AMTRAK VEGETATION CONTROL PROGRAM - CONSERVATION COMMISSION NoAMTRAK
f
ME TEC ASSOCIATES ECONSULTIN
NG NEERSG
12 May 1995
�9Y 1 b 1995
Salem Conservation Comm. �� � P11a. 1.9
1 Salem Green Dept.
Salem, MA 01970
RE : Amtrak 1995 Vegetation Control Program
Dear Commission Members :
Enclosed is Amtrak' s 1995 Yearly Operational Plan prepared in
accordance with the Massachusetts Rights-of-Way Management
Regulations (333 CMR 11 . 00) . Maps of the affected rights-of-way
were recently provided to you as part of the Request for a
Determination process . These maps and maps provided in last year' s
Plan continue in effect unless modified and should be retained in
your files . The indication on the maps of private drinking water
supply wells remains an on going process . Please notify TEC
Associates and the Department of Food and Agriculture of any
omissions .
The herbicide application as proposed in the 1995 Yearly
Operational Plan is scheduled to take place between 9 July and 30
July 1995 .
The location of signs marking the limited and no-spray zones will
be verified prior to the application. Please call TEC Associates
with any questions about this Plan.
Very truly yours
TEC ASS/OCIATES
Wayne Duffett
Enclosure
CC : Board of Health
Board of Selectmen
Dennis :Guastalli, DFA
Eli Mistovich, Amtrak
P.O. Box 2747 169 Front Street South Portland, Maine 04106
207/767-6068 FAX 207/767-7125
,I
is COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
100 CAMBRIDGE ST., BOSTON, MA 02202 617.727.3000 FAX 727-7235
4
WILLIAM F. WELD TRUDY COXE
Governor
Secretary
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI JONATHAN L. HEALY
Lt. Governor Commissioner
NOTICE
Pursuant to the provisions of the Rights-of-Way Management
Regulation, 333 CMR 11 . 00, in order to apply herbicides to control
vegetation along railroad rights-of-way, a five-year Vegetation
Management Plan (VMP) and a Yearly Operational Plan (YOP) must be
approved by the Department of Food and Agriculture. Therefore,
notice of receipt of a YOP and procedures for public review are
hereby given as required by Section 11 . 06 (3) .
A Yearly Operational Plan has been submitted for: AMTRAK National
Railroad Passenger Corporation.
This plan has been prepared and submitted to the Department of Food
and Agriculture by: TEC Associates of South Portland, Maine.
Municipalities identified in the AMTRAK YOP as locations where the
rights-of-way will be treated with herbicides during the 1995
calendar year are :
Acton, Andover, Attleboro, Ayer, Bellingham, Belmont, Beverly,
Billerica, Boston, Boxborough, Cambridge, Canton, Chelsea,
Concord, Dedham, Everett, Fitchburg, Foxboro, Franklin,
Gloucester, Hamilton, Haverhill, Hopedale, Ipswich, Lawrence,
Leominster, Lincoln, Littleton, Longmeadow, Lowell, Lunenburg,
Lynn, Malden, Manchester, Mansfield, Medford, Melrose,
Milford, Milton, Needham, Norfolk, North Andover, Norwood,
Reading, Revere, Rockport, Salem, Saugus, Sharon, Shirley,
Somerville, Springfield, Stoughton, Swampscott, Tewksbury,
Wakefield, Walpole, Waltham, Wenham, Weston, Westwood,
Wilmington, Winchester, and Woburn.
One selective application of herbicide is proposed to occur in the
1995 calendar year within approved areas along Amtrak rights-of-
way. This application will be followed by a late summer touch-up
application in areas of heavy vegetation growth. Public
notification (by certified mail) will be provided to each affected
municipality at least twenty-one days prior to any herbicide
application.
Hi-rail vehicles equipped with herbicide application equipment will
be used to treat the rights-of-way. This post emergent program is
targeted toward the eradication of woody and herbaceous plant
species germinating within the railroad roadbed and around other
fixtures including but not limited to: switches, signals, signs,
and highway grade crossings .
"Sensitive" areas as defined by the Rights-of-way Management
Regulations will receive the full protection afforded by those
Regulations. All herbicide applications will be done by an
applicator properly licensed by the Department of Food and
Agriculture Pesticide Bureau and fully trained in herbicide mixing,
handling, and application methods.
The applicant has described the following rights-of-way as sites
that have been scheduled for herbicide treatment in 1995 .
EASTERN ROUTE MAIN LINE
Ipswich to Boston
Ipswich Swampscott Chelsea
Hamilton Lynn Everett
Wenham Saugus Somerville
Beverly Revere Boston
Salem
GLOUCESTER BRANCH
Gloucester to Beverly
Rockport Manchester
Gloucester Beverly
WESTERN ROUTE MAIN LINE
Haverhill to Boston
Haverhill Tewksbury Melrose
North Andover Wilmington Malden
Lawrence Reading Medford
Andover Wakefield Somerville
NEW HAMPSHIRE ROUTE MAIN LINE
Lowell to Boston'
Lowell Wilmington Medford
Tewksbury Woburn Somerville
Billerica Winchester
WILDCAT BRANCH
Wilmington to Wilmington Junction
Wilmington
1
FITCHBURG MAIN LINE
Fitchburg to Boston
Fitchburg Boxborough Waltham
Leominster Acton Belmont
Lunenburg Concord Cambridge
Shirley Lincoln Somerville
Ayer Weston Boston
Littleton
STOUGHTON BRANCH
Stoughton to Canton
Stoughton Canton
DORCHESTER BRANCH
Readville to Boston
Boston Milton
FRANKLIN BRANCH
Milford to Boston
Milford Norfolk Westwood
Hopedale Walpole Dedham
Bellingham Norwood Boston
Franklin
NEEDHAM BRANCH
Needham to Boston
Needham Dedham Boston
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
Attleboro to Boston
Attleboro Sharon Dedham
Mansfield Canton Boston
Foxboro Westwood
SPRINGFIELD LINE
Longmeadow to Springfield
Longmeadow Springfield
PUBLIC REVIEW
t
The Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) in particular seeks
the verification of sensitive area locations reported in the Yearly
Operational Plan (YOP) . The Department itself has a limited
ability to survey the geography, land use, and the water supplies,
in all the communities through which the rights-of-way are located.
Municipalities, however, have most of this information readily
available, and the particular knowledge with which to better
certify the sensitive areas in their communities . Therefore, the
Department requests, and urges, the assistance of the affected
municipalities, in reviewing the completeness and accuracy of the
maps contained in the submitted document. The DFA has established
the. following procedures for this review.
Yearly Operational Plans (YOP) and a copy of this notice will be
sent by the applicant to the Conservation Commission, Board of
Health (or designated health agent) , and to the Head of Government
(Mayor, City Manager, Chair of the Board of Selectman) of each
municipality where herbicides are to be applied along the Rights-
of-Way during the calendar year of 1995 . Municipal agencies and
officials will have (45) forty-five days, following receipt of the
Yearly Operational Plan to review the maps contained in the
document that indicate the location of "sensitive areas not readily
identifiable in the filed" for inaccuracies and omissions .
"Sensitive Areas" will be defined as in Section 11 . 01 a-f .
Municipal agencies and officials are requested to forward the YOP
to the appropriate officials (s) in their municipality qualified to
certify the accuracy of sensitive area locations as indicated on
the maps. The maps should be "corrected" and returned to the
applicant, also a copy of the maps with these corrections indicated
should be sent to the Department of Food and Agriculture at the
address listed below within the forty-five day review period. If
a city or town needs more time to carry out this review, it should
send a written request for an extension to the DFA and cite why
there is a "good cause" for requesting additional time.
All corrections will be required to be made by the applicant, and
corrected maps sent back to the city/town before the YOP can be
considered "approved" by the Department for vegetation maintenance
in that municipality. Any dispute on the part of the applicant
regarding corrections made by the municipal authorities,' should be
indicated in writing to the Department and to the city/town which
requested the disputed changes within (15) fifteen days of receipt
of the request . The Department will decide whether or not the YOP
should be approved without the requested changes . The DFA will
consider the "final approval" of a YOP individually for each
municipality.
The final (21) twenty one days of the public review period may
serve concurrently to provide public notification as required by
section 11 . 07 of the Rights-of-Way Management regulation, if the
applicant has an approved VMP and if all the requisite city/town
offices which have received copies of the YOP have completed their
review and corrections have been duly made by the applicant and
approved by the Department .
A failure by the city/town to respond to the applicants submission
of the YOP within the forty five (45) day public review period,
will automatically be considered by the DFA to indicate agreement
by municipal officials with the sensitive area demarcations as
provided by the applicant in their YOP.
Any questions or comments on the information provided in this
Notice and the procedures established for the municipal review as
outlined above, should be addressed to:
Dennis Guastalli
Supervisory Inspector
Massachusetts Pesticide Bureau
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
: I
1
Yearly Operational Plan
1995
AMTRAK NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
SPRINGFIELD LINE
32 Cobble Hill Road
Somerville, MA 02143
Prepared by:
TEC Associates
169 Front Street
South Portland, Maine 04106
ABSTRACT:
This Yearly Operational Plan (YOP) describes the vegetation management operations for
the Railroad's rights-of-way (ROW) scheduled for vegetation maintenance during this
calendar year in compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ROW Management
Regulations 333 CMR 11.00.
This YOP is a companion document to the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) which has been
approved by the Department of Food and Agriculture.
INTRODUCTION
Both Federal and State laws require railroads to manage vegetation to help insure the safe
passage of people, material, and goods.
The Code of Federal Regulations mandates the safety of the railroad must be guaranteed by
regular inspection and maintenance. Vegetation must be controlled so that it does not become
a fire hazard, does not interfere with visibility, or impede direct visual inspections of the track
structure. Vegetation must also be managed to allow for proper drainage of the track and ballast
structure, to prevent tree and branch damage to cargo and to provide safe footing and working
conditions for trackside personnel. Vegetation growing along side the rails can prevent effective
and adequate braking, especially in emergency situations.
The purpose of 333 CMR 11.00, Rights of Way Management, is to promote the implementation
of Integrated Pest management techniques and to establish standards, requirements, and
procedures necessary to minimize the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on human health and
the environment associated with the use of herbicides to maintain rights-of-way. These
regulations establish procedures which guarantee ample opportunity for public and municipal
agency review and input on right-of-way maintenance plans.
A Yearly Operational Plan or YOP must be submitted to the Department of Food and
Agriculture every year herbicides are intended for use to maintain Rights of Way. The YOP
provides a detailed program for vegetation management for the year. This YOP is a companion
document to the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) approved by the Department. The VMP
is the long term management plan for the railroad which describes the intended program for
vegetation control over a live year period.
Upon receipt of this-YOP, the Department publishes a notice in the Environmental Mcnitor.
The applicant has provided a copy of the YOP and Environmental Monitor notice to the Board
of Health, Conservation Commission and the chief elected municipal official for the city or town
in which the herbicide treatment is proposed.
The Department allows a 45 day comment period on the proposed YOP beginning with
publication of the notice in the Environmental Monitor and receipt of the YOP and Environmental
Monitor notice by each municipality.
