survey did locate populations primarily on two types of information: for four of these species: Smooth Rock Cress (Boechera 1. � Species Element Ranks (see Table 1 for laevigata) Purple Cress (Cardamine douglassii), Cattail definitions): These are MESA ranks assigned to Sedge (Carex typhina), and Barren Strawberry (Waldsteinia 14 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Housatonic River Watershed Housatonic River Watershed Critical Supporting Watershed 5 Miles Critical Supporting Watershed 5 Miles State-listed Plant EO Dion Skipper EO Mustard White EO N Ostrich Fern Borer EO N Pittsfield Pittsfield Lee Lee Great Barrington Great Barrington Figure 5. Current distribution of rare plant EOs in the Housatonic wa- Figure 6. Current distribution of target butterfly and moth species EOs tershed and critical supporting watershed. Many of these were up- in the Housatonic watershed and critical supporting watershed. Many dated or newly documented during NRD surveys. of these were updated or newly documented during NRD surveys. Data sources: MassGIS, NHESP database. Data sources: MassGIS, NHESP database. fragarioides). The surveyors found populations of all contained one or more host plants in the Mustard family 20 target species with prior EOs within the critical (Brassicaceae) but these varied in abundance. Host species supporting watershed and found populations of 15 non- included Toothwort (Dentaria spp.), Cuckooflower target state-listed species as well. The distribution of (Cardamine pratensis), the non-native Garlic Mustard plant EOs within the Housatonic River watershed shows (Alliaria petiolata), and Watercress (Rorippa nasturtium- some distinct concentrations of rare plants. The greatest aquaticum). concentration of EOs occurs in southern Sheffield, with The Dion Skipper was found at six of seven survey other concentrations occurring in northern Sheffield, sites, including three of four sites where it had been southern Great Barrington, eastern Stockbridge, eastern previously documented plus three new sites. Five of the Lenox, and southern Pittsfield. sites contained large areas of preferred sedge habitat, especially species such as lakeshore sedge (Carex lacustris). Moths and Butterflies: Figure 6 shows the current (as of One of the newly discovered sites had expansive areas of spring 2010) EO distribution of the three target species suitable habitat and might be the best Dion Skipper site in in the Housatonic watershed. The Mustard White was Massachusetts. The survey site where Dion Skippers were found at five of seven survey sites plus at an additional not found lacked large areas of preferred sedge habitat. site where it was not the target species. Surveys updated The Ostrich Fern Borer was found at six of seven a historic (>25 year old) record, reconfirmed the species survey sites, with as many as ten larvae found at a at three sites, and located two new sites. All survey sites single site. During these surveys, biologists documented 15 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Housatonic River Watershed Housatonic River Watershed Critical Supporting Watershed 5 Miles Critical Supporting Watershed 5 Miles State-listed Dragonfly EO Rare Mussel EO N N Pittsfield Pittsfield Lee Lee Great Barrington Great Barrington Figure 7. Current distribution of rare dragonfly EOs in the Housatonic Figure 8. Current distribution of state-listed mussel EOs in the Hou- watershed and critical supporting watershed. Many of these were up- satonic watershed and critical supporting watershed. Most of these dated or newly documented during NRD surveys. were newly documented during NRD surveys. The two species nearly Data sources: MassGIS, NHESP database. always overlapped, therefore one symbol is used for both species. Data sources: MassGIS, NHESP database. another rare moth species that also feeds on ostrich fern surveys. Altogether, surveyors documented ten state-listed called the Ghost Moth (Sthenopis auratus). This species dragonfly species (Table 4), doubling the number of state- is uncommon in Massachusetts and globally rare but not listed dragonflies known from the critical supporting state-listed. It is only the third location in Massachusetts watershed. Among the newly discovered species were where the species has been found in recent decades. two Endangered species, one Threatened species, and two Special Concern species. Surveys also resulted in a Dragonflies and Damselflies: Forty-eight species significantly greater number of EOs for state-listed species representing all six New England families of dragonflies overall, from eight prior to NRD surveys to 29 afterward. were recorded during the surveys. Damselflies were much Figure 7 shows the current (as of spring 2010) distribution less diverse than dragonflies and no state-listed damselfly of rare dragonfly EOs in the Housatonic watershed. It was species were encountered. The most species-rich families evident from the surveys that nearly all of the mainstem in the study area were the Gomphidae (19 species) and Housatonic River from Pittsfield to Sheffield and many of Libellulidae (14 species). The family Gomphidae contains its tributaries were priority habitat for one or more state- 11 species that are state-listed in Massachusetts, and listed dragonfly species. eight of these species were found during the two-year survey. Only three species in this species-rich family had Freshwater Mussels: Five native freshwater mussel species been documented in the study area prior to the NRD were found during the survey, including the two target 16 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts state-listed species (triangle floater and creeper) and three Housatonic River Watershed others: eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata), eastern floater Critical Supporting Watershed 5 Miles (Pyganodon cataracta), and eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis Bridle Shiner EO radiata). The last was reported in the Massachusetts Longnose Sucker EO portion of the Housatonic watershed for the first time. The best freshwater mussel populations encountered occurred N within physically or hydraulically stable river reaches, especially medium-gradient reaches with confined stable Pittsfield riverbanks, slow to moderate flow velocities, deep water, and sand and gravel substrates. Figure 8 shows the current (as of spring 2010) distribution of triangle floater and creeper EOs in the Housatonic watershed. A total of 304 live triangle floaters were found at 23 mainstem locations and two tributary locations out of 54 total sites, for an average of 5.7 individuals/site (13.2 Lee individuals/site among the sites where they were found), a catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) of 5.1 individuals per hour, and a CPUE range from 0.0-70.0 individuals per hour. The survey greatly increased the number of triangle floater EOs in the critical supporting watershed from five Great Barrington to 30. Juvenile triangle floaters were only observed in two reaches—the upper Housatonic River in Pittsfield and between Hop Brook and Willow Mill Dam in Lee—and populations elsewhere exhibited highly skewed length distributions suggestive of geriatric (non-reproducing) populations. Triangle Floaters constituted 93 percent of all live mussels encountered in the upper 16 miles of the mainstem Housatonic River. A total of 69 creepers were found at 17 locations, for an average of 1.3 individuals/site (4.0 individuals/site Figure 9. Current distribution of bridle shiner and longnose sucker among the sites where they found), a catch-per-unit-effort EOs in the Housatonic watershed and critical supporting watershed. (CPUE) of 0.8 individuals per hour, and a CPUE range Data sources: MassGIS, NHESP database. from 0.0-12.7 individuals per hour. The survey greatly increased the number of creeper EOs in the watershed however, surveyors captured 1,068 fish from 27 sites and from four to 21. The average shell length of the creepers was documented 23 species altogether. The bridle shiner was 75.9 mm, which is larger than the maximum shell length the only target species captured during the survey. It was of the species encountered in most other waterbodies in found at three sites in Hop Brook (22 individual fish) southern New England. This is the largest average shell although unconfirmed visual observations were made length ever documented for a creeper population, and at several other sites. The bridle shiner was known from there is concern for the viability of a population with such seven other sites in the watershed prior to NRD surveys. a strongly skewed length/age distribution and apparent Longnose suckers were known from eight locations prior lack of recruitment. to the NRD survey but none were found in 2009, likely Adult zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) were because they prefer deeper water than what was able to be detected in the Housatonic River in Lee for the first time surveyed in 2009 due to equipment limitations. Neither ever while conducting the native freshwater mussel survey; the burbot nor the trout-perch was found in 2009 but these were located downstream of Laurel Brook in Lee, these species had not been reported in the study area since which connects to an established zebra mussel population 1970 and 1942, respectively. Figure 9 shows the current in Laurel Lake. (as of spring 2010) distribution of bridle shiner and longnose sucker EOs in the Housatonic watershed. Fish: Unusually high flows throughout the river in June- August of 2009 made it difficult to effectively sample fish Salamanders: Initially, four-toed salamanders were found using the techniques planned and equipment available; in only seven of 32 target wetlands but follow-up surveys 17 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Housatonic River Watershed Housatonic River Watershed Critical Supporting Watershed 5 Miles Critical Supporting Watershed 5 Miles Jefferson Salamander EO Wood Turtle EO Four-toed Salamander EO Marbled Salamander EO N N Pittsfield Pittsfield Lee Lee Great Barrington Great Barrington Figure 10. Current distribution of Jefferson, marbled, and four-toed Figure 11. Current istribution of wood turtle EOs in the Housatonic salamanders in the Housatonic watershed and critical supporting wa- watershed and critical supporting watershed. Several were newly tershed. Data sources: MassGIS, NHESP database. documented during NRD surveys. Data sources: MassGIS, NHESP database. were able to detect the species at some of the sites where it threatened marbled salamander, which also breed in vernal had not been found, underscoring the difficulty of finding pools. These are the first records of marbled salamanders this cryptic species. All nests were found in Sphagnum in Berkshire County and represent a significant westward hummocks overhanging pools of water at least six inches range expansion from known populations in the deep, within forested wetlands or bogs. The species was Connecticut River watershed or perhaps a northward removed from the MESA list in 2008 because it was range expansion from known populations in northwest widespread and locally common in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The current distribution