DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project This plan addresses herbicide application activities undertaken by the coalition of ISP partner agencies in the effort to eradicate non-native, invasive Spartina from the San Francisco Estuary. Prepared by Drew Kerr Under contract to Olofson Environmental, Inc. 1830 Embarcadero Cove, Suite 100 Oakland, CA 94606 510-536-4782 for the State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 March 2014 Current funding for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project comes from the California State Coastal Conservancy and grants from the California Wildlife Conservation Board. Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER SYSTEM.................................................................................................. 4 2. TREATMENT AREA ................................................................................................................................ 4 3. DESCRIPTION OF TARGET WEED SPECIES.............................................................................................. 5 3.1. ATLANTIC SMOOTH CORDGRASS (SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA) AND ITS HYBRIDS .................................... 6 3.2. CHILEAN CORDGRASS (SPARTINA DENSIFLORA) AND ITS HYBRIDS ...................................................... 6 3.3. ENGLISH CORDGRASS (SPARTINA ANGLICA) ................................................................................... 7 3.4. SALT-MEADOW CORDGRASS (SPARTINA PATENS) ........................................................................... 8 4. AQUATIC HERBICIDES, ADJUVANTS AND APPLICATION METHODS ....................................................... 9 4.1. AQUATIC HERBICIDES USED FOR SPARTINA TREATMENT .................................................................. 9 4.1.1. Imazapyr. .................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.2. Glyphosate. ............................................................................................................................... 10 4.2. DEGRADATION BYPRODUCTS .................................................................................................... 11 4.2.1. Imazapyr Degradation .............................................................................................................. 11 4.2.2. Glyphosate Degradation ........................................................................................................... 12 4.2.3. Water Quality Impacts Relative to Degradation ....................................................................... 13 4.3. HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS METHODS FOR INVASIVE SPARTINA ........................................................ 13 4.4. SURFACTANTS ........................................................................................................................ 14 5. FACTORS INFLUENCING CHOICE TO USE HERBICIDE ........................................................................... 15 6. GATES AND CONTROL STRUCTURES ................................................................................................... 16 7. SECTION 5.3 EXCEPTION ..................................................................................................................... 17 8. WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN (WQMP) .................................................................................. 17 8.1. MONITORING SITE SELECTION ................................................................................................... 17 8.2. SAMPLING DESIGN .................................................................................................................. 18 8.3. FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES .................................................................................................. 18 8.3.1. Equipment Calibration .............................................................................................................. 19 8.3.2. Field Data Sheets ....................................................................................................................... 19 8.3.3. Sample Shipment ...................................................................................................................... 19 8.4. SAMPLE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 19 8.4.1. Assessment of Field Contamination .......................................................................................... 20 8.4.2. Lab Quality Control & Data Quality Indicators .......................................................................... 20 8.5. RECEIVING WATER MONITORING TRIGGERS ................................................................................ 20 9. PROCEDURES TO PREVENT SAMPLE CONTAMINATION ...................................................................... 21 10. APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ....................................................... 21 10.1. SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTAINMENT .................................................................................... 21 10.2. ENSURING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION RATE ........................................................................ 22 10.3. EDUCATING APPLICATORS IN AVOIDANCE OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS .................................... 23 10.4. COORDINATION TO PROTECT WATER SUPPLIES .......................................................................... 23 10.5. PREVENTING FISH KILL FROM AQUATIC HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS ................................................. 23 San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project i. 2014 Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan 11. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE, NON-CHEMICAL CONTROL METHODS ................................................ 23 11.1. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................................... 24 11.2. PREVENTION ........................................................................................................................ 25 11.3. MECHANICAL METHODS ........................................................................................................ 25 11.3.1. Hand-pulling and manual excavation ..................................................................................... 25 11.3.2. Mechanical excavation, maceration and dredging ................................................................. 26 11.3.3. Mowing, burning, pruning, and flaming ................................................................................. 27 11.4. CULTURAL METHODS ............................................................................................................ 28 11.4.1. Tarping (Solarization) .............................................................................................................. 28 11.4.2. Flooding and draining ............................................................................................................. 29 11.5. BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ........................................................................................................... 30 11.6. HERBICIDE ........................................................................................................................... 