Public notification of herbicide application to the right of way is made by certified mail under
separate cover at least 21 days in advance of the treatment. Notice is made to the Department
of Food and Agriculture; the Mayor, City Manager or chairman of the Board of Selectman; the
Board of Health; and the Conservation Commission of the municipality where the right-of-way
lies.
Any comments on this YOP should be directed to the railroad contact person listed on page
L
MUNICIPALITIES WHERE TREATMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS YOP WILL BE MADE.
Acton Malden
Andover Manchester
Attleboro Mansfield
Ayer Medford
Bellingham Melrose'
Belmont Milford
Beverly Milton
Billerica Needham
Boston Norfolk
Boxborough North Andover
Cambridge Norwood
Canton Reading
Chelsea Revere
Concord Rockport
Dedham Salem
Everett Saugus
Fitchburg Sharon
Foxboro Shirley
Franklin Somerville
Gloucester Springfield
Hamilton Stoughton
Haverhill Swampscott
Hopedale Tewksbury
Ipswich Wakefield
Lawrence Walpole
Leominster Waltham
Lincoln Wenham
Littleton Weston
Longmeadow Westwood
Lowell Wilmington
Lunenburg Winchester
Lynn Woburn
YOP REQUIREMENTS AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. The company which will perform any herbicide treatment 1
ii. Individual representing applicant and supervising the YOP 1
III. Herbicides proposed including application rates,carriers,and 2
adjuvants
IV. Herbicide application techniques and alternative control 3
procedures
V. Identification of target vegetation 4
VI. Flagging methods to designate sensitive areas on the ROW 5
VII. Procedures and locations for handling, mixing and loading of 6
herbicide concentrates
VIII. Emergency contacts 7
APPENDICES
A. Herbicide Fact Sheets as approved by the Department of Food
and Agriculture
B. Maps locating the ROW and Sensitive areas not readily
identifiable in the field
I. THE COMPANY WHICH WILL PERFORM ANY HERBICIDE TREATMENT
This company or contractor will perform the herbicide treatment. Applicators are certified by the
Department of Food and Agriculture in the applicator category Right of Way Pest Control.
Company Name RWC, Inc.
Lockhouse Road
P. O. Box 876
Address Westfield, MA 01086
Telephone # (413 ) 562-5681
Contact Person(s) John B. Roy
II. INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTING APPLICANT AND SUPERVISING THE YOP
Individual supervising execution of the YOP and representing the railroad.
Name and Title Mr. Eli Mistovich, Assistant Division Engineer
Amtrak Engineering Department
32 Cobble Hill Road
Address Somerville, MA 02143
Phone Number ( 617 ) 722-3619
1
ill. HERBICIDES PROPOSED INCLUDING APPLICATION RATES, CARRIERS,
ADJUVANTS, AND APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
Weed Control Herbicide Program for the Roadbed
The post-emergent herbicide program is aimed primarily toward keeping the ballast section
and shoulder, yards, switches, signals, and highway grade crossings weed free. Areas
scheduled for weed control treatments have been Inspected for density of target vegetation to
determine appropriate control methods. Herbicide Fact Sheets for the herbicides proposed are
found in Appendix A.
Location Herbicides) Carriers or Adjuvants Application Application Rate
Technique
Sensitive area Roundup Foliar 3 qts/acre
buffer ion* Arsenal Foliar 1q t/acre
More Foliar 2-4 oz/acre
Non sensitive Roundup Foliar 3 qts/acre
areas Arsenal Foliar 1 qt/acre
More Foliar 2-4 oz/acre
Touch-up Roundup Foliar 3 qts/acre
Applications Arsenal Foliar 1 qt/acre
More Foliar 2-4 oz/acre
Brush Control Program For Areas Adiacent To The Roadbed
The brush control program is designed to prevent the regrowth of trees and other woody
vegetation in areas adjacent to the roadbed. Areas scheduled for brush control treatments are
limited to target vegetation which obscures visibility or interferes with railroad signs, signals, or
communication wires. Herbicide Fact Sheets for herbicides proposed may be found in Appendix
A.
Location Herbicides) Carriers or Adjuvants Application Application Rate
Technique .
Non sensitive None
areas
Touch-up
applications None
2
I
IV. HERBICIDE APPLICATION TECHNIQUES AND ALTERNATIVE CONTROL
PROCEDURES
Herbicide application within the Railroad ROW will be preformed using lov; Pres3ure
application from a specialized high rail track equipped with a spray boom. This method is
suitable for application within the buffer zone, or restricted application zone, of sensitive areas,
as defined in 333 CMR 11.04. The spray vehicle is equipped with spray nozzles and controls to
allow for treatment of the entire roadbed, or to selectively treat individual sections of the ballast
and ballast shoulders. Within sensitive areas, a 'container" will be used to catch any accidental
dripping of herbicide. It is a trough-shaped apparatus mounted just behind and above the boom,
and will be hydraulically lowered to sit underneath the spray nozzles while the vehicle is traveling
through areas where herbicide spraying is prohibited.
In order to assist in rapid identification of sensitive areas in the field, a pilot veh::le will
proceed approximately 1/4 mile ahead of the applicator vehicle in order to signal ahead the
location of sensitive areas.
In order to provide greater mobility and decrease the amount of time required to apply the
herbicide mixture in the railroad yard areas, a vehicle equipped with hoses will be used in these
areas. In compliance with the Regulations for herbicide application in Sensitive Areas, the spray
pressure from the hoses will not exceed 60 psi.
ALTERNATIVE CONTROL PROCEDURES
-No alternative vegetation control methods are feasible within the track areas of the ROW. No
vegetation control is proposed in ballast areas where herbicide use is prohibited. Areas not
treated or prohibited from herbicide application will be maintained mechanically and manually.
Touch-uo techniaues controls any target vegetation within the ballast that may have been
missad or not treated during the initial phase. Control of vines and other vegetation that might
creep onto the ballast from roots growing outside the original treatment boundaries can be
managed as a selective, foliage, or spot spray. No more than 10% of the initially identified target
vegetation on the ROW in any municipality may be treated during a touch-up application and the
total amount of herbicide applied in any one year shall not exceed the limits specified by the
label of YOP [per 11.03(8)(C)].
3
V. IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET VEGETATION
Whenever and wherever possible an integrated approach to vegetation management will be
implemented by encouraging plant communities that hinder the growth of target vegetation. Prior
to a herbicide application, a review will be made noting location, density, and type of vegetation
present. This information will be used to develop a herbicide application program that will be
effective against target vegetation and minimize the amount of herbicide used.
All vegetation growing in the ballast and ballast shoulder; in yards; and around switches,
signals, signs and highway grade crossings is considered target vegetation and must be
controlled so that it does not:
a) become a fire hazard to track-carry structures;
b) obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals;
c) interfere with railroad employees preforming normal trackside duties;
d) prevent proper functioning of signal and communication lines; and
e) prevent railroad employees from visually inspecting moving equipment from their normal
duty stations.
Woody vegetation growing in areas adjacent to the shoulder will be managed to promote the
growth of low growing shrubs. Targeted woody vegetation will be that which has the potential
to block visibility or invade the roadbed and/or overhead communication lines. Target vegetation
will include but not be limited to the following:
Ailantus Black Walnut Honey Locust
American Basswood Buckthorn Maple
American Beech Butternut Northern Catalpa
American Hornbeam Cherry Oak
Apple Eastern Horphornbeam Pine
Ash Eastern Redcedar Poplar
Aspen Elm Sassafras
Birch Flowering Dogwood Shadbrush
Black Locust Hawthorn Spruce
Black Tupelo Hickory Sumac
4
VI. FLAGGING METHODS TO DESIGNATE SENSITIVE AREAS ON THE ROW
Sensitive areas are defined in the Rights-Of-Way Management Regulations(333 CMR 11.02)
as those areas within the ROW in which public health, environmental, or agricultural concerns
warrant special protection to further minimize risks of unreasonable adverse effects. These
include but are not limited to the following:
• Within the primary recharge area of a public drinking water supply well.
• Within 400 feet of any surface water used as a public water supply.
• Within 100 feet of any identified private drinking water supply.
• Within 100 feet of any standing or flowing water.
• Within 100 feet of any inhabited or agricultural area.
• Within 100 feet of any wetlands.
No-sorav areas are those in which herbicide spraying is prohibited. It includes track within
400 feet of a public water supply wellhead, 100 feet from a public surface water supply, a 50 foot
radius around a private well, and 10 feet from the edge of standing or flowing water or wetlands.
Limited-sorav areas are those in which spraying is restricted to one annual application of an
herbicide through low pressure foliar techniques. This includes track between 10 and 100 feet
from the edge of standing or flowing water or wetlands. Lengths of track within the primary
recharge area around a public water supply wellhead, between 100-400 feet from the edge of a
public surface water supply, and between 50 and 100 foot radius around a public well, spraying
is restricted to one application every other year of an herbicide through low pressure foliar
techniques.
Non-sensitive areas which are upland areas and/or lengths of track without proximate sensitive
areas do not require specific precautions or herbicide restrictions.
Sensitive areas, no-spray areas, limited-spray areas and non-sensitive areas will be marked at
their boundaries with permanent color-coded markers. Sensitive areas considered to be readily
identifiable in the field (i.e. agricultural and inhabited ares) will not be marked. The markers will
be one or any combination of the following:
• color-coded signs attached to posts
• color-coded signs attached to the railroad ties
• color-coded painted rail sections
Sensitive and non-sensitive areas will be designated by the following color-codes:
• white non-sensitive areas
• blue sensitive area in which a minimum of 12 months shall elapse between herbicide
applications
• yellow no spray zone
• double blue sensitive areas in which a minimum of 24 months
shall elapse between herbicide applications
5
VII. PROCEDURES AND LOCATIONS FOR HANDLING, MIXING AND LOADING OF
HERBICIDE CONCENTRATES
The herbicide-application•crewwill wearprotective clothing and personal safety equipment
when mixing, handling, loading or applying herbicide, including standard work clothing or cover-
alls, work gloves and work boots. Latex or nitrile rubber gloves, as well as eye goggles are
recommended to be worn during mixing of herbicide concentrate as ARSENAL and ROUNDUP
herbicides may cause mild eye and skin irritations.
Mixing and use of herbicide shall be consistent with the labeling instructions included on the
packaging. The herbicide mix will be prepared from herbicide concentrate and water. In
compliance with the regulations, the handling, mixing and/or loading if this material will not occur
within 100 feet of any Sensitive Area. Wherever and whenever possible, the herbicide applicator
will prepare the herbicide mix on non-porous surfaces, such as pavement or concrete.
Sources of Water and Safeguards to Prevent Contamination
Water used for herbicide mix will be obtained from hydrants and freshwater sources. During
the herbicide mix preparations and during herbicide application, strict adherence to the following
safeguards will be maintained:
1) Water will be obtained using hoses equipped with anti-siphon devises to eliminate herbicide
backflow.
a) Hoses used to extract water from waterbodies will be equipped with two such devises:
one will be found directly behind the mouth of the hose and another will be at the
coupling which joins the hose to the mix tank.
b) Hoses used to extract water from the hydrant will utilize the same setup as described
above, except that a third anti-siphon device will be found within the coupling joining the
hose to the hydrant.
2) The herbicide concentrate will not be added to the tank until the water has been obtained and
the application apparatus is at least 100 feet outside.a Sensitive Area.