of target salamander because its preferred habitat was considered stable. species is shown on Figure 10. Jefferson salamander egg masses were identified in 56 vernal pools and 21 additional pools need further Turtles: Wood turtles were detected at 48 percent of the investigation. This greatly increased the number of survey sites (19 of 40) located in the mainstem Housatonic EOs for Jefferson salamanders in the critical supporting River and at eight tributaries. Prior to the NRD surveys, watershed (from seven prior to NRD surveys) and wood turtles were known from 15 locations in the nearly doubled the number of Jefferson salamander critical supporting watershed. Surveys confirmed suitable records in Massachusetts. However, the study also noted habitat at 11 locations where wood turtles had been a high incidence of nonviable eggs that may be related previously documented and updated eight EOs. A total to hybridization between blue-spotted salamanders of 45 wood turtles were located, including 25 males, 15 (Ambystoma laterale) and Jefferson salamanders. females, and five unsexed juveniles. Captures of juvenile The study documented three populations of the state- turtles and relatively high recruitment rates compared to 18 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts known populations in central Massachusetts and New Housatonic River Watershed Hampshire suggest high reproductive success; however, Critical Supporting Watershed 5 Miles population densities were quite low compared to other Marsh bird EO regions. Investigators concluded that indeed wood turtles were widespread in the study area and that the observed N low population densities might be related to high rates of adult mortality rather than low rates of reproductive success. At the three sites with the most captures, the Pittsfield percentage of individuals with tail or limb loss ranged from 23-78 percent and one road-killed juvenile wood turtle was found. Figure 11 shows the current distribution of wood turtle EOs in the Housatonic watershed. Bog turtles were reconfirmed at the two sites where populations were known to occur but none were found at four other sites. Multiple nests, hatchlings, juveniles, Lee and adults were found at each of the two primary sites, suggesting that these isolated populations are faring well and responding favorably to habitat restoration in the form of Phragmites removal. Radio-tagged males extensively used areas outside the area previously designated as core Great Barrington habitat. Lack of bog turtles at the four sites with suitable habitat underscores the rarity and isolation of bog turtle populations in Massachusetts. No eastern box turtles were found during the survey. There have been several unconfirmed and anecdotal reports of individual box turtles in Berkshire County during the past 40 years, and a carapace was found at one site in 2009. These reports could be released pets or remnants of small, previously undocumented populations. Published distribution maps indicate that eastern box turtles are not Figure 12. Current distribution of marsh bird EOs in the Housatonic present in Berkshire County, adjacent Taconic highlands watershed and critical supporting watershed. of eastern New York, or northwestern Connecticut. Data sources: MassGIS, NHESP database. The closest documented populations are in the Hudson Valley of New York and the southwest corner of Kent, of all survey sites, respectively, and occurred in remote and Connecticut. There remains no conclusive evidence of an isolated wetlands. The beetle released to control purple extant box turtle population in Berkshire County. loosestrife, Galerucella, was observed at 81 percent of the sites and appeared to be having a positive effect. Marsh Birds: Surveys detected nine of ten target species, • Virginia Rail: Virginia Rails were observed at failing to find only the state-endangered Pied-Billed Grebe. 62 percent of the survey sites and were the most The current distribution of marsh bird EOs (not separated commonly encountered of all target species. Most by species) is shown on Figure 12. Surveys detected very Virginia Rail territories were in cattail wetlands (63 low numbers of Least Bittern, King Rail, and Sedge Wren, percent), shrub marsh (17 percent), and Tussock all of which are Endangered in Massachusetts. Target Sedge marsh (10 percent). The Virginia Rail is not species were observed in a variety of marsh communities, state-listed in Massachusetts; therefore, accurate but cattail was the most important feature associated with records of sightings prior to NRD surveys are not presence of nearly all target species, especially Virginia available. It was included as a member of the marsh Rail, Sora, Marsh Wren, Least Bittern, and Common bird group. Moorhen. Any potential disruption to cattail marshes, • Sora: Sora were observed at six percent of the survey such as that from invasive Common Reed and Purple sites (five sites) and only one of these sites supported Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), represents a critical threat two Sora territories. Wetlands were typically to marsh birds in the watershed. Common Reed and associated with wide riparian basins and cattails were Purple Loosestrife was documented at 73 and 72 percent usually the dominant species. Survey results reinforce 19 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Marsh habitats with abundant cattails (Typha spp.) and good structure of native vegetation were preferred by most target species of marsh birds. Patricia Serrentino. a perception among ornithologists that Sora are suitable sites throughout the study area. declining throughout Massachusetts. The Sora was • King Rail: Only one King Rail was observed during included in this study because it is in the marsh bird the project. It responded to a broadcast call in the wet group and was included in the Massachusetts Wildlife meadow near Hop Brook in Tyringham. The specific Action Plan (MDFW 2006), but it is not state-listed habitat included a wet meadow with tall lush sedges, in Massachusetts. some Reed Canary Grass, and shrubs such as alders • American Bittern: American Bittern were observed and willow. The bird was never seen, and it was only at 16 locations (nearly 20 percent of all survey sites), heard twice on a single visit. including seven sites where American Bitterns had • Common Moorhen: �The Common Moorhen was been observed before and nine sites that lacked prior observed at four locations, all of which contained records. They were not confirmed at five existing dense cattail beds adjacent to open water. Three sites EOs. American Bittern were observed in a variety confirmed existing records and the fourth represents of conditions including wet meadows, palustrine a new location for the species. Although the species is cattail basin, riparian cattail wetland, and shrub rare in Massachusetts, highest densities are thought marsh. Multiple territories and displaying males were to occur in wetlands near the Housatonic River observed within the 680-acre wetland at Hinsdale above Woods Pond, and it was surprising that more Flats Wildlife Management Area. birds were not observed in 2008-2009. Sites where • Least Bittern: Least Bittern were observed at only two the species is consistently reported, such as coves of survey sites, representing only 2.5 percent of all survey the Housatonic River and Woods Pond, yielded no sites. Three birds were observed: a lone vocalizing sightings in 2008 or 2009. individual in a cattail marsh on October Mountain • Pied-Billed Grebe: The Pied-Billed Grebe was not and a pair of foraging birds in a sedge/shrub marsh detected during the surveys, despite the presence of area in Hinsdale Flats Wildlife Management Area. apparently suitable habitat. This is one of the rarest Least Bittern appeared to be absent from seemingly breeding birds in Massachusetts, with only three 20 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Housatonic River Watershed Housatonic River Watershed Critical Supporting Watershed 5 Miles Critical Supporting Watershed 5 Miles Vernal Pool Natural Community EO N N Pittsfield Pittsfield Lee Lee Great Barrington Great Barrington Figure 13. Current distribution of documented vernal pools in the Figure 14. Current distribution of priority natural community EOs in Housatonic watershed and critical supporting watershed. the Housatonic watershed and critical supporting watershed. Data sources: MassGIS, NHESP database. Data sources: MassGIS, NHESP database. breeding locations reported by Crowley (1994). The tended to increase as the season progressed. This decline of this species between the mid-19th century species is not state-listed in Massachusetts. and the present time is thought to be related to • Green Heron: �Green Herons were observed at 15 destruction of its preferred wetlands of aquatic bed percent of the survey sites. This may not be a reliable vegetation adjacent to emergent cattail marsh. indication of their distribution, because broadcasting • Sedge Wren: A single Sedge Wren was observed at calls does not increase detectability and observations one location during the survey, singing vigorously were entirely visual and opportunistic. In addition, for the duration of the survey period. Sedge Wrens its preferred breeding habitat—wooded swamps and had been documented in the same wetland complex shrub swamps—were not targeted for surveys. The prior to NRD surveys. The Sedge Wren is very rare in Green Heron was included in this study because it Massachusetts, and the single bird was not surprising, was included in the Massachusetts Wildlife Action although prime habitat was observed elsewhere (such Plan (MDFW 2006), but it is neither state-listed as wet meadows along Hop Brook in Tyringham). in Massachusetts nor is it considered a potential • Marsh Wren: � Marsh Wrens were observed in 12 candidate for MESA protection. percent of the survey sites, mostly within riparian cattail beds in the Pittsfield, Richmond, and Lenox Vernal Pools: During the two-year study, a total of 520 areas. A total of 46 Marsh Wren territories were PVPs were surveyed, mostly within the critical supporting observed; most sites supported multiple territories watershed. Of these, 361 wetlands met current vernal pool (up to 16 territories at one site) and numbers of pairs certification criteria based on presence of ambystomid 21 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts salamanders, wood frogs, or fairy shrimp in 48, 43, and approximately 495 days and represented more than six percent of the wetlands, respectively. Obligate vernal 9,000 person-hours. Not included in these numbers pool species appear to be thriving in the watershed. Only are the unrecorded hours that NHESP staff and 70 vernal pools were certified in the critical supporting primary contractors put toward planning, travelling, watershed prior to the NRD survey. The current laboratory work (especially dragonfly identification distribution of vernal pools is shown on Figure 13. and moth rearing), data analysis, and submitting forms and reports to NHESP. Also not included is Natural Communities: In 2008, 26 locations (13 prior the time devoted toward data management, GIS, EOs and 13 potential locations) were