31 11.7. LEAST INTRUSIVE TREATMENT METHOD ................................................................................... 31 11.8. SELECTING THE MOST APPROPRIATE HERBICIDE FORMULATION ................................................... 32 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 33 List of Figures Figure 1. Locations of 2014 Spartina Control Program treatment sites ...................................... 5 Appendices 1. Chemical properties, degradation rates, environmental fate, and toxicity of imazapyr, glyphosate, and aquatic surfactants evaluated for Spartina control 2. Field Data Collection Form 3. Chain of Custody form 4. Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan, Pacific Agricultural Laboratory 5. General Site Safety & Materials Handling Guidelines and Procedures for Spartina Control Projects in the San Francisco Estuary 6. Adjacent Waterways for Spartina Treatment Sites (2014) San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project ii. 2014 Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan Introduction The San Francisco Bay Estuary (Estuary) supports the largest and most ecologically-important expanses of tidal mudflats and salt marshes in the contiguous western United States. This envi- ronment naturally supports a diverse array of native plants and animals, but over the years many non-native species have been introduced, and some now threaten to cause fundamental changes in the structure, function, and value of the Estuary's tidelands. Among
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hicks Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan – 2017
    DRAFT HICKS LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2017 Prepared for City of Lacey Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Note: Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. HICKS LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2017 Prepared for City of Lacey 420 College Street Southeast Lacey, Washington 98503 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206-441-9080 Funded by Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund Grant Number WQAIP-2017-LacePW-00001 DRAFT November 15, 2016 CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... iii 1. Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Plant Management Goals .................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Lake and Watershed Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 5 4. Beneficial Uses of Hicks Lake ........................................................................................................................... 11 5. Aquatic Plant Community ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project
    Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project This plan addresses herbicide application activities undertaken by the coalition of ISP partner agencies in the effort to eradicate non-native, invasive Spartina from the San Francisco Estuary. Annual update prepared by Drew Kerr 2612-A 8th Street Berkeley, CA 94710 [email protected] Under contract to Olofson Environmental, Inc. Berkeley, California for the State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway, 13th floor Oakland, Ca 94612-2530 June 2013 Current funding for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project comes from the California State Coastal Conservancy and grants from the California Wildlife Conservation Board. Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ ii 1. BACKGROUND......................................................................................................... 1 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MCSTOPPP Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
    MCSTOPPP Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program www.mcstoppp.org 2010—2011 MCSTOPPP Annual Report Belvedere ▪ Corte Madera ▪ County of Marin ▪ Fairfax Larkspur ▪ Mill Valley ▪ Novato ▪ Ross ▪ San Anselmo San Rafael ▪ Sausalito ▪ Tiburon ANNUAL REPORT 2010-2011 Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) Marin County Department of Public Works P.O. Box 4186 San Rafael, CA 94913‐4186 Countywide Program Staff Terri Fashing, Program Manager (415‐499‐6583) Gina Purin, Public Outreach Coordinator (415‐499‐3202) Howard Bunce, Engineering Technician III (415‐499‐3748) Liz Lewis, Principal Planner, Marin County Department of Public Works [email protected] with assistance from EOA, Inc. and Marin County Department of Public Works Agency Staff Committee Representatives (Local Stormwater Coordinators): Scott Derdenger, City of Belvedere Kevin Kramer, Town of Corte Madera Mark Lockaby, Town of Fairfax Mike Myers, City of Larkspur Howard Bunce and Terri Fashing, County of Marin Jill Barnes, City of Mill Valley Dave Harlan, City of Novato Robert Maccario, Town of Ross Sean Condry, Town of San Anselmo Diane Decicio, City of San Rafael Todd Teachout, City of Sausalito Matt Swalberg, Town of Tiburon Citizens Advisory Committee: Betsy Bikle Stan Griffin* Jan Gross Kristine Pillsbury Aaron Stessman Sam Wilson** Ann Thomas** Cover photo: Garden designed by Art Gardens Landscape Co., 2010 Marin Eco‐Friendly Garden Tour – Photo by Gina Purin. *This Annual Report is dedicated to the memory of Stan Griffin (1920‐2011), with gratitude for his tireless efforts to protect and restore fish habitat in Marin’s creeks. **Ann Thomas replaced Sam Wilson on the MCSTOPPP CAC in May 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Urban Water Quality: New Surface Water Regulations of 2012
    Protecting Urban Water Quality: New Surface Water Regulations of 2012 Michael P Ensminger, Staff Environmental Scientist, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95812, [email protected] The California Department of Pesticide Regulation adopted new surface water regulations on June 19, 2012. The regulations restrict outdoor urban applications of pyrethroid insecticides made by professional applicators. Pyrethroids are highly active insecticides that control crawling, chewing, and flying insects as cockroaches, ants, beetles, caterpillars, termites, mosquitos, and wasps; in addition they are highly active on arachnids as spiders, ticks, and mites. Pyrethroids are highly hydrophobic and sorb to soils and sediment; half-lives of pyrethroids range from weeks to more than a year. Pyrethroids are being regulated in urban (non-agricultural) areas because of the following characteristics: 1) high use in urban areas; 2) prone to runoff in urban areas due to the engineering design of urban areas, especially during rainstorms; 3) more frequently detected in urban areas than in agricultural areas; 4) highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish; 5) cause aquatic invertebrate toxicity when detected in surface waters. The new surface water regulations will reduce the amount of pyrethroids applied by limiting applications to spot applications, crack and crevice applications, pin stream applications, and by limiting applications to impervious surfaces. Because more pyrethroids runoff during rainstorm events, applications are prohibited during rainfall (except under eaves), in standing water, to stormdrains and curbside gutters, and unprotected termiticide applications. More specific information can be found at the CDPR website (http://cdpr.ca.gov/docs/legbills/calcode/040501.htm).