Disposal of Herbicidal Wastes
Disposal of all herbicidal wastes will be the responsibility of the licensed applicator. It is the
applicator's responsibility to ensure that such disposal will be carried out in an environmentally
sensitive manner, in compliance with all Federal and State regulations and guidelines.
6 •
VIII. EMERGENCY CONTACTS
In the event of a spill or emergency, information on safety precautions and cleanup procedures
may be gathered from the following sources:
Herbicide Label
Herbicide Fact Sheet
Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet
Herbicide Manufacturer
DuPont (800) 424-9300
Monsanto (314) 694-4000
Massachusetts Pesticide Bureau (617) 727-3020
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (617) 292-5500
Chemtrec (800) 424-9300
EPA Pesticide Hotline (800) 858-7378
Massachusetts Poison Control Center (800) 682-9211
Local Community Chief of Police
Acton 508-263-2911
Andover 508-475-0411
Attleboro 508-222-1212
Ayer 508-772-8200
Bellingham 508-966-1515
Belmont 617-484-1212
Beverly 508-922-1212
Billerica 508-667-1212
Boston 617-247-4200
Boxborough 508-263-3000
Cambridge 617-349-3300
Canton 617-828-1212
Chelsea 617-884-1212
Concord 508-369-7400.-
Dedham 617-326-1212
Everett 617-389-2120
Fitchburg . 508-345-4355
Foxboro 508-543-4343
Franklin 508-528-1212
Gloucester 508-283-1212
Hamilton 508-468-1212
Haverhill 508-373-1212
Hopedale 508-473-8444
Ipswich 508-356-4343
Continued on next page.
7
Lawrence 508-686-6163
Leominster 508-534-4383
Lincoln 617-259-8113
Littleton 508-952-2316
_ Longmeadow 413-567-3311
Lowell 508-937-3200
Lunenburg 508-582-4531
Lynn 617-595-2000
Malden 617-322-1212
Manchester 508-526-1212
Mansfield 508-261-7300
Medford 617-395-1212
Melrose 617-665-1212
Milford 508-473-1113
Milton 617-698-3800
Needham 617-444-1212
Norfolk 508-528-3232
North Andover 508-683-3168
Norwood 617-762-6888
Reading 617-944-1212
Revere 617-284-1212
Rockport 508-546-3444
Salem 508-744-1212
Saugus 617-233-1212
Sharon 617-784-5300
Shirley 508-425-4377
Somerville 617-625-1600
Springfield 413-787-6320
Stoughton 617-344-2424
Swampscott 617-595-1111
Tewksbury 508-851-7373
Wakefield 617-245-1212
Walpole 508-668-1095
Waltham 617-893-3700
Wenham 508-468-4000
Weston 617-893-4803
Westwood 617-326-1903
Wilmington 508-658-3331
Winchester 617-729-1214
Woburn 617-933-1212
8
APPENDICES
A. Herbicide Fact Sheets as approved by the Department
B. Maps locating the ROW and Sensitive areas not readily identifiable in the field.
Maps provided with the Yearly Operational Plan shall remain effective for the duration of the
YOP unless modified. Subsequent YOPs will contain any modifications to the maps made
during the previous year.
9
f
APPENDIX A
HERBICIDE FACT SHEETS
-LRBICIDE FACT SHEET
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE , 1
100 Cambridge Street,Boston MA 02202 (617)727-7712 August Schumacher Jr, Commissioner Amewbusetts
pown-UW fnesba
GLYPHOSATE
Common Trade Name(s): Roundup, Rodeo, Accord
Chemical Name: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine-isopropylamine salt
CAS No. : 1071-83-6
GENERAL INFORMATION
Glyphosate, n-phosphonomethyl glycine is a systemic, broad spectrum herbicide
effective against most plant species, including deeprooted perenial species,
annual and biennial species of grasses, sedges, and broadleafed weeds. The
major pathway for uptake in plants is through the foliage, however, some root
uptake may occur. The presence of surfactants and humidity increases the rate
of absorption of glyphosate by plants (15).
Foliarly applied glyphosate is readily absorbed and translocated from treated
areas to untreated shoot regions. The mechanism of herbicidal action for
glyphosate is believed to be inhibition of amino acid biosynthesis resulting in
a reduction of protein synthesis and inhibition of growth (10, 15, 101) .
Glyphosate is generally formulated as the isopropylamine salt in aqueous solu-
tion (122). Of the three products containing glyphosate considered here,
Roundup is sold with a surfactant and Rodeo and Accord are mixed with surfac-
tants prior to use (15). Glyphosate has been reviewed by US Forest Service
( 15), FAO (122), and EPA ODW (51 ).
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
Mobility
Glyphosate is relatively immobile in most soil environments as a result of its
strong adsorption to soil particles. Adsorption' to soil particles and organic
matter begins almost immediately after application. Binding occurs with par-
ticular rapidity to clays and organic matter ( 15). Clays and organic matter
saturated with iron and aluminum (such as in the Northeast) tend to absorb more
glyphosate than those saturated with -sodium or calcium. The soil phosphate
level is the main determinant of the amount of glyphosate adsorbed to soil par-
ticles. Soils which are low in phosphates will adsorb higher levels of glypho-
sate (14, 15).
Glyphosate is classified as immobile by the Helling and Turner classification
system. In soil column leaching studies using aged (1 month) glyphosate,
leaching of glyphosate was said to be insignificant after 0.5 inches of water
per day for 45 days (14).
PUBLICATION #16,076-6-75-10-89-C.R.
APPROVED BY: RIC MURPHY, PURCHASING AGFSTT
Persistence
It has been reported that glyphosate dissipates relatively rapidly when applied
to most soils (14). However, studies indicate that the soil half-life is
variable and dependent upon soil factors. The half-life of glyphosate in
greenhouse studies when applied to silty clay loam, silt loam, and sandy loam at
rates of 4 and 8 ppm was 3, 27 and 130 days respectively, independent of appli-
cation rate (14). An average half-life of 2 months has been reported in field
studies for 11 soils (15).
Glyphosate is mainly degraded biologically by soil micro-organisms and has a
minimal effect on soil microflora (15). In the soil environment, glyphosate is
resistant to chemical degradation such as hydrolysis and is stable to sunlight
(15). The primary metabolite of glyphosate is aminomethyl phosphonic acid
(RMPA) which has a slower degradation rate than glyphosate (15). The per-
sistence of AMPA is reported to be longer than glyphosate, possibly due to tighter
binding to soil (14). No data are available on the toxicity of this compound.
Glyphosate degradation by microorganisms has been widely tested in a variety of
field and laboratory studies. Soil characteristics used in these studies have
included organic contents, soil types and pHs similar to those that occur in
Massachusetts (117).
Glyphosate degradation rates vary considerably across a wide variety of soil
types. The rate of degradation is correlated with microbial activity of the
soils and does not appear to be largely dependent on soil pH or organic content
(117). While degradation rates are likely temperature dependent, most reviews
of studies do not report or discuss the dependence of degradation rate on tem-
perature. Mueller et al . (1981 cited in 117) noted that glyphosate degraded in
Finnish agricultural soils (loam and fine silt soils) over the winter months; a
fact which indicates that degradation would likely take place in similar soils
in the cool Massachusetts climate. Glyphosate half-lives for laboratory experi-
ments on sandy loam and loamy sand, which are common in Massachusetts, range up
to 175 days (117). The generalizations noted for the body of available results
are sufficiently robust to incorporate conditions and results applicable to
glyphosate use in Massachusetts.
TOXICITY REVIEW
Acute (Mammalian)
Glyphosate has reported oral LD50s of 4,320 and 5,600 mg/kg in male- and female
rats (15,4). The oral LD50s of the two major glyphosate products Rodeo and
Roundup are 5,000 and 5,400 mg/kg in the rat (15).
A'dermal LD50 of 7,940 mg/kg has been determined in rabbits (15,4). There are
reports of mild dermal irritation in rabbits (6), moderate eye irritation in
rabbits (7), and possible phototoxicity in humans (9). The product involved in
the phototoxicity study was Tumbleweed marketed by Murphys Limited UK (9).
Maibach (1986) investigated the irritant and the photo irritant responses in
individuals exposed to Roundup (41% glyphosate, water, and surfactant); Pinesol
liquid, Johnson Baby Shampoo, and Ivory Liquid dishwashing detergent. The
conclusion drawn was that glyposate has less irritant potential than the Pinesol
or the Ivory dishwashing liquid (120).
Metabolism
Elimination of glyphosate is rapid and very little of the material is metabo-
lized (6, 106).
Subchronic/Chronic Studies (Mammalian)
In subchronic tests, glyphosate was administered in the diet to dogs and rats at
200, 600, and 2,000 ppm for 90 days. A variety of toxicological endpoints were
evaluated with no significant abnormalities reported (15,10).
In other subchronic tests, rats received 0, 1,000, 5,000, or 20,000 ppm (57, 286,
1143 mg/kg) in the diet for 3 months. The no observable adverse effect level
(NOAEL) was 20,000 ppm (1,143 mg/kg) (115). In the one year oral dog study,
dogs received 20, 100, and 500 mg/kg/day. The no observable effect level
(NOEL) was 500 mg/kg (116).
Oncogenicity Studies
Several chronic carcinogenicity studies have been reported for glyphosate
including an 18 month, mouse study; and two year rat study. In the rat study,
the animals received 0, 30, 100 or 300 ppm in diet for 2 years. EPA has deter-
mined that the doses in the rat study do not reach the maximum tolerated dose
(112) and replacement studies are underway with a high dose of 20,000 ppm (123).
The mice received 1000 5000 or 30,000 ppm for 18 months in their diets. These
studies were non-positive (112,109). There was a non-statistically significant
increase in a rare renal tumor (renal tubular adenoma (benign) in male mice (109).
The rat chronic study needs to be redone with a high dose to fill a partial data
gap (112). The EPA weight of evidence classification would be D: not classified (51).
Mutagenicity Testing
Glyphosate has been tested in. many short term mutagenicity tests. These include
7 bacterial (including Salmonella typhimurim and B. subtilis) and 1 yeast strain
Sacchomyces cerevisiae as we as a mouse dominant lethal test and sister chro-
matid exchange�h-e microbial tests were negative up to 2,000 mg/plate (15), as
were the mouse dominant lethal and the Chinese hamster ovary cell tests. EPA
considers the mutagenicity requirements for glyphosate to be complete in the
Guidance for the Registration of Pesticide Products containing glyphosate (112).
Developmental Studies
The developmental studies that have been done using glyphosate include terato-
genicity studies in the rat and rabbit, three generation reproduction studies in
the rat, and a reproduction study in the deer mouse. (15)
Rats were exposed to levels of up to 3,500 mg/kg/d in one rat teratology study.
There were no teratogenic effects at 3,500 mg/kg/d and the fetotoxicity NOEL was
1,000 mg/kg/d. In the rabbit study a fetotoxicity NOEL was determined at 175
mg/kg/d and no teratogenic effects were observed at 10 or 30 mg/kg/d in one
study and 350 mg/kg/d in the other study (15). *No effects were observed in the
deer mouse collected from conifer forest sprayed at 2 lbs active ingredient per
acre (15).