surveyed. The and data analysis required to assimilate data for the targeted community types were found at each site, thus NHESP database and to prepare a technical report. producing 13 updated EOs and 13 new EOs. In 2009, • Species and Natural Communities: Surveys targeted 21 locations (seven prior EOs and 14 potential locations) 31 state-listed plants, 29 state-listed animals, and were surveyed. Once again, surveys confirmed all prior 12 priority natural community types (see Table 2). EOs and also documented 14 new EOs. In total, 20 prior Forty-seven of the target species (23 plants and 24 EOs were updated and 27 new EOs were discovered over animals) were found, and an additional 15 state-listed the course of this study. The new EOs represented 16 plant species and six state-listed animal species were different priority community types (Table 2). A total of also found. Among the newly documented species 18 different community types were observed, including were ten Endangered, five Threatened, and six Special several communities not previously documented: alluvial Concern species. All of the target natural community red maple swamp, black ash swamp, calcareous rock types were found, and an additional four priority summit, and high terrace floodplain forest. In addition, a natural community types were documented in the new community type was documented: red maple-black critical supporting watershed for the first time. ash-bur oak community. This new community type has • Element Occurrences: Surveys reconfirmed not been assigned a rank but will likely receive S2. The approximately 135 EOs and documented 170 current distribution of priority natural communities in new EOs (Table 4). Target groups or species with the Housatonic watershed is shown on Figure 14. the greatest increase in the number of EOs in the watershed resulting from the survey included Jefferson II. Quantitative Performance Measures salamanders, freshwater mussels, and dragonflies. Large increases in the number of EOs for these groups To track accomplishments and to provide accountability reflect the quality of the field studies and the limited for the surveys, NHESP attempted to compile information survey efforts prior to 2008. Well-studied taxonomic on level of effort for individual studies, the number of groups such as plants, turtles, and marsh birds showed survey sites visited, reconfirmed EOs, and new EOs much more modest gains or even declines (as in the (Table 4). These summaries demonstrate an impressive case of marsh birds). amount of work completed for the NRD surveys, and, indeed, this is the most intensive and comprehensive DISCUSSION survey effort ever undertaken by NHESP. There was some disparity in the tracking and reporting of the level of I. Priority Areas effort among different studies and therefore performance measures are not precise, but they reasonably represent the Core habitats for state-listed species and rare natural accomplishments of the project. community types occur throughout the entire Housatonic • Personnel: �Fieldwork was completed by nearly 50 watershed and its critical supporting watershed (Figure people including NHESP staff, 17 contracted experts 15), including all towns in the primary study area. The and their technicians, students, or volunteer assistants. distribution of core habitats is discontinuous, with higher • Survey Sites: Approximately 1,837 “sites” of varying concentrations in aquatic, wetland, floodplain, and rich size (from individual vernal pools to long river reaches mesic environments, especially in areas with the least [>2 miles]) were visited. Some of these were visited amount of urban lands. Urban and agricultural lands numerous times, including three visits for each of and associated transportation infrastructure and dams the 81 marsh bird sites and as many as 31 visits for have fragmented the landscape. Some critical habitats are individual wood turtle sites. Overall, nearly 2,500 site embedded within developed areas and it is challenging visits were completed. to maintain both habitat quality in these areas and • Time: The total time spent on fieldwork was connectivity with other areas. 22 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Table 4. Results of the NRD study in terms of reconfirmed and new EOs for each target plus non-target state-listed species and priority natural communities. Not all EOs, especially recent ones, known prior to the NRD study were survey targets. Data from NHESP database. Number of EOs Common Name Latin Name Rank Pre-NRD Study Reconfirmed New New Total Plants Black Maple Acer nigrum SC 9 8 0 8 Black Cohosh Actaea racemosa E 1 1 0 1 Climbing Fumitory Adlumia fungosa SC 1 0 1 2 Small-flowered Agrimony Agrimonia parviflora E 2 2 0 2 Green Dragon Arisaema dracontium T 3 3 0 3 Mountain Spleenwort Asplenium montanum E 2 1 0 2 Smooth Rock-cress Boechera laevigata T 2 0 1 3 Purple Cress Cardamine douglassii E 2 0 2 2 Foxtail Sedge Carex alopecoidea T 5 2 2 7 Davis's Sedge Carex davisii E 1 1 3 4 Gray's Sedge Carex grayi T 5 3 2 6 Hairy-fruited Sedge Carex trichocarpa T 0 0 0 0 Tuckerman's Sedge Carex tuckermanii E 3 1 2 4 Cat-tail Sedge Carex typhina T 0 0 1 1 Narrow-leaved Spring Beauty Claytonia virginica E 2 1 2 4 Hemlock Parsley Conioselinum chinense SC 5 2 0 5 Showy Lady's-slipper Cypripedium reginae SC 6 1 0 5 Wright's Spike-rush Eleocharis diandra E 0 0 0 0 Intermediate Spike-sedge Eleocharis intermedia T 4 2 3 7 Ovate Spike-rush Eleocharis ovata E 0 0 0 0 Hairy Wild Rye Elymus villosus E 2 2 1 3 Dwarf Scouring-rush Equisetum scirpoides SC 4 1 0 4 Frank's Lovegrass Eragrostis frankii SC 5 4 1 6 Andrews' Bottle Gentian Gentiana andrewsii E 3 1 0 3 Giant St. John's-wort Hypericum ascyron E 1 1 2 3 Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica E 8 2 0 8 Hairy Honeysuckle Lonicera hirsuta E 1 1 0 1 Many-fruited False-loosestrife Ludwigia polycarpa E 0 0 0 0 Winged Monkeyflower Mimulus alatus E 0 0 0 0 Comb Water-milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum E 2 1 0 2 Tiny Cow-lily Nuphar microphylla E 1 0 0 1 Drooping Speargrass Poa saltuensis ssp. languida E 0 0 1 1 Hill's Pondweed Potamogeton hillii SC 7 1 0 5 Ogden's Pondweed Potamogeton ogdenii E 2 1 0 2 Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa SC 9 5 3 11 Yellow Oak Quercus muehlenbergii T 4 2 0 4 Bristly Buttercup Ranunculus pensylvanicus T 5 2 0 5 Swamp Dock Rumex verticillatus T 0 0 0 0 Wapato Sagittaria cuneata T 11 8 0 11 Long-styled Sanicle Sanicula odorata T 7 3 0 7 Wild Senna Senna hebecarpa E 0 0 0 0 Shining Wedgegrass Sphenopholis nitida T 0 0 1 1 Small Dropseed Sporobolus neglectus E 2 1 2 3 Crooked-stem Aster Symphyotrichum prenanthoides T 9 1 0 9 Culver's-root Veronicastrum virginicum T 4 1 0 4 Barren Strawberry Waldsteinia fragarioides SC 5 1 0 5 Moths and Butterflies Dion Skipper Euphyes dion T 3 3 3 6 Mustard White Pieris oleracea T 1 4 2 6 Ostrich Fern Borer Papaipema sp. 2 near pterisii SC 0 0 6 6 Dragonflies Arrow Clubtail Stylurus spiniceps T 3 3 1 4 Zebra Clubtail Stylurus scudderi SC 2 1 3 4 Brook Snaketail Ophiogomphus aspersus SC 0 0 5 5 Riffle Snaketail Ophiogomphus carolus T 1 0 1 1 Skillet Clubtail Gomphus ventricosus SC 0 0 2 2 Spine-crowned Clubtail Gomphus abbreviatus E 0 0 2 2 Rapids Clubtail Gomphus quadricolor T 0 0 1 1 Harpoon Clubtail Gomphus descriptus E 0 0 3 3 Ocellated Darner Boyeria grafiana SC 1 0 4 5 Stygian Shadowdragon Neurocordulia yamaskanensis SC 1 1 1 2 Freshwater Mussels Triangle Floater Alasmidonta undulata SC 5 5 20 25 Creeper Strophitus undulatus SC 4 4 13 17 Fish Burbot Lota lota SC 0 0 0 0 Trout Perch Percopsis omiscomaycus EXT 0 0 0 0 Bridle Shiner Notropis bifrenatus SC 7 1 0 7 Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus SC 8 0 0 8 Salamanders Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum NL 4 1 De-listed, no longer tracked Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum SC 8 2 2 13 Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum T 0 0 3 3 23 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Table 4. (continued). Number of EOs Common Name Latin Name Rank Pre-NRD Study* Reconfirmed New New Total** Turtles Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta SC 15 8 4 18 Bog Turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii E 2 2 0 2 Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene c. carolina SC 0 0 0 0 Marsh Birds Virginia Rail Rallus limicola NL - - - - Sora Porzana carolina NL - - - - American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus E 12 7 9 12 Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis E 1 0 2 2 King Rail Rallus elegans E 1 0 1 2 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus SC 9 3 1 10 Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps E 4 0 0 4 Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis E 2 1 0 2 Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris NL - - - - Green Heron Butorides virescens NL - - - - Priority Freshwater Communities Acidic Graminoid Fen S3 1 0 0 1 Alluvial Red Maple Swamp S3 0 0 1 1 Black Ash Swamp S2 0 0 1 1 Black Ash-Red Maple-Tamarack Calcareous Seepage Swamp S2 6 1 0 6 Calcareous Basin Fen S1 2 0 0 2 Calcareous Sloping Fen S2 2 0 1 2 High Terrace Floodplain Forest S2 0 0 3 3 Level Bog S3 1 0 0 1 Major-River Floodplain Forest S2 4 4 4 8 Red Maple-Black Ash-Bur Oak Swamp S2 0 0 1 1 Small-River Floodplain Forest S2 1 0 0 1 Spruce-Fir Boreal Swamp S3 1 1 0 1 Transitional Floodplain Forest S2 2 2 3 5 Priority Terrestrial Communities Calcareous Forest Seep S2 1 1 ? 1 Calcareous Rock Cliff S3 2 1 0 2 Calcareous Rocky Summit/Rock Outcrop S2 1 1 2 3 Rich Mesic Forest S3 3 2 2 5 Ridgetop Pitch Pine-Scrub Oak S2 1 0 0 1 Yellow Oak Dry Calcareous Forest S2 1 0 0 1 * Some of the original occurrences were about to expire, so numbers may not sum in the total if they were not confirmed. ** Numbers may not add because the new total is for the critical supporting watershed and some of the survey findings were out of the critical supporting watershed. Although the prioritization component of this project wetlands occur in this area. Thirty-four state-listed species is not yet complete, Figure 15 highlights some areas of have been observed within this area, including 19 plant the critical supporting watershed that will likely emerge as species and 15 animal species. Wetlands are important high priorities for protection, restoration, or management for several species of rare marsh birds, including the Least (Areas 1-4). This is largely based on locations of clusters Bittern, American Bittern, and Common Moorhen. of Endangered or Threatened species and high priority Rare aquatic species include the wood turtle, triangle (S1 or S2) natural community types. These four areas floater, and four dragonfly species. Much of this area were subjectively outlined and described in this report falls within the Housatonic Valley Wildlife Management to provide a brief illustration of the process and their Area and October Mountain State Forest but additional selection was not meant to diminish the importance of conservation opportunities exist. The entire area falls other areas, but rather to explain the importance of a within an area designated as the Upper Housatonic River select few. Actual