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Management in a Changing Agricultural/Urban Environment
    10:20 Weeds as Hosts for Insect Pests 10:20 New Options for Control of Invasive FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2017 10:20 WeedsShimat as Joseph, Hosts forUCCE, Insect Monterey Pests County 10:20 NewAnnual Options Grasses for Control in the ofWest Invasive FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2017 7:00am- REGISTRATION & CEU Shimat Joseph, UCCE, Monterey County AnnualHarry GrassesQuicke, Bayer in the ES West Development California Weed 7:00am11:15am- REGISTRATIONSIGN-IN/OUT & CEU California Weed Harry Quicke, Bayer ES Development 10:45 Chemical Weed Control in Berry Crops 10:45 The Next Generation of Vegetation 11:15am SIGNJudy-IN/OUT Letterman & Celeste Elliott, CaliforniaScience WeedSociety 10:45 ChemicalSteve Fennimore, Weed Control UC Davis, in Berry Salinas Crops 10:45 TheManagement Next Generation and Stewardship of Vegetation JudyCWSS Letterman & Celeste Elliott, Science Society Steve Fennimore, UC Davis, Salinas ManagementGabriel Ludwig, and HelenaStewardship Chemical Company CWSS Science Society Gabriel Ludwig, Helena Chemical Company 11:30am-1:00pm CWSS BUSINESS & AWARDS LUNCHEON—DE ANZA BALLROOMS I & II DE ANZA BALLROOM III Annual Conference 11:30amKatherine-1:00pm Walker, CWSS CWSS BUSINESS President, &BASF AWARDS LUNCHEON—DE ANZA BALLROOMS I & II Annual Conference DE ANZA BALLROOM III Katherine Walker, CWSS President, BASF Annual Conference 7:30- SESSION M: LAWS & REGULATIONS AFTERNOON CONCURRENT SESSIONS 7:30- SESSIONChairs: LisaM: LAWS Blecker, & REGULATIONSUC Statewide IPM AFTERNOON CONCURRENT SESSIONS 11:30 DE ANZA BALLROOM III BONSAI BALLROOM 11:30
    [Show full text]
  • Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016
    BARNES LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016 Prepared for City of Tumwater’s Barnes Lake Management District Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Note: Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. BARNES LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016 Prepared for City of Tumwater’s Barnes Lake Management District Tumwater City Hall 555 Israel Road Southwest Tumwater, Washington 98501 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1220 Fourth Avenue East Olympia, Washington 98506 Telephone: 360-754-7644 April 1, 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The City of Tumwater wishes to acknowledge the significant contribution provided by the members of the Barnes Lake Steering Committee toward the completion of the 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Barnes Lake Steering Committee: Gary Bodeutsch (Chair) Linnea Madison (Vice Chair) William Baxter Dana Day Bob Gillette Jody Keys Judith Loft Kathy Peterson Tom Sparks Cathy Weaver Dan Smith, Staff Representative The Barnes Lake Steering Committee expressly thanks the Tumwater City Council for their support of the lake management district formation and management goals. Tumwater City Council Pete Kmet, Mayor Joan Cathey Ed Hildreth Nicole Hill Neil McClanahan Tom Oliva Debbie Sullivan Eileen Swarthout The LMD would also like to thank the City of Tumwater staff including John Doan, City Administrator; Jay Eaton, Public Works Director; and Ursula Euler, Finance Director; for their support of the LMD and assistance in providing for the routine management of this project, helping to build community among all the neighbors of Barnes Lake. CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Non-Chemical Control of Aquatic Plants
    Aquatic Pesticide Monitoring Program Review of Alternative Aquatic Pest Control Methods For California Waters Ben K. Greenfield Nicole David Jennifer Hunt Marion Wittmann Geoffrey Siemering San Francisco Estuary Institute 7770 Pardee Lane, 2nd Floor Oakland, CA 94621 April 2004 Aquatic Pesticide Monitoring Program Review of Alternative Aquatic Pest Control Methods For California Waters Table of Contents: Disclaimer and Acknowledgements ..................................................................................iii Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2 Review Design.................................................................................................................... 4 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 5 Practitioner Survey.......................................................................................................... 5 Biological Control Methods................................................................................................ 6 Pros and Cons of Biocontrol........................................................................................... 6 Triploid Grass Carp......................................................................................................... 7 Other Herbivorous Fishes ............................................................................................. 11 Fish Biomanipulation...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 24Th Annual Western Aquatic Plant Management Society Meeting March 10-11, 2005 Denver, CO