Tolerances & Guidelines
EPA has established tolerances for glyphosate residues in at least 75 agri-
cultural products ranging from 0. 1 ppm (most vegetables) to 200 ppm for animal
feed commodities such as alfalfa (8).
U.S. EPA Office of Drinking Water has released draft Health Advisories for
Glyphosate of 17.50 mg/L (ten day) and 0.70 mg/L (Lifetime)(51).
Avian
Two types of avian. toxicity studies have been done with glyphosate: ingestion in
adults and exposure of the eggs. The species used in the ingestion studies were
the mallard duck, bobwhite quail , and the adult hen (chickens). The 8 day
feeding LC50s in the mallard and bobwhite are both greater than 4,640 ppm. In
the hen study, 1,250 mg/kg was administered twice daily for 3 days resulting in
a total dose of 15,000 mg/kg. No behavioral or microscopic changes were
observed (15).
Invertebrates
A variety of invertebrates (mostly arthropods) and microorganisms from fresh-
water, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems have been studied for acute toxic
effects of technical glyphosate as well as formulated Roundup. The increased
toxicity of Roundup compared with technical glyphosate in some studies indicates
that it is the surfactant (MONO 818) in Roundup that is the primary toxic agent
( 117). Acute toxicity information may be summarized as follows:
Glyphosate (technical): Acute toxicity ranges from a 48 hr EC50 for
midge larvae of 55 mg/L to a 96 hr TL50 for the fiddler
crab of 934 mg/L (15).
Roundup: Acute toxicity ranges from a 48 hr EC50 for Daphnia of 3 mg/L
to a 96 hr LC50 for crayfish of 1000 mg/L (15).
Among the insects tested, the LD50 for honeybees was 100 mg/bee 48 hours a°ter
either ingestion, or topical application of technical glyphosate and Roundup.
This level of experimental exposure is considerably in excess of exposure levels
that would occur during normal field applications (15).
Aquatic Species (Fish)
Technical glyphosate and the formulation Roundup have been tested on various
fish species. Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate, and it is the surfactant
that is considered to be the primary toxic agent in Roundup:
Glyphosate (technical ) : Acute 96 hr LC50s range from 24 mg/L for bluegill
(Dynamic test) to 168 mg/L for the harlequin fish (15).
Roundup: Acute lethal toxicity values range from a 96 hr LC50 for the
fathead minnow of 2.3 mg/L to a 96 hr TL50 for rainbow trout
of 48 mg/L (15).
Tests with Roundup show that the egg stage is the least sensitive fish life stage.
The toxicity increases as the fish enter the sac fry and early swim up stages.
Higher test temperatures increased the toxicity of Roundup to fish, as did
higher pH (up to pH 7.5). Above pH 7.5, no change in toxicity is observed.
Glyphosate alone is considered to be only slightly acutely toxic to fish species
(LC50s greater than 10 mg/L), whereas Roundup is considered to be toxic to some
species of fish, having LC50s generally lower than 10 mg/L (15,118).
SUMMARY
Glyphosate when used as recommended by the manufacturer, is unlikely to enter
watercourses through run-off or leaching following terrestrial application
( 117). Toxic levels are therefore unlikely to occur in water bodies with normal
application rates and practices (118).
Glyphosate has oral LD50s of 4,320 and 5,600 in male and female rats respec-
tively. The elimination is rapid and very little of it is metabolized. The
NOAEL in rats was 20,000 ppm and 500 mg/kg/d in dogs. No teratogenic
effect was observed at doses up to 3,500 mg/kg/d and the fetotoxicity NOELS were
1 ,000 mg/kg/d in the rat and- 175 mg/kg/d in the rabbit.
The evidence of oncogenicity in animals is judged as insufficient at this time
to permit classification of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. The compound
is not mutagenic.
REFERENCES
1 . TheeAAgeferro�chemicals Handbook: 1983
Rence manus to chemical pesticides
Pub. by the Royal Society of Chemistry
The University, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England
4. RTECS Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances: 1982
NIOSH, US Dept. of Health and Human Services
Ref QV 605 T755 Vol . 1,2,&3 1981-1982
6. The FDA Surveillance Index and Memorandum: Aug. 1981 and up
Review iew and recommen ations o the U7 Food & Drug Admin.
Pub. by NTIS, US Dept. of Commerce
7. NTP Technical Re ort Series
` �• i�Health and Human Services
Pub . by The National Institute of Health
8• BNA Chemical Re ulation Reporter: starts 1977
A weekly view o activit'y affecting chemical users and
manufacturers .
Pub . by The Bureau of National Affairs , Inc . 0148-7973
9 . Dept . of Justice - Drug Enforcement Administration
Memo dated September 26 , 1985
10 . The Herbicide Handbook : 1983 Fifth Ed.
Han book o the eed Science Society of America
Pub . by the Weed Science Society of America, Champaign , Ill .
14 . GEIR Generic Environmental Impact Re ort : )985
ontro o vegetation o uti sties & Railroad Rights of Way
Pub . by Harrison Biotec , Cambridge, MA
15 . Pesticide Background Statements : Aug . 1984
USDA Forest Servi— ce Agriculture Handbook #633 Vol . 1
51 . Office of Drinking Water Health Advisories , USEPA
I01 . IUPAC Advances In Pesticide Science ( 1978 ) V-2 p . 139 .
106 . Hietanen , E. , Linnainma.a, K . and Vainco, H. ( 1983 ) Effects of
Phenoxyherbicides and Glyphosate on the Hepatic and Intestinal
Biotransformation Activities in the Rat Acta Pharmacol et Tox
53 P . 103-112 .
109 . Dept . Of Justice - Drug Enforcement Administration Memo dated Septem;
26 , 1985 .
112 . Guidance for the Re-registration of Pesticide Products Containin
GTyphosate , June 9 6 g
- -
115 . Monsanto-Memo-Rat Feeding Study 3 Month .
116 . Monsanto-Memo-RE : Day 1 year oral
117. The Herbicide Gl hosate
GFES bard , E . an Atkinson , D. ( 19 )
118. Non-TarettI��Imppacts of the Herbicide G1 phosate
Mammas Pest Management , L D.
120. Maibach , H. I . ( 1986 ) Irritation , Sensitization , Photo Irritation anc
Photosensitic assays with a Glyphosate Herbicide . Contact
Dermititis 15 152- 156 .
122 . Pesticide Residues in Food - 1986
FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 77 .
123 . Personal communication with Bill Heydens of Monsanto 2/16/89 .
HERBICIDE FACT SHEET
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE .
100 Cambridge Street,Boston MA 02202 (617)727-7112 August Schumacherlr., Commissioner MawcR s(��
pawn axi tresha:
IMAZAPYR
Common Trade Name($) : Arsenal
Chemical Name: Imazapyr/
2-(4-isopropyl-4-methyl-5-oxy-2-imidazolin-2-yl )
nicotinic acid with isopropyl amine (2)
CAS No. : 81510-83-0
GENERAL INFORMATION
Imazapyr is effective against and provides residual control of a wide variety of
annual and perennial weeds, deciduous trees, vines and brambles in non-cropland
situations. It also provides residual control and may be applied either pre- or
postemergence. Postemergence is the preferred method especially for the
control of perennial species. Imazapyr is readily absorbed by the foliage and
from soil by the root systems. Imazapyr kills plants by inhibiting the produc-
tion of an enzyme, required in the biosynthesis of certain amino acids, which is
unique to plants (10, 100).
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
Mobility
There are few studies which have investigated the mobility of Imazapyr in soil ,
but available reports indicate that Imazapyr does not leach and is strongly
absorbed to soil ( 100). Imazapyr has a high water solubility (1 - 1 .5%) which
could generally indicate a high leaching potential , but as with other organic
acids Imazapyr is much less mobile than would normally be expected (100). No
soil partition coefficients have been reported, but they may be expected to be
quite high (100).
One field study investigated Imazapyr mobility in a sandy loam soil (0.9%
organic matter, 8.0% clay; 38.8% silt). Imazapyr did not leach below the 18-21
inch layer after 634 days and 49.6 inches of rain. The levels found below the
12' inch layer were just above the 5 ppb detection limit. In addition, this
study investigated the off-target mobility of Imazapyr and found no residues
further than 3 inches from the sprayed area after 1 year (102).
Although low levels of Imazapyr did move to the 18 to 21 inch layer this was
only after nearly 2 years and fifty inches of rain. This indicates that ima-
zapyr is relatively non-mobile and does not leach through the soil profile.
Imazapyr remains near the soil surface and heavy preciptation may cause some off
target movement from surface erosion of treated soils.
PUBLICATION #16,077-5-75-10-89-C.R...
APPROVED BY: RIC MURPHY, PURCHASING AGENT �-
Persistence
The main route of Imazapyr degradation is photolysis. In a study of photodegra-
dation in water, the half-life of Imazapyr was calculated as 3.7, 5.3 and 2.5
days in distilled water, pH 5 and pH 9 buffers respectively (101) . A soil pho-
tolysis study for Arsenal on sandy loam calculated a half-life of 149 days
(101).
Studies have investigated the persistence of Imazapyr in soil under aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. The half-life of Imazapyr in soil has been reported as
varying from 3 months to 2 years (100). A laboratory study found the half-life
to be 17 months (101). Detectable residues were found in a field study in all
soil layers to 21 inches at 634 days (102). Vegetation was sprayed with radio-
labelled Imazapyr at a rate of 1 Ib. a.i./acre. The soil was a sandy loam (0.9%
organic matter) which received 49.6 inches of rain during 634 days. The highest
level of radioactivity (0.234 ppm Imazapyr) was found in the top 3 inches of
soil at 231 days after application and there were detectable levels in the 9-12
inch layer. The concentrations in the top layer increased steadily from day 4
to 231 when they reached their maximum (0.234 ppm) and then declined. At day
634 the level in the top layer (0-3 inch) was 0.104 ppm '(102). These data indi-
cate that Imazapyr is persistent in soil and, most importantly, that Imazapyr is
translocated within plants from the plant shoots back to the roots and released
back into soil . Very little of the Imazapyr actually reached the soil during
application. The soil residues may be due to the decay of plant material con-
taining Imazapyr in the soil (102).
TOXICITY REVIEW
Acute (Mammalian)
The acute oral L050 in both male and female rats was greater than 5000 mg/kg
using technical Imazapyr. The, acute dermal LD50 in male and female rabbits was
greater than 2000 mg/kg. The compound was irritating to the rabbit eye but
recovery was noted 7 days after application of 100 mg of the test substance. It
was classified as mildly irritating to the rabbit skin following application of
0.5 grams of the material on abraded or intact skin (103).
Arsenal product formulation was tested in a similar battery of tests. The rat
oral LD50 value was greater than 5000 mg/kg and the rabbit dermal LD50 was
greater than 2148 mg/kg. The irritation was observed following installation of
0.5 ml of the test substance in the skin study and 0.1 ml in the eye study ( 104).
Technical Imazapyr was administered to rats as an aerosol for four hours at a
concentration of 5.1 mg/L. There were ten rats per sex and the animals were
observed for 14 days after treatment before they were sacrificed. Slight nasal
discharge was seen in all rats on day one but disappeared on day two (105).
The inhalation LC50 is greater than 5.0 mg/L for both the formulation and the
technical product (105,106).