prioritization, which will occur after Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) by the the completion of this report, will be a more quantitative Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs process. A complete analysis of town-scale and regional- in 2009. scale priorities will be provided in subsequent materials. Area 2: This area includes much of the Hop Brook Area 1: This area includes the Housatonic River and its subwatershed in Lee and Tyringham and a two-mile reach floodplains, nearby uplands, and tributaries from Woods of the Housatonic River in Lee. The conspicuously higher Pond in Lenox to Pittsfield. It includes the lower part of concentration of priority habitat in this small narrow valley the West Branch Housatonic River. Towns within this area appears as an island within a large area that otherwise lacks include Lee, Lenox, Washington, and Pittsfield. Good priority habitat, including Beartown State Forest, with its examples of priority natural community types associated predominantly upland forest habitat, to the south and with streams and rivers, floodplains, and calcareous west. Route 102, the Massachusetts Turnpike, a railroad 24 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Figure 15. Example prioritization based on ele- ment ranks for species and priority natural com- munities. Four areas are highlighted with a box and 5 miles described in Part I the Discussion section, “Priority Areas.” Data source: MassGIS, NHESP database. Housatonic River Watershed Critical Supporting Watershed Highest Priority High Priority Medium Priority Area 1 Low Priority Area 3 Area 2 Area 4 25 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Calcareous sloping fen near Spurr Lake in Sheffield. Michael Batcher. line, and urban and industrial lands of Lee disconnect this fen (S1)—have been observed in this area. The area also area from high priority habitats to the north. Although contains the State’s best example of a Black Ash-Red this is a relatively small area of riverine and associated Maple-Tamarack Calcareous Seepage Swamp (S2) at wetland habitats, three priority natural community types, Kampoosa Bog and Fen. A total of 32 rare plant species eight state-listed plant species, and ten state-listed animal and 16 rare animal species occur in the area, most closely species occur in this area. This was the only stream where connected with the river. Among the rare animals are five state-listed fish (the bridle shiner) were found in 2009 dragonfly species, three marsh bird species, two freshwater and also supports wood turtles and triangle floaters. The mussel species, two fish species, two reptile species, and results of the freshwater mussel survey demonstrated that one rare amphibian species. The area is particularly populations of three mussel species, including two state- important for wood turtles. Some of the most important listed species, increased dramatically in the Housatonic priority habitats and natural community occurrences are River starting at the confluence of Hop Brook compared to not protected as conservation land. population densities in nearly ten miles of the Housatonic River upstream of the confluence. Hop Brook contains Area 4: This portion of the watershed spans most of one of the largest eastern elliptio populations documented Sheffield and southern Great Barrington. This is one of the in the two-year study. most biologically rich areas in Massachusetts, and it has a very high concentration of priority habitats. The town of Area 3: This general area spans much of southern Sheffield has the third highest number of EOs among all Stockbridge and northern Great Barrington and includes towns in Massachusetts and is the only town in the top the areas along the Housatonic River, small tributaries ten that does not occur in the southeastern coastal plain and their associated wetlands, and terrestrial habitats or Cape Cod. A total of 84 state-listed species (64 plants on the slopes of Monument Mountain. Forty-eight and 20 animals) have been observed in this area, as well state-listed species and four priority natural community as 21 natural community types. Among the plants are 32 types—including a critically imperiled calcareous basin Endangered species and 16 Threatened species, many of 26 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts which inhabit rich mesic forests and calcareous wetlands. State-listed animals include butterflies, dragonflies, freshwater mussels, amphipods, turtles, snakes, fish, birds, and salamanders. Although some of the most valuable sites in this region are protected (such as Bartholomews Cobble and areas along Schenob Brook), additional protection is needed for many large critical parcels. In this region, agriculture and grazing are prevalent in the floodplain, and much of the valuable floodplain forest has been lost. The river is actively migrating across unforested and therefore more easily erodible, floodplain soils and causing sedimentation problems throughout this reach. II. Threats There are numerous threats to biodiversity in the Housatonic watershed, and it is beyond the scope of this technical document to identify and describe them all. During the course of field studies, contractors and NHESP staff most frequently noted two primary classes of threats: (1) non-native invasive species and (2) channel and floodplain alteration. Pollution was noted as a concern for the Housatonic River because of PCBs, point source discharges (industries and wastewater treatment plants), and urban runoff. Non-native Invasive Species: Nearly all studies mentioned one or more non-native invasive species with strong potential to change fundamental ecosystem processes and functions, and, ultimately, the native species assemblages that make the Housatonic watershed such a special place. Strategies to control the spread of invasive species and encourage native species will be some of the most important elements of a comprehensive watershed biodiversity protection plan. Some of the most damaging invasive species in North America, such as zebra mussels, common reed, purple loosestrife, water chestnut (Trapa natans), and Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), are firmly established in aquatic and wetland habitats in the Housatonic watershed. A remarkable number of non- Three highly invasive species that are firmly established in the Hou- satonic wastershed. Top: zebra mussel from the Housatonic River. native and invasive upland plants are proliferating in Middle: Monoculture of Japanese knotweed on the banks of the abandoned farmlands and other disturbed areas of the Housatonic River. Bottom: Dense growth of water chestnut covering watershed. From these sources, they are encroaching on the surface of Woods Pond. Ethan Nedeau. intact forests; species such as garlic mustard, Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), Japanese barberry grass. These species outcompete native vegetation and (Berberis thunbergii), Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus form a monoculture that may eliminate important orbiculatus), European buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), microhabitats that turtles may need for nesting, Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), and multiflora rose basking, or feeding. In one of the bog turtle sites, (Rosa multiflora) are leading this charge. The following are scientists documented bog turtles’ increasing use of specific examples most relevant to the NRD surveys: marsh habitat after common reed was removed. • Bog turtle habitats are threatened by the presence • Marsh bird surveyors noted a high incidence of of common reed, purple loosestrife, and reed canary common reed and purple loosestrife infestations 27 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts in study sites (73 and 72 percent of all survey sites, respectively, including some remote and isolated wetlands). Both of these species threaten native marsh vegetation that is critical to marsh birds, especially cattails and several species of sedges. The beetle released to control purple loosestrife, Galerucella, was observed at 81 percent of the sites and did appear to be having a positive effect. • Zebra mussels were discovered in Laurel Lake and in the Housatonic River in the towns of Lee, Lenox, and Stockbridge during surveys in 2009. Water chemistry in these waterbodies is ideal for zebra mussels, although physical habitat in the Massachusetts portion of the Housatonic River appears to be mostly Long reaches of the Housatonic River, including this area near Great Barrington, have a homogenous stream channel of unstable sandy confined to impoundments. Zebra mussels have the sediments that provide poor habitat for invertebrates. Ethan Nedeau. potential to greatly alter ecosystem processes in the Housatonic River and have adverse effects on benthic invertebrates and some fish species. A second concern industrial and municipal demands for water and is the potential effect zebra mussels may have on wastewater treatment, waste disposal, urban development, uptake and bioaccumulation of toxins, such as PCBs, and generation of electricity. The major results of this because they are benthic filter feeders that have been activity were the loss or degradation of floodplain forests shown to efficiently uptake toxins and are eaten by a and wetlands, loss of natural flood storage capacity, altered variety of fish, mammals, and waterbirds. natural flow regimes (in the river and its major tributaries), • Invasive aquatic plants are present in lakes, ponds, destabilization of instream habitats and riverbanks, and and suitable river habitats throughout the watershed. degraded water quality. Woods Pond is almost completely infested with water Some of the most visible symptoms of these problems chestnut and represents a source population for other are deeply incised channels and severely eroding riverbanks, suitable areas in the watershed. A high percentage especially in unconfined reaches where the river is actively of lakes have Eurasian water-milfoil, variable water- migrating across easily erodible floodplain soils as it tries milfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum), lesser naiad to reestablish equilibrium. Narrow strips of riparian trees, (Najas minor), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), such as silver maple, willow (Salix spp.) and boxelder (Acer and curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus). These negundo), are being lost with no forest behind them to species affect native plant and animal species to provide stability and cover after the river claims those few. varying degrees, and efforts to control them by More expansive riparian forests are needed. Opportunistic physical or chemical means often have important and aggressive plant species such as Japanese knotweed are non-target adverse affects. colonizing disturbed streambanks. Cutoff oxbows, other • Japanese knotweed is prolific on recently disturbed former river channels, and wet depressions are quickly sites and is one of the most abundant plant species filled by common reed and purple loosestrife rather than on riverbanks and gravel bars along much of the more desirable native species. Because