    24th Annual Western Aquatic Plant Management Society Meeting March 10-11, 2005 Denver, CO ABSTRACTS Oral Presentations (Alphabetized by first author’s last name) Preliminary evaluation of SolarBee effects on water quality at Lake Tahoe. Lars Anderson, Wailun Tan, and Chris Mallek; USDA-ARS Exotic and Invasive Weed Research, UCDavis One Shields Ave Davis, CA 95616 E-mail: [email protected] The SolarBee Corporation installed four water circulation systems at Tahoe Keys in the early summer of 2004. Subsequently, this study was begun to assess impacts of the systems on water quality, sediments, plant quality (CHN) and ability of adjacent sediments to support growth of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). During July, 2004, transects were established at three of the SolarBee stations and at three “control” stations in the West Tahoe Keys marina (West Basin) areas where no SolarBee systems were installed. Sampling stations were established at 4, 12, 36 and 100 meters from the SolarBee systems. During each sampling period (July, August, September (twice), November), light levels (at 20 cm-intervals) and water quality measurements (temp, DO, turbidity, pH) were recorded mid-depth and 20cm from the bottom. Triplicate samples of sediments were taken along the transects using an Ekman dredge (15cm x 15cm x15cm) and combined to form one sediment sample at each station (point) along each transect. Sediments were distributed into triplicate 1.5 l containers and each container was planted with three 15 cm apical shoots of M. spicatum obtained from the Tahoe Keys Marina. Planted containers were placed in a randomized pattern in temperature-controlled fiberglass tanks, 1 m deep, with recirculating deionized water and exposed to ca.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2005 a Design Revolution $6.00 Goldenunder Costa Rica’S Sun Beauty
    Inside: Stephanie Rose on the Role of Plants Design • Engineering • Construction Volume 7 Number 12 December 2005 A design revolution $6.00 Goldenunder Costa Rica’s sun Beauty Healthy Remedies Curing what ails big ponds and lakes Plus: A new method for assessing hydraulic systems Circle 56 on Postage Free Card Circle 3 on Postage Free Card contents December features 28 When Ponds Go Bad 40 By George Forni Islands Afloat Keys to curing By Chet Van Duzer serious water problems Exploring realms of natural wonder 48 Pure Vision By Juan Roca Business redefinition in a brave, new world 36 Equating Continuity By Steve Gutai A fresh angle on hydraulic calculations 4 WATERsHAPES ⅐ DECEMBER 2005 Volume 7 • Number 12 • December 2005 columns 10 6 Structures By Eric Herman Gathering a foreign perspective 10 Aqua Culture By Brian Van Bower 16 Energizing the commercial market 16 Natural Companions By Stephanie Rose Defining the alliance of water with plants 22 Detail #58 By David Tisherman The ins and outs of creative tile work 62 Book Notes By Mike Farley An awards program 22 that really matters departments 8 In This Issue 56 Advertiser Index 56 Of Interest Index 58 Of Interest On the cover: Photo courtesy Aquart J. Roca Disseny, Gunacaste, Costa Rica. WATERSHAPES (ISSN 1522-6581) is published monthly by McCloskey Communications, Inc. 6119 Lockhurst Dr., Woodland Hills, CA 91367. A controlled circulation publication, WaterShapes is distributed without charge to qualified subscribers. Non-qualified subscription rates in the U.S., $30 per year; Canada and Mexico $48 per year; all other coun- tries $64 per year, payable in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings California Invasive Plant Council Symposium 2008
    Proceedings California Invasive Plant Council Symposium 2008 “The Future of Invasive Plant Management” 1 2 Proceedings California Invasive Plant Council Symposium Volume 12: 2008 “The Future of Invasive Plant Management” California State University-Chico October 2-4, 2008 3 These Proceedings are available online at www.cal-ipc.org. Contact Cal-IPC at [email protected] California Invasive Plant Council 1442-A Walnut St. #462 Berkeley, CA 94709 Copyright © 2008 by the California Invasive Plant Council Recommended citation format: Randall, John M. Learning to live with invasive plants we cannot control. Proceedings of the California Invasive Plant Council. 