Technical Imazapyr was applied dermally at the following dosages: 0, 100, 200
and 400 mg/kg/day (109). Arsenal was used at 0, 25, 50 and 100% of the for-
mulated solution in sterile saline. Each dose group consisted of 10 male and 10
female rabbits and the test substance was applied to either intact or abraded
skin and occluded for 6 hours each day.
The result of the dermal studies with Imazapyr as well as Arsenal were non
remarkable with regard to body weights, food consumption, hematology, serum
chemistry, clinical observations, necropsy observations and histopathology. It
was noted that Arsenal , undiluted, was locally irritating (109).
Subchronic and Chronic Studies (Mammalian)
In the subchronic tests a NOEL for systemic toxicity with dermal administration
in rabbits was 400 mg/kg/d (2,109). After dietary administration for 13 weeks
in the rat, there was no effect at 10,000 ppm (571 mg/kg/d) which was the highest
dose tested (141) .
A bioassay is currently underway to evaluate the potential oncogenicity of tech-
nical Imazapyr. Groups of 65 rats per sex per dose group have received 0, 1000,
5000 or 10,000 ppm in the diet. Hematology, clinical chemistry and urinalysis
tests were conducted at 3, 6 and 12 months and will also be done at 18 months
and at study termination. At the 12 month sacrifice the only effect noted was
a slight increase in mean food consumption in all treated female groups. Most
of the increases were statistically significant, but they did not always exhibit
a dose response. The oncogenicity test is due to be submitted to the EPA in the
spring of 1989 (115).
Oncogenicity Studies
Chronic bioassays as discussed in the subchronic/Chronic section are underway.
Mutagenicity Testing
Five different bacterial stra,i,ns of Salmonella typhimurium (TA1535,`TA98, WOO,
TA1537, and TA1538) and one of Escherichia co i WP-2 uvrA-) were used to eva-
luate the mutagenicity of Imazapyr, t is uncTear whether the compound used was
technical or formulated Imazapyr. Dose levels up to 5000 micrograms/plate were
used and each strain was evaluated both in the presence or absence of
PCB-induced rat liver S-9 microsomes. Negative results were noted in all
assays. The six tester strains were designed to detect either base-pair substi-
tutions or frameshift mutations (113).
Developmental Studies (Mammalian)
Two teratology studies have been done and both of these studies evaluated tech-
nical Imazapyr. One study used rats as the test species and the other utilized
rabbits (111 ,112). -
Pregnant rats received dosages of 0, 100, 300 or 1000 mg/kg/d of Imazapyr
during days 6-15 of gestation. There were 22 rats in the control group and 24,
23 and 22 in. the low, mid and high dose groups. All doses were administered
orally by gavage: Salivation was noted only during the dosing period in 6 of
the 22 females in the highest dose group (1000 mg/kg). No other adverse obser-
vations were noted in the treated dams (111 ).
• Fetal body weight and crown-rump length data for the treated groups were com-
parable to controls. Fetal development (external , skeletal and visceral )
"revealed no aberrant structural changes which appeared to be the result of the
exposure to Imazapyr" (111 ). The NOEL for maternal toxicity was 300 mg/kg and
the NOEL for teratogenicity and fetoxicity was 1000 mg/kg (116) .
Four groups of 18 pregnant rabbits were exposed on days 6-18 of gestation to
doses of 0, 25, 100, 400 mg/kg/d Imazapyr. There was no statistically signifi-
cant difference between control and treated groups at any dose (112).
Avian
Acute oral LD50s of Imazapyr in bobwhite quail and mallard duck were 2150 mg/kg.
The 8 day dietary LC50 in the bobwhite quail and mallard duck were greater than
5000 ppm (101).
Invertebrates
The dermal honey bee LD50 for Imazapyr is greater than 100 mg/bee (101) . The
LC50 (48 hr) was greater than 100 mg/L for the water flea (100).
Aquatic
The LC50s of Imazapyr in the rainbow trout, bluegill sunfish and channel catfish
were greater than 100 mg/L ( 101 ).
SUMMARY
Imazapyr is a relatively immobile herbicide in the soil profile even when used
in sandy and low organic content soils. It is also persistent in soils. The low
mobility and persistence may result in off-target movement of Imazapyr from sur-
face erosion of treated soils.
The atypical soil-plant flux characteristics of Imazapyr and delayed maximum
soil concentrations indicate that repeated annual applications may result in
build-up of Imazapyr in soil . Consequently, an interval is required to allow
for the degradation of soil residues before a repeated application is made.
The oral LD50 of Imazapyr in rats is greater than 5000 mg/kg and the dermal LD50
is greater than 2000 mg/kg in rabbits. The oncogenicity bioassay is currently
underway and the only effect reported in the interim study was an increase in
food consumption in the treated females. No mutagenic effects were observed.
The acute oral LDSOs of Imazapyr and the Arsenal formulation are greater than
5000 mg/kg. In the subchronic 13 week rat study there was no effect observed at
the highest dose tested 10,000 ppm. The oncogenicity study is currently under-
way.
REFERENCES
2. Farm Chemicals Handbook: 1985
Dictionary, buyer's guide to trade names and equipment.
Pub. by Meister Pub. Co.
100. American Cyanamid Bulletin.
101. American Cyanamid Arsenal Herbicide Environmental and Toxicological Data
Summary.
102. AC 243,997 [2-(4-isopropyl-4-methyl-5-oxo-2-imidazolin-2-71)nicotinic
acid]: Weed & Soil Metabolism in a field plot. American Cyanamid Company,
PDM Vol . 23-32. 1986 (Confidential Information).
103. Acute Toxicology of AC 243,997 to Rats and Rabbits. American Cyanamid
. Company, A83-24.
104. Acute Toxicology of AC 252,925 22.6% to Rats and Rabbits. American
Cyanamid Company, A83-67.
105. Acute Inhalation Toxicity of AC 243,997 in Sprague-Dawley Rats.
Food and Drug Research Laboratories, Inc. Study No. 7624.
106. Acute Inhalation Toxicity of AC 252,925 in Sprague-Dawley Rats.
Food and Drug Research Laboratories, Inc. Study No. 7607.
107. Evaluation of the Sensitization Potential of AC 243,997 in Guinea Pigs.
Toxicology Pathology Services, Inc. Study No. 186A-201-231-83.
108. Evaluation of the Sensitization Potential of AC 252,925 in Guinea Pigs.
Toxicology Pathology Services, Inc. Study No. 186A-201-231-83.
109. Twenty-one Day Dermal Toxicity Study with AC 243,997 in Rabbits.
Toxicology Patholo97 Services, Inc. Study No. 1868-301-230-83.
110. Twenty-one Day Dermal Toxicity Study with AC 252,925 in Rabbits.
Toxicology Pathology Services, Inc. Study No. 187B-230-83.
111. Teratology Study in Albino Rats with AC 243,997. ToxiGenics Study
No. 450-1222.
112. Teratology Study in Albino Rabbits with Ac 243,997. ToxiGenics Study
No. 450-1224.
113. Bacterial/Microsome Reverse Mutation (Ames) Test on CL 243,997.
American Cyanamid Company GTOX Volume 3, Number 13.
114. Herbicide AC 243,997: The Absorption, Excretion, Tissue Residues and
Metabolism of Carboxyl Carbon-14 Labeled AC 243,997 Nicotinic acid,
2-(4-isopropyl-4-methyl-5-oxo-2-imidzolin-2-yl) in the Rat. American
Cyanamid Company Report No. PD-M Volume 20-3.
115. Summary of Chronic Study.
APPENDIX B
MAPS
NOTE : Maps of sensitive areas along the right-of-way have been
provided in previous Yearly Operational Plans. Please
refer to these maps . New maps will continue to be
provided only as they are updated or modified.
( INTRODUCTION
The AMTRAK National Railroad Passenger Corporation operates its
i Commuter Rail System Right-of-Way (ROW) in Massachusetts in
compliance with applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and
1 standards. In order to provide safe transportation services to the
Commonwealth , AMTRAK must maintain the ROW to protect its
passengers, property, and personnel. Uncontrolled vegetation along
this ROW poses a great hazard to the safe operation of the railroad
line.
Federal law requires railroads to control vegetation on ROWS.
1 The law specifically states that vegetation on railroad property
1 must be controlled . so that it does not (a) become a fire hazard;
(b) obstruct the .visibility of railroad signs, and signals; (c)
interfere with normal trackside duties ; (d) prevent proper
functioning of signal and communication lines ; and (e) prevent
visual inspections of equipment " (v. 49 CFR Subsection 213 .37) .
In 1987 , specific ROW vegetation management regulations (333
CMR 11. 00 At se . ) were put into effect by the Pesticide Board of
the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) . These
1 regulations limit herbicide application around "Sensitive Areas" :
viz . wetlands , public, and private water supplies, standing and
flowing waters, inhabited areas, and agricultural areas (333 CMR
11. 04) . Herbicides that can be used are selected from a list of
state recommended herbicides.
The ROW Regulations require that a five-year Vegetation
Management Plan (vMP) be submitted, describing the general approach
to vegetation management to be used by ROW operators. Once the VMP
has been approved by the Commonwealth (after public review and
I comment) , a Yearly Operational Plan (YOP) is submitted, which
provides specific details on the proposed vegetation management
program for each calendar year, as well as the municipalities
within which the work is to occur . The YOPs contain basica
iv ;
.. Y
information from the VMP , along with track delineations of
"Sensitive Areas" for the specific cities and towns where herbicide
application will occur during the calendar year.
The following AMTRAK Commuter Rail System YOP for the 1992
calendar year is based upon the VMP approved in 1989 by the
Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture . This YOP
proposes a selective Spring 1992 application of a mixture of the
herbicides Escort and Roundup within unrestricted ("white") zones
in the "Tower All area of the Cities of Boston, Cambridge, and
Somerville. This will be followed by a Summer 1992 application of
the Escort/Roundup herbicide mix to remaining approved portions of
the Commuter Rail System ROW, as well as any needed "touch-up" of
the "Tower All ROW area. The total amount of herbicide applied
during the 1992 calendar year will not exceed the limits specified
in the Regulations (v. 333 CMR 11. 03 (8) ) or by the respective
manufacturer ' s labels (v_. Section 1. 2) .
The 1992 YOP provides all information required by the
Regulations . The Plan details field procedures for the
identification of target vegetation, the identification and
delineation of sensitive areas , and management of herbicide
application. In the sections that follow, 'herbicide information is
provided relating to the proposed herbicide products, herbicide
application rates, timing and equipment proposed for use, as well
as the identification and qualifications of the company to perform
and oversee the herbicide application. Finally, appendices include
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) maps (which locate the ROWS
and their proximity to Sensitive Areas considered "not readily
identifiable in the field") , municipal maps (which describe the
area in greater detail and show areas of spray zone restrictions) ,
copies of Determinations of Applicability, state-issued Herbicide
Fact Sheets, the Massachusetts ROW Regulations (333 CMR 11. 001-
see . ) , and the "Preface to Wetlands Regulations Relative to Rights
of Way Management" (310 CMR 10. 00 et sea-
)-v
J
1. HERBICIDE INFORMATION
1. 1 DESCRIPTION OF HERBICIDES
A mixture of the herbicides Escort and Roundup is proposed to
be applied along the AMTRAK Commuter Rail System Right-of-Way (ROW)
within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the 1992 calendar
year . Escort and Roundup have been recommended for use in
Sensitive Areas by the Massachusetts Department of Food and
Agriculture (DFA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (v. 333 CMR !1. 04 (1) (d) ) . This herbicide mixture,
which was previously approved for use in 1991 along other similar
railway ROWs in the Commonwealth, has a short-term "contact" effect
on problem vegetation.