of the tremendous Housatonic River. It provides very little shade or other amount of sediment exported to the river, vast areas of values to wildlife and is a poor substitute for preferred the Housatonic River have a homogenous and unstable native riparian vegetation such as silver maple (Acer sand substrate that provides poor habitat for aquatic saccharinum). invertebrates and fish. This situation is not likely to improve in the near term. Channel and Floodplain Alteration: The complex set The currently employed methods of dealing with of problems associated with the floodplain and channel unstable and eroding banks, such as riprap, exacerbate the processes in the Housatonic River is rooted in the long problems associated with an unstable river environment, history of landscape alteration, settlement patterns, and fail to provide a long-term solution to these problems, structural control of the river (e.g., dams, channelization, and ultimately contribute to a more homogenous river bank armoring). Humans sculpted the river and its environment (Kline et al. 2006). The river needs to be floodplain to meet the myriad needs of a growing given access to its floodplain so that it can heal itself population: road and rail infrastructure, agriculture, and redevelop the habitat complexity that can support 28 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Severe bank erosion along a long section of riverbank in Sheffield that lacks any riparian vegetation aside from grass. Ethan Nedeau. a full suite of native species. A minimum 200-foot epa.gov/ne/ge/index. Surface runoff from urban areas and buffer should be established along the river, but broader golf courses near Pittsfield, Lee, and Great Barrington floodplain protection areas should be established where carries high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, road salt, the river needs greater room, where the floodplain can sediment, oils, metals, pesticides, bacterial pathogens, and capture and store floodwaters, and where exemplary other toxic materials. All of these pollutants will influence natural communities exist and can maintain themselves aquatic species such as freshwater mussels, other aquatic over time. Undersized culverts should be replaced by invertebrates (including dragonflies), fish, and the high- culverts or bridges of an appropriate size to restore level predators that consume them such as river otter and hydrologic regimes and continuity for migratory animals birds. (Massachusetts Riverways Program 2005), especially where roads and railways cross small tributaries in the III. Next Steps Housatonic River floodplain. This report strongly urges resource managers to invest in a clearer understanding of Prioritization: One of the primary goals of the project the dynamic nature of the upper Housatonic River and was to identify and prioritize sites for conservation of to seek ways to restore a more natural river environment. rare species and exemplary natural communities based on updated survey data. Three broad classes of conservation Pollution: Numerous current and historic point sources strategies may include protection (e.g., land acquisition or of pollution exist along the Housatonic River, mainly conservation easements), restoration (e.g., dam removal or from industries and wastewater treatment plants. There reestablishing natural conditions), and management (e.g., are well documented PCB levels in the Housatonic River invasive species control, prescribed burns, or mowing). and portions of its floodplain, especially between Pittsfield The prioritization process is an ongoing collaborative and Woods Pond. However, it is beyond the scope of process, and final results are not presented in this report. this technical report to address this pollution source. Final prioritization is expected to be part of a biodiversity Information on PCB contamination in the Housatonic protection plan that will be presented in town reports River is available on EPA’s GE/Housatonic website, www. and a non-technical summary report. The prioritization 29 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts Early morning on a marsh in Great Barrington. Patricia Serrentino. process will benefit from analyses being undertaken by Public Report: Although not included in the original NHESP for its BioMap 2 project due in late 2010. proposal to NRD, NHESP felt it was necessary to provide a non-technical summary of survey results to state agencies, Town Reports: NHESP will provide conservation conservation groups, municipalities, and citizens. This planning materials to 19 towns included in the critical will provide an opportunity to generally discuss the need supporting watershed. The materials will be a blueprint for biodiversity protection in the watershed and outline for conserving rare species and natural communities. NHESP’s commitment to that process. The public Materials will be based on data acquired during the NRD report will discuss biodiversity, introduce town reports, study but will also include other rare species information and discuss priorities for protection, restoration, and that NHESP has for each town. Reports will be explicit management. Photographs, maps, and illustrations will about what is in each town and will also provide help make this publication more engaging and appealing specific recommendations for protection, restoration, or to a general audience. NHESP hopes that this document management, which will distinguish these town reports will help increase broad support for biodiversity protection from the more general overviews provided by BioMap in the watershed. The timeframe for completion is late (NHESP 2001) and Living Waters (NHESP 2003). 2010. The timeframe for the completion of town reports was extended to late 2010 to allow BioMap 2 to be completed For a long time, conservationists have recognized the so that new information can be integrated into town importance of the Housatonic River watershed to the reports. Town reports and details of specific conservation biodiversity of Massachusetts and this survey strengthened needs will be useful in prioritizing projects and evaluating that conviction. The project saw the updating of records proposals in subsequent rounds of NRD restoration and the discovery of many new occurrences of rare species funding. and priority natural communities that were recently or historically known from the watershed, and also included 30 Rare Species and Natural Community Surveys in the Housatonic River Watershed of Western Massachusetts the identification of several rare species never before Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program documented in the watershed. There does not appear to (NHESP). 2001. BioMap: Guiding Land Conservation have been a significant decline in the number of species or for Biodiversity in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Divi- priority natural community types despite the long history sion of Fisheries & Wildlife. Westborough, MA. of human influence in the watershed, although some Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program have declined in abundance and distribution (population (NHESP). 2001. Massachusetts Aerial Photo Survey of or occurrence quality). Native habitats are changing due Potential Vernal Pools. Massachusetts Division of Fish- to the combined effects of habitat degradation, non- eries & Wildlife. Westborough, MA. native invasive species, and natural succession. However, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program surveys demonstrate that it may not be not too late to (NHESP). 2003. Living Waters: Guiding the Protec- reverse trends and preserve biodiversity if the most severe tion of Freshwater Biodiversity in Massachusetts. Mas- problems are addressed, including the threats of non- sachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife. Westbor- native species, channel and floodplain alteration, and ough, MA. pollution. Accomplishing this will require the collective Woodlot Alternatives. 2002. Ecological Characterization and coordinated efforts of state and federal agencies, local of the Housatonic River. Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., governments, conservation groups, and citizens. Topsham, ME. LITERATURE CITED AND FURTHER READING Barbour, H., T. Simmons, P. Swain, and H. Woolsey. 1998. Our Irreplaceable Heritage – Protecting Biodi- versity in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Natural Heri- tage & Endangered Species Program, Division of Fish- eries & Wildlife, and the Massachusetts Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. Westborough, MA. Brunn, E. 2002. Housatonic River Restoration Plan. Housatonic River Restoration, Inc. Great Barrington, MA. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2003. Housatonic River 5-Year Watershed Action Plan 2002-2007. Ex- ecutive Office of Environmental Affairs, Boston, MA. Crowley, S.K. 1994. Habitat use and population monitor- ing of secretive waterbirds in Massachusetts. M.S.Thesis. Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Kline, M., B. Cahoon, and K. Dolan. 2006. Managing toward stream equilibrium conditions: a case for mini- mizing the structural control of Vermont rivers. Ver- mont Department of Environmental Conservation, River Management Section, Waterbury, VT. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW). 2006. Massachusetts Wildlife Action Plan. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA. Massachusetts Riverways Program. 2005. Massachusetts Stream Crossings Handbook. Massachusetts Riverways Program, Boston, MA. McGarigal, K., B. Compton, E. Ene, K. Rolih, and D. Goodwin. 