12:pg. Cal-IPC, Berkeley, CA. The views and opinions expressed in the articles of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position of the California Invasive Plant Council. Cover: Sutter Buttes – Field trips visited Peace Valley in the Sutter Buttes (pictured), Lassen Volcanic National Park, Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve, and local creek restoration projects around Chico. Photo: Sara Sweetto: Sara Sweet Title page: The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Integrated Pest Control Branch won the 2008 award for Or- ganization of the Year. Photo: Gina Darin. 4 Table of Contents * Indicates presenting author in multi-author papers. Keynote Speaker 1 The evolving people and landscapes of California Emilyn Sheffield, California State University, Chico, Chico, CA New Horizons 1 Learning to live with invasives we cannot control John Randall, The Nature Conservancy, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA Warmer and weedier? Outlook for invasive plants in a changing world Jeffrey S. Dukes, Purdue University The five stages of grief: Invasive plants and the horticulture industry Sarah Reichard, University of Washington Botanic Gardens Student Paper Contest 6 Ecological remote sensing of invasion by perennial pepperweed Margaret E.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatics in Brief – Fall 2018
    FALL 2018 AquaticsinBrief Volume 12, Issue 3 Inside: Page 2 New Technology Highlight: Bioengineered Living Shorelines & Hillsides Page 3 Case Study: Managing Which Sediment Removal Option Aquatic Weeds and Algae in a Complex Community Canal System is Right for My Property? Page 4 By Lance Dohman, Regional Leader What Exactly Is Stormwater Runoff? irtually all explanations of dredg- Nuisance Plant Highlight: ing include the physical scooping Torpedograss up of underwater sand and clay Page 5 sediments to enhance a merchant ship’s access to a port or waterway. If these New SOLs V waterways become inaccessible, the eco- Page 6 nomic consequences are far reaching. Today, however, massive algal blooms, animal fatali- Upland, Wetland and ties from toxic byproducts of algae and the Aquatic Plants Every Turf Manager Should spread of invasive plants and animals are Know About sharing the front-page news with national economic interests. For those of us living Hydraulic Dredge Page 7 on a waterbody, it’s clear that our personal Before and After economic interests are rewarded via higher Showcase property values if the nearby water is both Fortunately, there are many proactive Volunteer Spotlight navigable and healthy. As a waterbody ages aquatic management solutions that can be implemented to help slow or prevent the Check Us Out… and becomes “silted-in,” organic nutrients fuel invasive plant and algae growth, and aging of waterbodies, such as proper land property owners suffer the consequences use management, maintenance of beneficial of bright green water, fish kills and danger- vegetative buffers and sediment traps, instal- ous swimming conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Comments to Epa Regarding Revised
    Comments W VW,P',tc Will ch,[om on Housatonic River Corrective Measures Study Submitted to EPA by GE Corporation October 2010 prepared by ESC, LLC Dr, Peter L. deFur Henrico, VA January 19, 2011 On behalf of Housatonic River Initiative Document Summary This Corrective Measures Study (CMS) is a revised and changed draft of the CMS submitted by GE to EPA in 2008. The CMS presents options and alternatives for cleaning up the PCBs and other chemical contaminants in the Housatonic River that were released by GE from the Pittsfield plant for more than 70 years. The current CMS was prepared with input from EPA in terms of assumptions and conditions. The CMS presents cleanup options in three categories: 1) the river sediments; 2) the floodplain/riverbank areas and; 3) treatment or disposal of sediments removed from the river. These various specific options are combined to give a series of complete options addressing contamination in the river and floodplain and addressing how to handle the contaminated sediments. The combinations are limited to fit a pre-determined range of options that range from no removal (no action) to partial removal and finally, removal of a larger volume of contamination. Removing less sediment from the river is combined with removing less soil in the floodplain and applying comparable criteria to focus on the more contaminated locations for removal. One option provides for minimizing the physical disturbance of the river, riverbed and riverbank with the idea of reducing the physical disturbance to the river during remediation. The CMS presents, but does not select, several possible ways to handle the contaminated sediments and soils after removal.
    [Show full text]