The following provides information on each proposed herbicide
with respect to active ingredients , adjuvants, and application
procedures.
1. 1. 1 The Herbicide Escort
Escort, which contains the active ingredient metsulfuron methyl
(Methyl 2 [ [ [ [ ( 4 -Methoxy-6-methyl-1 , 3 , 5-Triazin-2-yl) amino]
carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl ] benzoate] ) effectively controls many
annual, biennial, and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds when
applied as directed. Information on metsulfuron methyl is provided
in the "Herbicide Fact Sheet" (see Appendix D) prepared by the
Massachusetts DFA. It is "registered for use on wheat and barley
and non-cropland sites such as Right of Way. " When this product is
used as recommended by the manufacturer, dispersal in Sensitive
Areas is limited.
1-1
1. 1. 2 The Herbicide Roundup
Roundup , which contains the active ingredient glyphosate
( n- (phosnhonomethyl) glycine isopropylamine salt) , effectively
J controls most perennial species , annual and biennial grasses, and
broadleaf weeds when applied as directed. It should be noted that
in the "Herbicide Fact Sheet" prepared by the Massachusetts DFA
(see Appendix D) , glyphosate has been judged to be relatively
immobile in most soil environments due to its strong adsorption to
soil particles and organic matter, which begins almost immediately
i after application. Thus, as concluded within the "Herbicide Fact
7 Sheet " , when this product is used as recommended by the
manufacturer, dispersal in Sensitive Areas is limited.
j1. 1. 3 The Adjuvant Exactrol
In order to reduce any drift potential of the herbicide mixture
during application, an adjuvant, also referred to as a thickener,
is added to the herbicide . The adjuvant proposed for use is
Exactrol (manufactured by the Exacto Chemical Company) , which
contains 30$ polyacrylamide copolymer as its active ingredient.
1. 2 APPLICATION RATES
The following product quantities will be diluted in 30 gallons
of water to achieve the desired concentration. The pressure of
discharge will not exceed 60 psi (in compliance with Sections 11. 02
land 11. 04 of the ROW Management Regulations) ; and 30 gallons of
herbicide mix per acre will be applied to the ROW.
1 Product Rate
} Escort 0 . 5 ounce/acre
f Roundup 3 quarts/acre
Exactrol 1-2 ounces/acre
i
1-2
w
310 CHIC 10.9 9 DEF Fde Na
(To be provided by DEP)
Form 2
Otyf.� SALEM
Appbmw AMTRAK
Cosssomrealth Dift RaqowFaw DEC. 7, 1994
of lussachusetts
Determination of Applicability
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, 540
From Salem Conservation Co Issuing Authority
Amtrak Same
TO
(Name of Person making request) Name of property owner)
Address 20001'Market Street, Philly. PAddrese a
19103
This determination is issued and delivered as follows:
❑ by hand -delivery to person making request on (date)
13 by certified mail, return receipt requested on February ?2 1295 (date)
Pursuant to the authority of G.L. 5.131, 540, the Coic;nn
has considered your request for a Determin+mc
nation of Applicability and its sup-
porting documentation, and has made the following determination (check whichever
is applicable) :
Location: Street Address Along Amtrak Right=o -w,g
Lot Number:
This Determination is positive.
1. ❑ The area described below, which includes all/part of the area described
in your request, is an Area subject
dg n9 protection
r t ct on under
er that area
t.
Therefore, any removing,
require■ the filing of a Notice of intent.
2. ❑ The work described below, which includes all/part of the work described
in your request, =s wdredge or altern Area biect thatt area. tion Under Therefore,tsa d work
Act and
will remove, fill, 9
requires the filing of a Notice of intent.
2-1
Effective 11/10/89
3. ❑ The work described below, which includes all/part of the work' described
in your request, is within the suffer Zone as defined in the regulations,
saiwill
alter
Area
the fubtof a Protection
Not ce of intent.the Act. Therefore,
dwork requires ing
This Determination is negatives
1. ❑ This area described your request is not an Area Subject to Protection
Under the Act.
2. ❑ The work described in your request is within an Area subject to Protection
Under the ot remove,
e, or alter that area.
Therefore, Act, but will nfill,
s id work doesnot require thefilinggof a Notice of Intent.
3. [:3 The work described in your request in within the suffer zone, as defined
in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to Protection under
the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of
Intent.
4. ❑ The area described in your request is Subject to Protection Under the Act,
but since the work- described therein meets the requirements for the
following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no
Notice of Intent is required:
Salem conservation commission
Issued by
Signaturef(s)
i 1 )
tThDetermination must b' signed by a majority of the conservation commission.
da of January 19 95 , before me .
on this 12th y
personally appeared the above named to me known to be the
person described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and deed.
i
July 15; 1999
lcfh� / �c L
N tary Public My commission expire•
This Datenaination [foes not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state or
local statutes, ordinances, by-law or regulations. This Determination shall be valid for three years from the
date of issuance-
The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of lard abutting the lard upon
which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such tend it located,
are hereby not if led of their right to rovidirigc[the realesthe t pis oesde vW certifiedtat r"ilw or hand issue to delivery nto�the
Determination of Applicabi tity, P
Department, with the appropriate fiting fee grid Fee Transmittal form a provided it 3t0 he LOOS( e within ten
days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A Copy Of the request shell et the same time be sent W
certified mail or hard delivery to the conservation commission and the applicant.
2-2A
R
3. ❑ The work described below, which includes ail/part of the work described
in your request, is within the Buffer Zone as defined inthe regulations,
sandaidwwillorkarlter an equiresathe filing ea subject
to o£ aProtection
of intent-
This
nt nt the act. Therefore,
This Determination is negative'
1. ❑ The area described in your request is not an Area subject to Protection
Under the Act.
2. ❑ The work described in your request is within an Area subject to Protection
Under the Actbut will ot remove,
alter that area-
Therefore, saidnfill,
work doesnot require thefili gdredge, rof allotice of Intent.
3. C3The work described in your request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined
in the
ion under
the Act�QTherefore bsaid work does alter
not require uthecject to t
ut will not filing of allotice Of
Intent.
6. ❑ The area described in your request is subject to Protection under the Act,
but since the work described therein meets the requirements for the
following exemption, as specified in the Act. and the regulations, no
Notice Of T.ntent is required:
Issued by the Department of Environmental .Protection
Signature
day of 19 before me
on this to me know'' to be the
personally appeared '
person described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and dead.
Notary Public My commission Expires
l.
This superseding Determination don not relieve the applicant from coslYfno with all other applicablevalid
for
state or local statutes, ordinances, by-laws or regulations. This superseding Determi rot ion shall W o
three years from the date of issuance.
. are hereby
Tha applicant, the otarr, the
any person aggrieved by the Superseding Determination, arty owner of lnaabuttleq
uant
L=upon whf ch the proposed Tort is to be sena, or car ten pent to G l c L30A`510, providing the request
notified of their right to request an adjtdf utery hearing pun with the appropriate filing fee and Fee
is mesa by certified mail or hand pelf very to to Department,
Transmittal Fen as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten days tram the date of issuanceof
of iEnwirasnenc�g
Determination, and fa addressed to: Docket Clark, Office of the of Generale et s all atpthe same tis be sent by
protection, Ona winter street, Boston, MA 02100. A caw
certified mail or hand deliverY to the conservation commission, the applicant, and any other party.
A Notice of claim for an Adludieatory Nearing shall cenp/Y with the Department's pules for Adjudicary
to
proceedings. 310 CMR 1.01(6), and shall contain the following information:
(a) to DEp Wetlands File Number, name of the appiieant, and address of the prorequest,
and
if represented by
(b) the complete name, address and telephone hisemar of the party filing the requesst,
ceuauel, the name and address of the attorney)
(c) the name and addresses of all other parties, if known:
(d) a clear and cone ise statement of (1) the facts whit � f For the proceedianner in ng,
(Zs alleged to be
to this superseding Determination, including specifically
inconsistent with the Department's wetirdaiRteg ly the Changes 310 desiCNN red in and
) the Superseding sought
o+t through
hr u h
the adjudicatory hearing, including spec
(e) each that a
ortrepresentativeOfChecftshas peen sent TO Crowne applicant, the conservation Commission and
uch
Failure to submit all necessary maY result in a dismissal by to Department of the Notice of Claim for an
Adjudicatory Meering.
2-28
a
310 CNR 10.9 9 DPP VJe No.
(To be provided by DEP)
Form 2
CNY/.o" SALEM
Afffic : AMURAK
Camomroalth DseeRe9umIgW DEC. 1, 1994
of xassachusetts
Determination of Applicability
Kassachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, 540
From Salem Conservation ( Ommiccinn issuing Authority
TO
Amtrak Same
(Noma of Person making request) (Name of property owner)
Address 2000WMarket Street, Philly, PAddre88 c
19103
This determination is issued and delivered as follows:
❑ by hand delivery to person making request on (date)
[� by certified mail, return receipt requested on FebruarL9? Moos (date)
Pursuant to the authority of G.L. c.131, 540, the Commi¢ ;n„
has considered your request for a Determination of Applicability and its sup-
porting documentation, and has made the following determination (check whichever
is applicable) :
Location: Street Address Along Amtrak Right=of-o.ay
Lot Number:
This Determination is positive-
1. 13
ositive.1. ❑ The area described below, which includes all/part of the area described.
in your request, is an Area subject to Protection Under the . Act.
Therefore, any removing, filing, dredging. or altering of that area
requires the filing of a Notice of Intent.
2. ❑ The work described below, which includes all/part of the work described
in your request, Ss within an Area subject to Protection Under the Act and
will remove, fill, dredge or alter that area. Therefore, said work
requires the filing of a Notice of Intent.
2-1
Effective 11/10/89
3. ❑ The work described below, which includes all/part of the work' described
in your request, is within the Buffer Zone as defined in the regulations,
and will alter an Area subject to Protection Under the Act. Therefore,
said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent.
This Determination is negatives
1. ❑ The area described your request is not an Area subject to Protection
under the Act.
2. ❑ The work described in your request is within an Area Subject to Protection
Under the Act, but will not remove,
fill,
alter that area.
Therefore, s id work doesnot require thefilinggr
of allotice Of Iatent
3. ® The work described in your request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined
in the regulations, but will not alter an Area Subject to Protection Under
the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice OfF, '
Intent.
4. ❑ The area described in your request is subject to Protection under the Act,
but since the work- described therein meets the requirements for the
following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no
Notice of intent is required:
Salem Conservation commission
issued by
signature(s)
This Determinktion must b signed by a majority of the conservation Commission.
On this 12th day of January 19 95 ,before me .
personally appeared the above named _, to me known to be the
person described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and deed.
i
July 15; 1999
Notary Public � l xy commission Expires
This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with ell other applicable federal, state or
local statutes, ordinances, by-laws or regulations. This Determination shall be valid for three years from the
date of issuance.