2003. AQUALAND: The Massachusetts Aquatic Landscape Characterization Tool. The Land- scape Ecology Program at the University of Massachu- setts. Department of Natural Resources Conservation. Amherst, MA. 31 C. Jeffrey Cook to: Bob Cianciarulo From: "C. Jeffrey Cook" To: Bob Cianciarulo/R1/USEPA/US@EPA EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square , Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912 From: C. Jeffrey Cook 9 Palomino Drive Pittsfield, MA 01201 Ladies and Gentlemen: Please accept this email as my further comments to the EPA with respect to the project know as Rest of River, Housatonic River, Pittsfield and Lenox, Massachusetts. I am writing to you now because I have become convinced that, in their “greater wisdom”, the EPA personnel who are driving the Rest of River Project for the Housatonic River (the “Rest of River Group”) are determined to pursue a course of action which will result in the people of Berkshire County coming to know your agency as a destroyer of the environment rather than the protector. Before you become offended by, or dismiss, my views, you owe to the citizens of Berkshire County a very hard look at the collateral damage – to what is now a very beautiful wilderness – that will result from large scale dredging and floodplain soil removal. By the time the staging areas, temporary roadways and access areas are put in place and every tree is removed from both banks of the River as was done in the City of Pittsfield for the first 1.5 miles, the collateral damage will be irreversible. Unlike the first 1.5 miles, Rest of River involves a river that winds through wildlife preserves, protected and environmentally sensitive areas for which the temporary structures necessary to (a) bring heavy equipment in to do the remediation work and (b) have heavy equipment remove and transport the dredged material, will be devastating. Nothing that I am saying here is news to you, I am sure. The confidence that the Rest of River Group has that it and the hand-picked scientist (who tell the Group what it wants to hear) can handle this project really impresses me. I sincerely wish that I could be as impressed with their capability. I am not alone in this view. If you start seeing the acronym EDA used in the place of EPA, you will understand that person using it is one of those who believe your agency is on the wrong course. What you should know about me: Four generations of our family are currently living in the City of Pittsfield, three of the four generations have canoed and kayaked on the River north and south from the Decker put in on New Lenox Road. My wife and I have lived in our home at 9 Palomino Drive, Pittsfield for over 20 years. Our house is t he northeast corner of a neighborhood that is west of the backwater and flood plain areas adjoining the Housatonic River. In fact, the most easterly 80 feet of our property are underwater much of the year. We have been advised that there are PCBs on our property. You will be able to identify our house on the maps you are reviewing. Our north boundary is an approximately 16 acre field in which most alternatives in the CMS have marked as the location of a staging area and temporary road out to Holmes Road. The maps made available by the EPA at the briefings and charrette on this project (that I assume you have been told about) show significant excavation east of our whole neighborhood. Most of my neighbors are only now learning what the Rest of River project will involve. I have been a member of the Concerned Citizens Council (“CCC”) from the beginning. My attendance has been spotty in recent years because of the way in which the majority of the CCC treat the representatives of EPA and MassDEP and anyone from the community who dares to disagree their slanted view of the River. For years, I have been saying to whomever from EPA would listen, tha t the CCC is dominated by the Housatonic River Initiative and off-shoots of the organization that were organized precisely to increase the seats occupied by that group. Those attending the CCC absolutely do not represent the views of our community – which the EPA will clearly see when the plan currently under consideration is finally communicated to the neighborhoods in the City of Pittsfield, east and west of the River. You will hear if you ask Tim Gray that my views should be discounted because I am biased: one of my former partner’s in my former law firm represented GE Plastics on unrelated matters (has to be 18 yea rs ago). So you should ignore that my home is in ground zero and the fact that I have spent more time boating on the River than anyone I know in HRI and its affiliates. Most of our Community, particularly those living near the River who are knowledgeable about the clean-up of the first 1.5 miles, are strongly opposed to extensive dredging of the River and the adjoining flood plain areas. We do not accept the assurances that the EPA and others who may be involved really understand the logistical nightmare it will be to (1) create the access roads and staging areas needed, (2) get the work done in a reasonable time frame and with as few negative impacts in terms of noise, etc., as possible, and (3) restore the River, River banks and other areas after the dredging and replication are done. We have heard the Regional Administrator for this region of EPA says that he will get the job done even if it takes 50 years. Curt Spalding appears to have bought into the dogma of HRI: EPA and HRI have to really show GE that it cannot get away with not cleaning up the damage it did (much with government permits at the time) even if that process will destroy the River in order to save it. GE, which can be its own worst enemy, is not the issue. Destruction of the River is. The full clean-up now under consideration by EPA, will be extraordinarily destructive to the eco-system and have a significant adverse affect on the neighborhoods overlooking the River. But you know that already. We know that our neighborhood’s worries are not the most critical issues. The larger set of problems which must be addressed is that the literature just does not show the human health risks that would justify inflicting such damage to the wildlife and environmentally sensitive areas, that will be the result of proceeding with the Rest of River Project as currently advocated by EPA. The fact that the federal statute requires a clean up to the level of I/10,000 to 1/1,000,000 risk of cancer and other serious diseases is wrongheaded when the background risk for cancer is ¼. Translated into numerical equivalents: ¼ = .25; 1/10,000 = .0001; 1/1mm = .000001. So on the question of cancer, the clean-up of Rest of River would decrease the .25 risk to .2499 or 249999. Hardly moves the needle and is not something which could be cited as justification for what appears as the enormous level of destruction to the existing eco-systems, not all of which can be restored, despite the bold assurance of the Rest of River Group. The great body of scientific analysis that is being used to justify the action the EPA is pursuing contains other stuff of this magnitude which flies in the face of common sense and balance (not criteria which appear to be relevant to the EPA). The Housatonic River Initiative – itself the beneficiary of approximately $235,000 in Technical Assi stant Grants from the EPA and the Massachusetts DEP – has filled the air with the science of David R. Carpenter, a SUNY Professor, raising questions about risks of airborne contamination which EPA has already determined is not a risk factor to be considered in the CMS for Rest of River. I have expressed directly to Jim Murphy my disappointment that EPA officials have (a) attended briefings hosted by H RI in which many of the regular citizens attending were subjected to, and frightened by, that kind of junk science and (b) stood silently by. Apparently, the Rest of River Group will take support from whatever source it can get it, even if the citizens you are supposed to be protecting are being fed junk science. We know that Curt Spalding has recently brought an official of the National Remedy Review Board through the area to visit with selected members of HRI and other supporters of the EPA’s position, so you will know that there is grass roots support for what will be vigorously opposed by many different segments of our Community. Just another example of how the whole process of education recently orchestrated by the Rest of River Group (through a mini-series of educational presentations and the great charrette ) has been staged so the Rest of River Group can say that the Community has been involved and the “real stakeholders” are on board. I know this is being sent late in the process and it will likely have no impact on a decision that has been already been made despite the strong reservations of local elected officials, the Mass DEP and many of us who live along, and really use, the River. But I feel obligated to send this to you so you will ha ve some understanding of why so many of us – as the extent of what you are about to justify, as you bring civilization to the natives, is fully understood – will be talking about how the leadership of our Environmental Protection Agency really m issed the boat. No one is happy saying that the EPA is about to become the EDA for this community. C. Jeffrey Cook C. Jeffrey Cook Cohen Kinne Valicenti & Co ok LLP 28 North Street, 3rd Floor Pittsfield, MA 01201 Direct line: 413.553.0404 Office main line: 413 .443.9399, X - 104 Fax: 413.553.0336 Cell: 413.441.2814 Home: 413.499.1544 Home office and fax: 413.499.4107 Email: [email protected] ************************************************************************************************************************ **************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. These materials are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, distribution, or disclosure of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the message from your system. ************************************************************************************************************************ **************************** United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless and to the extent we otherwise state, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. ************************************************************************************************************************ **************************** July 27, 2011 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Remedy Review Board Dear Mr. Cianciarulo: I am submitting the following comments to the EPA National Remedy Review Board on behalf of Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT), an environmental organization whose mission is to protect the environment for wildlife. The main points we would like to make are the following: 1. PBCs are harmful to wildlife and must be removed from the river and its floodplain. 2. Any disruption to the river and the floodplain must be remediated in such a way as to return the river and its floodplain to its natural state. 3. Whatever remedy is decided upon should be applied using principles of adaptive management. 4. Plans should not include the creation of permanent landfills in Berkshire County. 1. PBCs are harmful to wildlife and must be removed from the river and its floodplain. If any corporation were to dump 1 million pounds of PCBs in a river today, there would be an outcry unmatched by that of any other environmental disaster. In the case of GE’s dumping of PCBs in the Housatonic River, there is no outcry. I believe that having this process drag on for so long, the public has grown accustomed to having PCBs in their backyard. This should not obscure the fact that PCBs are a threat to the health and safety of people and wildlife. Science-based decision making would lead one to the inescapable conclusion that PCBs are harmful and should not be allowed to remain in the Housatonic River and its floodplain. At the direction of Congress, EPA conducted a study of health risks of PCBs to wildlife and to humans. Their study included a thorough review of the existing scientific literature. According to the review: “There is clear evidence that PCBs cause cancer in animals. EPA reviewed all of the available literature on the carcinogenicity of PCBs in animals as an important first step in the cancer reassessment. An industry scientist commented that ‘all significant studies have been reviewed and are fairly represented in the document.’ The literature presents overwhelming evidence that PCBs cause cancer in animals. An industry-sponsored peer-reviewed rat study characterized as the ‘gold standard study’ by one peer reviewer, demonstrated that every commercial PCB mixture tested caused cancer. The new studies reviewed in the PCB reassessment allowed EPA to develop more accurate potency estimates than previously available for PCBs. The reassessment provided EPA with sufficient information to develop a range of potency estimates for different PCB mixtures, based on the incidence of liver cancer and in consideration of the mobility of PCBs in the environment…. In addition to the animal studies, a number of epidemiological studies of workers exposed to PCBs have been performed. Results of human studies raise concerns for the potential carcinogenicity of PCBs. Studies of PCB workers found increases in rare liver cancers and malignant melanoma. The presence of cancer in the same target organ (liver) following exposure to PCBs both in animals and in humans and the finding of liver cancers and malignant melanomas across multiple human studies adds weight to the conclusion that PCBs are probable human carcinogens… EPA’s peer reviewed cancer reassessment concluded that PCBs are probable human carcinogens. EPA is not alone in its conclusions regarding PCBs. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has declared PCBs to be probably carcinogenic to humans. The National Toxicology Program has stated that it is reasonable to conclude that PCBs are carcinogenic in humans. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has determined that PCBs are a potential occupational carcinogen.” Other agencies agreeing with EPA are the American Cancer Society, the World Health Organization, and the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. EPA’s study went on to document the non-cancer effects of PCBs, including immune effects, reproductive effects, neurologic effects, and endocrine effects. (It is impossible to reconcile this overwhelming evidence with GE’s claim that PCBs are harmless along the Housatonic River, but even more disturbing is the fact that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has decided to parrot GE, referring to the “…theoretical ecological benefit from PCB removal.” (Massachusetts EOEEA’s comments on the revised CMS) 2. Any disruption to the river and the floodplain must be remediated in such a way as to return the river and its floodplain to its natural state. Removal of PCBs from the river will most assuredly cause some harm to the ecology of the river and to the floodplain. Whatever plan is decided upon must include plans to restore the river and its floodplain after the cleanup of PCBs. GE has argued that the sensitivity of the habitat in the affected areas along the river make it unwise to attempt any remediation. They point to the harm done in cleaning the first two miles of the river. For instance, GE has claimed in its public relations video, Fate of the River, that any remediation would be harmful to vernal pools and their resident amphibians. Speaking for GE, Professor Robert Brooks of Pennsylvania State University claimed that a vernal pool in Pittsfield was destroyed when GE was made to remove PCBs from it. He contended that trees around the pool were removed and that this allowed more sunlight in. The increased sunlight allowed predatory green frogs to invade the pool, and this in turn led to the demise of wood frogs. The fact of the matter is, only one tree was actually removed (GE report to EPA) from around the pool. Also, the wildlife survey done at the pool before remediation clearly indicated that the green frogs were present before any remediation work was done. In addition, according to surveys, wood frogs were there at the pool both before and after remediation. They were never displaced by green frogs. So although Professor Brooks claimed to see green frogs invading, wood frogs disappearing, and all because of the removal of large numbers of trees, all of this was untrue. Despite Professor Brooks’ predictions that the pool was doomed, it was home to the same species of invertebrates and amphibians before and after remediation. The only difference between the pre-remediation state and the post-remediation state was that after remediation the pool was free of PCBs. I would also like to point out that the one tree that was removed from the vicinity of the pool could have been spared by using a small excavator such as a “Bobcat” instead of the large equipment that was used. Of course the cost of the cleanup would have been increased because the task would have taken longer. This is what GE means when they claim that a cleanup process cannot be done in an environmentally safe manner. They mean that to perform the task in and environmentally safe manner would increase their costs. Restoration techniques should not include armoring or using riprap. Armoring and riprap are disruptive to wildlife and to the natural hydrologic processes of the river. 3. Whatever remedy is decided upon should be applied using principles of adaptive management. Adaptive management is a concept that involves changing procedures based on lessons learned. In the case of the cleanup and restoration of the Housatonic River, this would mean cleaning the river in small, ecologically discrete sections, evaluating the process up to that point, and then applying the lessons learned to the next section of the river to be cleaned and restored. Since adaptive management will work most efficiently if the work sections are kept small, this will also allow for different microhabitats to be approached using different techniques – those techiques that are most appropriate for the microhabitat. Small-scale, surgical techniques and processes may provide a way to minimize harm to the environment and reduce the extent to which the river and its floodplain will need to be restored. 4. Plans should not include the creation of permanent landfills in Berkshire County. In dumping PCBs in the Housatonic River, GE has caused harm and distress in Berkshire County. They should not be allowed to further harm and distress the people and wildlife of this area by constructing a toxic waste dump in the region. The sites proposed by GE for these dumps are some of the most inappropriate locations, in the floodplain so that recontamination in the future will always be a possibility. There are at least two solutions to ridding the area of removed PCBs that do not involve leaving them locally. The first is to use rail lines to haul any removed PCBs from New England. A second option is to explore the possibility of emerging technologies that may allow for the chemical breakdown of PCBs to harmless materials. In any case, under no circumstances should toxic waste dumps be cited along the Housatonic River. Thank you for this opportunity to provide input into this very important process. BEAT is looking forward to a successful remediation and restoration of the Housatonic River, with success in this project being measured by the level to which PCBs are reduced in the river and in the floodplain and the effectiveness of the restoration process. Sincerely, Bruce Winn President, Berkshire Environmental Action Team Pittsfield, MA Housatonic Environmental Action League, Inc. Post Office Box 21, Cornwall Bridge, CT 06754-0021 860-672-6867 July 27, 2011 EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912 sent via email to: Susan Svirsky, Tim Conway and Jim Murphy Dear National Remedy Review Board Members, HEAL is a 501(c)(3) grassroots environmental organization of business, professional, scientific, and citizen stakeholders from the tri-state Housatonic River Watershed. HEAL is based in Connecticut, and is a longstanding member of the Citizens' Coordinating Council for the EPA Housatonic River site. Two of our primary goals related to this site have been to: 1) educate stakeholders on the issues related to the dumping of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other hazardous toxins by General Electric (GE) into the river system; 2) advocate for a comprehensive remedy of this EPA hybrid Superfund site that is protective of ecological and human health, all towards the ultimate endpoint of a swimmable and fishable river in both Massachusetts and Connecticut. Representatives of HEAL attend every EPA meeting related to the site. HEAL, along with the Schaghticoke Indian Tribe of Kent, CT were the sole stakeholder entities who filed a Motion to Intervene in the Consent Decree (CD) legal proceedings requesting that the District Court vacate the CD as no provisions are in place for any PCB-containment within the Connecticut section of the river. We request that you consider the following during your deliberations and ultimate Rest of River remedy recommendations to the Regional EPA. Using their seemingly limitless stable of lawyers and “environmental” scientists, GE is currently spending a huge sum of money to craft not-so-creative arguments based on their junk science to avoid paying for a real cleanup of the Housatonic River Watershed. Untold additional dollars are being poured into a public relations campaign to spread their repetitive mantra to anyone who is either naïve or foolish enough to listen, that: 1) the remaining PCBs are harmless; 2) it is legally “impractical” to remove the contamination; 3) dredging = permanent destruction; 4) any remediation activities in certain “sensitive” areas of the river will result in permanent destruction of ecosystems; 5) the river will clean itself via (Monitored) Natural Recovery, which will eventually reduce or erase any adverse human or ecological threats -- threats that GE claims are erroneous EPA findings; 6) there are no new innovative and alternative technologies (beyond dredging, dumping, stockpiling, burying, capping or incinerating) available in the United States that will effectively destroy hyperstable chlorinated compounds such as PCBs found in this river's water column, river bed sediment, river bank sediment and floodplain. GE has adopted similar tactics at every major toxic site throughout the US where they are either partially or totally responsible for contamination. We hear from multiple other stakeholder groups at other Superfund sites throughout the US of GE's attempts to co-opt existing entities in order to have them assist GE by carrying to the masses GE's propaganda. If at any given site GE is unable to co-opt an existing group, they create a pseudo-“environmental” stakeholder group of their own as another vehicle to spread their Fairfield, CT corporate headquarters' mission to obfuscate. GE will not hesitate to use scare tactics and deceptive practices to frighten and confuse citizens into adopting whatever GE corporate headquarters declares. They further “cloud the waters” using words, social media sites, behind-the-scenes deals and private meetings with stakeholders, donating to groups, selective mailings, deceptive photos, and highly produced videos with bucolic scenes and soothing music. In other words, a deceptive and disingenuous public relations campaign aimed at either delaying or avoiding cleaning up the environmental degradation they have caused. We believe such actions violate the condition of the Consent Decree....a CD that was heavily negotiated by GE. Earlier at this site during the behind-closed-door Consent Decree negotiations, one existing group made the error and took the hook. For their reward, their coffers were filled with GE blood money. Money that was made off the backs of the loyal GE workers in and around Pittsfield. During this Rest of River process, that group appears to have learned from their previous error. However, there is always another group to be co-opted, and GE has once again been successful in luring them in like a spider to its web. HEAL is requesting that the NRRB recommend to Region 1 New England that General Electric divulge an accounting of their recent public relations campaign. Combined with what GE wasted during the Consent Decree negotiations disinformation campaign, those funds could have been allocated to EPA's eventual Rest of River remediation decisions. NO DUMPS In the presence of current, EPA-approved, practical and affordable PCB-destruction technology, there no longer exists any scenarios that would warrant additional toxic waste dumps within the watershed. We will continue to object to one of the primary tragedies of the Consent Decree known as Hill 78. Hill 78 is a multi-acre, almost 50 ft. high unlined toxic waste dump located on the defunct GE plant site in Pittsfield, bulging with PCB-contaminated sediment and other toxic material, and within view of, and approximately 25 feet from, Allendale Elementary School property. We will not accept any additional dumps, anywhere along this site, for any reason. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY On January 19, 2011, the Housatonic River Initiative (HRI) with HEAL among the co-sponsoring groups, presented another excellent and informative alternative technologies workshops with Christopher Young of Biotech Restorations and representatives from Genesis Fluid Solutions. Biotech Restorations has completed EPA sites contaminated with toxic chlorinated compounds in California. Biotech Restorations' process has resulted in certificates of completion from EPA designating 'unrestricted use' of these sites...meaning that the once contaminated parcels are now available for even residential use. Genesis Fluid Solutions removes river sediment in the wet, rapidly dewaters and then makes available to Biotech Restorations PCB-laden sediment that is ready for PCB-destruction treatment. Genesis units are built on a small footprint (500' x 500'), and they have a proven track record at EPA sites. At the presentation, Mr. Young clearly indicated that his company's process, combined with Genesis Fluid Solutions' sediment preparation system, would cost far less than “conventional” dredging, dewatering and transporting of contaminated sediment to an approved toxic landfill facility. HEAL strongly supports a pilot project for a Biotech Restorations/Genesis Fluid Solutions collaboration. PETER DEFUR, PhD HEAL endorses comments submitted by Dr. Peter deFur on behalf of HRI. HRI is the exclusive stakeholder group at this Superfund site to receive a Technical Assistance Grant; Dr. deFur's expert assistance is paid for through HRI's TAG proceeds. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Applying the continual evaluation process of Adaptive Management leads to cost-effective, successful remediation and restoration projects. Plan, act, monitor, evaluate and adjust during the entire Rest of River remedy decisions, always taking into consideration new emerging technologies. Remedies at this site, and the affected communities, will be best served by a phased approached with each subsequent action undertaken. CONNECTICUT It is disturbing that the Housatonic River in Connecticut continues to be ignored by both EPA and GE. The PCB contamination in the CT section of the river was all but ignored by the State of Connecticut's Governor, Attorney General and Department of Environmental Protection during the period of the Consent Decree negotiations. As a result of CT DEP's unwillingness at that time to aggressively and effectively advocate for the Housatonic River, its wildlife, biota and CT stakeholders, the EPA was able to bypass adequate and thorough contamination characterization and data collection in CT in favor of the Commonwealth. As Rest of River decisions evolve, and as Adaptive Management practices are hopefully implemented by EPA, it is imperative that the entire section of the river in CT, its floodplain and impoundments be reevaluated for potential new PCB-destruction technologies as they become available. [*Note – CT DEP has recently been renamed Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP).] Thankfully in recent years, CT DEEP has increased their voice in calling for an effective remediation scenario in MA in order to improve the water quality in the CT section of the river. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown by HEAL, CT DEEP has now recently been blocked from submitting comments to the NRRB for the Rest of River Remedy process. We are attaching for your review CT DEEP's thoughtful comments to EPA dated January 28, 2011 on the Revised Corrective Measures Study submitted by GE. We would also like the NRRB to be aware that the newly appointed Commissioner of CT DEEP, Daniel C. Esty, has formally recused himself from all discussions and decisions on the Housatonic River site apparently due to his very close ties to GE in his business and academic endeavors. His recusal list is long with other corporate RP's with contaminated sites that impact CT that he will not be able to administer in any fashion to due potential or actual conflicts of interest. RIVER BANK STABILIZATION Bank stabilization methods are sometimes complicated decisions. HEAL is confident that the EPA team at this site possess the skills necessary to determine how, and with what methods and materials, they will need to use to stabilize any given contaminated bank site that will require a removal action. EPA did a brilliant job in the Pittsfield section of the river, considering the obstacles they needed to consider, such as homes built on the very edge of elevated river banks. Adequate stakeholder input is advocated. SOURCE CONTROL There are untold tons of PCBs and other toxins that still remain in the Pittsfield area, and in the first 2- miles of PCB-containment actions. Although the EPA team created some feats of engineering wonder in Pittsfield, we continue to believe the source control measures in the first 2-miles are inadequate, that amounts continue to enter the river system daily, and that some control measures will fail in the future. For Rest of River Remedy, we ask that the NRRB recommend the most comprehensive removal actions in Rest of River in order to avoid the need for implementing additional source control measures that will need monitoring indefinitely until they fail. DAM INTEGRITY There are multiple dams along the Housatonic River that hold back untold tons of contaminated sediment that continues to move and do harm within the system. We are certain that the NRRB understands that the Housatonic, like most rivers of its size, are no longer truly “natural” systems. In your discussions, we ask that you consider recommending dam integrity studies be conducted every 5- 10 years indefinitely by an independent and unbiased contractor paid for by the RP. No dams in the system should be removed in the absence of exhaustive characterizations and stringent environmental review studies, that also includes adequate public notice and public input opportunities. MONITORING HEAL requests that the NRRB recommend that GE be mandated to monitor the Housatonic River site indefinitely, with a review of continuing the monitoring practice after the first 100-years. Samples of soil, river sediment, water, water column, sophisticated air monitoring (exteriors and interiors), human and animal serum, human and animal adipose tissue, human and animal breast milk, agricultural products grown in the system, tree bark, basement sumps in structures, etc...... be collected and tested for total PCB-congeners, including dioxins and dioxin-like substances, indefinitely and paid for by the RP. RESTORATION Although we do not always agree with EPA at this site, we also know how fortunate this site is to have the level of expertise and experience that the EPA team possesses. HEAL has certainly advocated unceasingly for adequate stakeholder input at each and every step in the process, including restoration decisions. HEAL believes that the current EPA team, along with their excellent restoration subcontractors, are beyond capable in conducting all necessary restoration activities at this site, and listening....truly listening....to the concerns, wishes and recommendations of all stakeholders. COST We appreciate that there are some statutory constraints placed on the NRRB to consider costs for remedies at sites. HEAL asks that you also consider the costs already incurred at this site by individuals, families, businesses, biota, recreation, boating and fishing, property owners, taxpayers....due to the presence of GE's toxic legacy. Please make GE accountable at any cost; they've got it, and when the GE engineers are allowed by their corporate headquarters to do their work, they do it well as is evidenced in the first half-mile removal action. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE The Wingspread Statement: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary � measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established � scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, � should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, � informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an � examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." � HEAL advocates for the NRRB to incorporate the Precautionary Principle in each of your deliberations and ultimate recommendations. CONCLUSION Stakeholders are united in calling for an effective removal action that will destroy PCBs, responsibly purge them from the watershed and from further global transport. The RP is exhibiting an anachronistic and boorish attitude to its legacy of contamination, and stunning disrespect to the employees and their families who competently and loyally worked for “The GE.” The peer reviewed Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessments are powerful documents that clearly demonstrate that harm will continue if the toxic compounds are allowed to remain. HEAL implores the NRRB to recognize that the river system was stolen from the people and from all the creatures that depend on it. We ask that the NRRB swiftly determine their recommendations in order for the EPA Region I New England team might begin the process towards the next phase of PCB-containment actions in order to bring the Housatonic River back to health, on behalf of the generations that will come next, and for those yet to be born. As our friends Ned Sullivan and Rich Sciafo wrote in their 2005 Op-Ed in the New York Times when GE was pulling similar obfuscating and stalling tactics along the Hudson River site: … “Only after G.E. uses its ecomagination to rid the nation's waterways of its contamination will these words ring true. Until then, its green campaign is nothing more than an eco smoke screen.” We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to the NRRB. Respectfully submitted, Audrey Cole, President Judy Herkimer, Director Tom Sevigny, Director Attachment: CT DEP Comments on Revised Corrective Measures Study 01.28.11