The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of lard abutting the land Upon
which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such lard is located,
are hereby notified of their right to request the Department of Environmental Protection to issue • Superseding
Determination of Applicability, providing the request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to the
Department, with the appropriate filing fee and fee Transmittal form as provided in 310 OUR 10.03(7) within ten
days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shell at the Sema time be sent by
certified mail or hard delivery to the Conservation Commission and the applicant.
2-2A
l
3. ❑ The work described below, which includes all/part of the work described
in your request, is within the Buffer Zone as defined in. the regulations,
saiwill
alter
Area
the filingsubject
ofa Notice of intent.the Act. Therefore,
dwork requires
This Determination is negative:
1. ❑ The area described in your request is not an Area subject to Protection
under the Act.
2. ❑ The work described in your request is within an Area subject to Protection
Under the Actbut will alter that ar*&-
Therefore, saidn
work doesh
not require fill,
elfili4ngof r
of of Intent-
3.
nt nt.3. ❑ The work described in your request is within the Buffer zone, as defined
in the regulations,
t to
ion
Therefore
Qbaa d work does not require uthecfifiling of atunder
Notice
the Act.
Intent.
4. ❑ The area described in your request is subject to Protection under the Act,
but since the work described therein meets the requirements for the
following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no
Notice of Intent is required:
Issued by the Department of Environmental Protection
Signature
day of 19 before me
on this , to me known to be the
personally appeared
parson described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument, an
acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and deed.
Notary Public Hy Commission Expires
licable
This Superseding Determination does not eon regulve the ations. This Supersedingemptying nth sit other Determi nation shall be valid r for
state or local statutes, ordinances, by-tows
three years from the date of issuance.
TM applteent, the owner, any person aggrieved by the any
to Pers ns pursuant
t eery owner of lend , areabutting the
lad upon whish the proposed work is to be done, or any ten persons punuent to G.L. c. 30A, 41011, an hereby
notified of their right to request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to G.L. C. 30A, 410, providing the request
to made by certified mail or heed delivery to the Department, with the appropr
Transsittal Form as provided in 310 CMR MOW) within tan days fres the date of issuanceof
f iEnvirawental
Dateneinetion, and is addressed to: Docket Clerk, Office f t ener e I `ot:+suhsll atpiha same ties be sent by
Protection, One winter Street, Boston, MA 02108. A copy the licant, and any other party.
certified esil or hand delivery to the conservation coaeission, app
A Notice of Clain for an Adjudicatory Nearing shalt coopty with the Department's Rules for Adjudiestory
Proceedings, 310 CMR 1.01(6), and $hall contain the following infonation:
(a) the DEP wetlands file Nueber, name of the applicant, and address of the project;
(b) the complete name, address and telephone nseber of the party filing the request, and , if represented by
counsel, the ;;;Wand address of the attorney;
(C) the name and addresses of ail other parties, if known: the objections
(d) a clear and eorcise statement of (1) the facts which, re gro,ly for the proceeding <Zs alleged to be
to this Superseding Determination, including spec sought
inconsistent with the Deportment's wetlandsiRCegul ally the changes de(310 gsirad in tie Supersso ngfDe Tinetionh
the adjudicatory, hearing, including spec
(e) a statement that a copy of the request has been sent to the applicant, the conservation commission and
each other party or representative of such party, if known.
Failure to submit all necessary my result in a dismissal by the Department of the Notice of Claim for an
Adjudicatory Nearing.
2-2B
10.99: Fomis
DEP Pk No.
Form 1 (To be p,ovidcd by DEP)
pry/T , SALEM
Applioni AMIRAK
Commonwealth
of Xassachusetta
Request for a Determination of ApPlicability
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40
1. I, the undersigned, hereby request that the SALEM
Conservation Commission make a determination as to whether the area,
described below, or work to be performed on said area, also described below,
is subject to the jurisdiction of the wetlands Protection Act, G.L. C. 131,
540.
2. The area is described as follows. )Use maps or plans, if necessary, to
provide a description and the location of the area subject to this request. )
Location: street Address '
Lot Number:
The area is located along the Amtrak right-of-way : This request
is for approval of the wetland delineation along the right-of-way
as shown on the accompanying maps .
3. The work in said area is described below. (Use additional paper, if
necessary, to describe the proposed work. )
No work is proposed within wetland resource areas . Vegetation
control will conform to the guidelines set forth in the
Massachusetts Rights-of-Way Management Regulations (333 CMR 11 . 00)
and the preface to the Wetlands Protection Regulations
(333 CMR 10. 00) relative to rights-of-way management .
11/30/92 310 CMR - 280.15
10.99: continued
4. The owner(s) of the area, if not the person mak y this requpgt has been
given written notification of this request on / Uetember 1794 (date)
The name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s) :
Amtrak National Railroad
Passenger Corporation
2000 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
5. I have filed a complete copy of this request with the appropriate regional
f°ice of the .t4,a5,4achusetts Department of Environmental Protection
December (y74 (date)
DEP Northeast Regional office DEP Southeast Regional office
10 Commerce way Lakeville Hospital
Woburn, HA 01801 Route 105
Lakeville, HA 02347
DEP central Regional office DEP Western Regional office
75 Grove street state House West, 4th Floor
Worcester, HA 01605 436 Dwight street
Springfield, HA 01103
6. I understand that notification of this request will be placed in a local
newspaper at my expense in accordance with section 10.5(3) (b) 1 of the
regulations by the conservation Commission and that I will be billed
accordingly.
'
Signature q W Vu/W�//✓`/ Na,,1eWayne Duffett
r
Address TEC Associates Tel 207/767-6068
169 Front Street
P.O. Box 2747
So. Portland , ME
04116-2747
11/20/92 310 CMR - 280.16
TEC ASSOCIATES ENNG NEERSG
13 January 1995
`...�u,u tom.:'..' iW
u✓
Salem Conservation Commission JAN 2 0 1995
1 Salem Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE : Wetland delineation for Amtrak
Dear Commission Members :
Enclosed in another copy of the map indicating the various
limited and no-spray zones along Amtrak' s right-of-way in Salem.
During our inspection of the markers prior to next summer' s
herbicide application, we will examine the crossing of the Forest
River at M.P. 14 . 98 to see if the delineation is correct . I will
advise you of the findings .
We appreciate your assistance and cooperation with this
project .
Very truly yours,
TEC ASSOCIATES
Wayne . Duffett, P.E.
Enclosure
CC : Eli Mistovich, AMTRAK
P.O. Box 2747 169 Front Street South Portland, Maine 04106
2071767-6068 FAX 207/767-7125
,
L _� e o • . . ' I I t I
I 1 '
Z-16 S4,209
_ r 'I=iI-
J .. z
�I to _ .�te?S !::cxSZIR � � j I iNl Imo' i i i Ic�1-j41
I.:i I Ib GQ;t{ >..r
'I Be 14.95 ..rarest River
—�"
I -1 I ,I
�
I � I
15.17 Je!!r. saa Ave.
1
f ' Be. '15.39
'I _ 77:7 IJ 'S I Y.a�a, rs4 cn 1 j I -i
�
1
i 5
I =is 15' ' I '2rvsrtlmI i I I
_ I I I I I I
2 -
III� i �' I ���r I � j '• � j ia' I I � i I
—0.50 i I �' ` I`>
( 1 - 2.30
Out 3-15
(
— 7.23
1 i A I I I,�INOIGneS �UBftC' I 1 i ' I 155 � . i . I I�
' _ H s
Io.52 cisec "aunty
i a.75 I I Sever
iI ' r I Bridge -51.
_..I LI4 30
I2 00 a=15-� '
IL I4 9�, g�
- � . 3= _,' � e^l ,iR.
: I .
( � I17.754_.,QI
Z
(.C+«:rC• 11
( II 15.00
Sr. 17.33 `dafch 5t. x O - I �. i ��m{ ' I I i �`lN
.�'-. rl•15A 11" 18' � `` .I � Z i I ' 1 I3 ro1 � I I ! . I vl
N
19.0 ' Oraw
I I I D i 1 I I
!_
12 TEC ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS G
CONSULTIN
NGNEERSG
13 December 1994
Salem Conservation Commission
1 Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE : AMTRAK RDA
Dear Commission Members :
By this letter I authorize your commission to waive the 21 day
period during which Requests for Determinations must be acted on.
Please schedule this RDA at your earliest convenience .
Very truly yours,
TEC ASSOCIATES
Wayne W. Duffet , P.E.
CC : Ely Mistovich
RECENED
OEC d 5 1994
SaIGM
P.O. Box 2747 169 Front Street South Portland, Maine 04106
207/767-6068 FAX 207/767-7125
XON Cp��
z Conservation Commission
Salem. Massachusetts 01970
y'NASSACN�� ..,
C1 CIESS
RWS OFFICE
CITY OF SALEM
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
The Salem Conservation Commission will hold a Request for a
Determination of Applicability, under the Wetlands Protection Act,
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40 , at the request
of AMTRAK. The proposed work, located along the Amtrak right-of-
way consists of vegetation control . The request will be heard on
Thursday, January 12 , 1995 at 7 : 00 p.m. , One Salem Green, second
floor conference room. 1
Fred Harney,,//
Chairman
January 6 , 1995
This notice posted on "official BUilatin Board*
City Hall Ave., Salem, Mass. on 73�,r/L) s, / " sem
at Id. 3-7 Pin in acoordanoe yM Chap. 39 Sec.
23A & 238 of M.G.L. e,--A� �
M TEC ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS
G
7 December 1994 liscelvzo
DEC
1 1994
Salem Conservation Comm. Salem
1 Salem Green ��F�F,
Salem, MA 01970
RE : Request for Determination along Amtrak right-of-way
Dear Commission Members :
TEC Associates has been retained by Amtrak to manage its vegetation
management activities in Massachusetts . We are looking forward to
working with you and invite you to call us with any questions or
just to get acquainted.
Several years ago your Commission inspected and approved a
delineation of wetlands along the Amtrak right-of-way. The
determination that was issued has allowed Amtrak to conduct
vegetation management activities in accordance with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Rights-of Way Management Regulations
(333 CMR 11 . 00) and the Railroad' s Vegetation Management Plan
(VMP) . Each year since the determination was issued you have been
supplied with maps and updates of the delineation as part of the
approval process for the Yearly Operational Plans (YOP) . Updates
to the delineation will continue to be included as they arise.
The present Vegetation Management Plan is due for renewal on 1
January 1995 . In accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act,
determinations of applicability issued for work done under 333 CMR
11 . 00 are in effect for the life of the VMP and must be renewed
with the VMP. Accordingly, I have enclosed a Request for
Determination to renew the wetland delineation along the Amtrak
right-of-way in Salem. You should consider a negative number 4
determination citing 310 CMR 10 . 03 (6) (b) as the exemption. Your
earliest consideration of this request would be appreciated.
Please advise me of any filing fee we may need to submit . If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call .
Very truly yours,
TEC ASSOCIATES
rW.Wayuffett
Enclosures
CC : Regional Office, DEP
P.O. Box 2747 169 Front Street South Portland, Maine 04106
207/767-6068 FAX 207/767-7125
17
91 IGr
— -- - -
IU7 t I
J----- — - -
-> IG501/1"111 — _._.
112 � \I32 112 �
1705 300 -/ Illlle
1
19-37 I - _`►nsi for l.l_Iz.Gls� _ I 117 —I93n�\J3 \I 112.I,
- -- - - -_. --- - . (1 0 1 X705 '500 ± /tulle
1
' 1765 1650 / tulle
—----------- —. ......_ -_. --- - ----- - -___ _ - .__. -- -' -- -- '-
10V1CR BEVERLY UIQ
� — CASILE HILLPICK AN PARK
----------------- Iy, _ NORmEy f01NT
SALEM Vis: — I co
Ilr, Oil a
TUNNITU
II I
r` v '
r)N N
() tln:
` t a n O •[ 4l
.r •4 V v ._ 1,1 n _
O
O n) ) N r•, In r•r ID
In � f-
o �
v1 1 0 v
InIAQ
vs rUWit 1. . ,,r n'Ipl
I V O - O O
� O O *vr O
nr nl vl .j In ,n N r n, vl
I )
it
,r v, r __ •, nr u, v> tj ,n r ? U n P UI r,
�oN ON CJ v 0 y U
C� --- ( -1 GO vC_' O Ir vc 0.37G 0 O(' 0 `r. •t __ 1 - I n I 1 ,,., ^' ° ~ `� — — V.C. 10.21 yr f 0.63
1--_1— I---_
//,' ,�^ \ �<« 'i cam✓ �. ;c3 .r a .r �+
If
1 >✓ ._� ,_„�.. y � a'\J (�:_` z aal � .L 7.` �.
ec.�'..-t.f '�.. < max.r' �Ta�^YV ,_... "_'r_'X) � ✓✓-� '�� / -./ �+a
FL; ♦ - = F`W Sc n _rJ �E\5FT1 �/. , :z _!✓-'�'� 1 ���.y"" '.Y �� N .•ca- nn<T.'n
--�_•'Y� j,l'rA. 1 c v 1, J � �c�. v >// i9 � Y.–' , \�TI�'>< .�r`��-*' � r
'i n —
ai
` � ylf"�\\\'T/-�,.e,�'+r li �ii .'i-i'--' /ry (a.g'r 'G�sG�J'I:•�! � "_GSan� i � �;, .�L:� _^+ <
/ee^w r Y 1 !.li,✓ 1 v \.�NZ, e<10� y1��.��� � \ ^ . � ''�\ ice' �•Sl� <^s s .`: '
-j
J -exv�f �� I` nv�• �*\C/' !. � �\�,,, I J ,A -\ r l�`�:q.� - , C<rrvr _l'
c-
TELT\1 T D S°\lSl IV
/ l �'�_ \\ �^!Li ��� -�i✓ �.`. �1s4 /--\^'. 'i � C y��'.�1.`•+a_-✓ ?<k l/n Pi
-rt [. ��.�a.-��;/,',.P:%e -mac"�a�" •1� ��a< /� �?�- �_,e,� �Ii:.4.?30R � !; �?'i
Q5
�l-\..-.� 4/ 'R.. ,-1 fps- \✓' i� _
'1P ,•- �• a �f.} . r.Baca -V
KEY
SPRAY AREAS AS DELINEATED ON TRACK CHARTS
Upland areas and/or lengths of track without
a proximate sensitive areas. Sensitive areas that
are readily identifiable in the field are not
included.
This is a "no-spray" area. Herbicide spraying is
prohibited. Includes lengths of track within 400
feet of a public water supply wellhead, 100 feet
from a public surface water supply, a 50 foot
radius around a private well, and 10 feet from the
edge of standing or flowing water or wetlands .
This is a "limited-spray" area. Spraying is
restricted to one annual application of an
herbicide through low-pressure foliar
techniques. Includes lengths of track between 10
and 100 feet from the edge of standing or flowing
water or wetlands.
This is a "limited" spray area. Spraying is
restricted to one application every other year of
an herbicide through low-pressure foliar
techniques. Includes lengths of track within a
0 . 5 mile radius around a public water supply
wellhead, between 100 - 400 feet from the edge of
a public surface water supply, and between 50 and
100 foot radius around a private well .
WELL SYMBOLS AS INDICATED ON THE USGS MAPS
® Public Well
® Private Well
PW S Public Water Supply
PRA Primary Recharge Area (Zone II)
i
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR: RECEVED
Fk8 p 1 1995
Salem rkmovindw u6p(.
Amtrak, National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Bay Colony Railroad Corporation
Central Vermont Railway Inc.
(New England Central Railroad)
Conrail, Consolidated Rail Corporation
Housatonic Railroad Company, Incorporated
MBTA, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Commuter Rail (Purple Lines)
Massachusetts Central Railroad Corporation
Pioneer Valley Railroad Company, Incorporated
Providence and Worcester Railroad Company
For railroad rights-of-way
in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
1 January 1995
Prepared by:
Massacbusetta Railway Association
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
• EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
100 CAMBRIDGE ST., BOSTON, MA 02202 617.727-30DO FAX 727-7235
WILLIAM F. WELD TRUDY COX1
Govemor
Secrety�
ARGCO PAUL CELLUCCI JONATHAN L HEALY
Lt. Governor Commiwooe:
February 7, 1995
Mr. Wayne Duffett
169 Front Street
South Portland, Maine 04106
Re: Massachusetts Railroad Association Vegetation Management Plan Approval
Dear Mr. Duffett:
The Department is satisfied that you have modified the document (VMP) to
incorporate the comments of VMP Advisory Panel.
The Massachusetts Railroad Associations Vegetation Management Plan Is
approved as submitted, effective January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999,
unless suspended, modified or revoked by the Department pursuant to 333
CMR (11.00 all).
Sincerely,
Gail Kapriefian
Pesticide Bureau Chief
i, recycled paper
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SUMMARY OF RAILROADS COVERED BY THIS PLAN 1
A. Railroads Operating Under This Plan 1
B. Variations From Basic Plan 1
II. INTRODUCTION 1
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 3
IV. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT/VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT 6
V. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF RAILROAD
RIGHTS-OF-WAY 9
A. Roadbed 10
B. Bridges 10
C. ROW Area Adjacent to the Shoulder 10
1. Grade Level Road Crossings 11
2 . Railroad Signals and Switch Boxes 11
3 . Inside Curves 11
D. Railroad Facilities 11
VI. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES 11
A. Mechanical Equipment and Techniques 12
B. Herbicide Application 13
1. Weed Control 13
Pre-emergent Herbicide Program 14
Post-emergent Herbicide Program 14
2 . Brush Control 14
Foliar 15
Stem 15
Cut surface 15
VII. SENSITIVE AREAS 17
A. Identification and Location of Wells and
Surface Water Supplies is
B. Identification and Delineation of Wetlands is
C. Field Procedure 20
1. Preparation 20
2. Boundary Establishment 20
3. Approval of Findings 21
D. Operational Strategies and Procedures 22
14
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
VIII. OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATORS RELATIVE
TO HERBICIDE USE 23
A. Guidelines for Sensitive Areas 23
1. Initial Site Review 23
2. Office Procedures 23
B. Preparation for Herbicide Application 23
1. Basic Requirements 24
2. Herbicide Application 25
I%. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE 26
E. REMEDIAL PLAN TO ADDRESS SPILLS AND RELATED
ACCIDENTS 26
SI. IDENTIFICATION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS
DEVELOPING THE PLAN 27
APPENDICES
Appendix A Varations from Basic Plan
Appendix B 333 CMR 11. 00: Right of Way Management
Appendix C 310 CMR: Preface to Wetlands Regulations
Appendix D Herbicides approved for use on sensitive
areas of railroad ROW's as of 1 January 1995
ii
RAILROAD VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
I. SUMMARY OF RAILROADS COVERED BY THIS PLAN
A. Railroads Operating Under this Plan
The following railroad companies have agreed to use this
Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) for the next 5 years:
Amtrak, National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Bay Colony Railroad
Central Vermont Railway (New England Central Railroad)
Conrail, Consolidated Rail Corp.
Housatonic Railroad
MBIA, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Commuter
Rail (Purple Lines)
Massachusetts Central Railroad
Pioneer Valley Railroad
Providence and Worcester Railroad Co.
B. variations From Basic Plan
Differences in company size and work procedures require minor
variations in the basic plan. These variations occur in two
areas-differences in personnel and different types of sensitive
area markers. Appendix A provides details of specific
variations for each railroad company.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proceeding report is a generic VMP for the railroad
industry within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It
describes a variety of operational practices which include
physical, chemical, and natural methods, used to manage,
control, and eradicate vegetation on railroad Rights-of-Way
(ROWIS) . This VMP outlines and interprets the 5-year program
for managing vegetation as per 333 CMR 11.00 Rights-of-Way
Management (Appendix B) . The VMP addresses the major
components of the overall procedures in vegetation management,
including the rationale for the various techniques, the
buffering and protection of sensitive areas, the application of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques, and an overview of
the railroad ROW system. Appendices include Massachusetts Laws
and Regulations with regard to ROW management and wetland
delineation, information concerning the persons who prepared
the VMP, references, and variations to the plan for various
rail companies.
-1-
To understand the complexities of the railroad ROW and the ,
related problems which arise naturally in vegetation management
and interfere with the operating railroad system, one will find
detailed descriptions and illustrations of the specific areas
along the railroad ROW (Sections III and IV) . Knowledge of the
role and function of each area along the ROW is necessary to
assess and understand the particular type of vegetation
management practice used in those areas.
The railroad ROW's are unique in that they are all owned by the
various railroad corporations and are constructed as per
Federal and state laws, regulations, and standards for a
specific purpose which benefits the public welfare. Railroad
ROW's are similar to other ROW's in that they pass through a
wide variety of both privately and publicly owned land.
Railroad companies own their ROW's in fee, where as electric
and pipeline companies usually obtain easements which convey
only specific use rights to the easement holder. The railroad
ROW connects railroad facilities and can be divided into
several distinct areas each of which have different ' uses and
activities and different requirements for vegetation
management.
A brief historical overview will demonstrate that today's
Railroad Vegetation Management Program represents great changes
in the approach , techniques , and methods for vegetation
management versus vegetation eradication of years past. These
advances are the results of research and the progressive
attitudes of the railroad companies to adopt an integrated
approach to vegetation control.
Herbicides have controlled unwanted vegetation on railroad
roadbeds and in the railroad yards since the 19501x. These
herbicides were often applied several times during the year.
The rate for these pre-and post-emergent herbicides were listed
as great as 100 lbs active ingredient (A. I. ) per acre. In the
early 1970's herbicides were applied to the adjacent areas to
control brush and related vegetation at rates of 25-77 lbs.
A.I. as per label instruction. A mixture of the herbicide,
Roundup, used commonly for brush control has been reduced from
6 quarts in 1983 to 4 quarts of concentrate in current use. By
1980, the average rate of herbicides applied to railroad ROW
had decreased to below 10 lbs. A.I. per acre. Harrison (1985)
reports in the Generic Environmental Impact Report and Control
of Vegetation on Utility and Railroad Rights-of-Way that in
1981, the average rate of herbicide application was 8 . 15 lbs.
A.I. per acre for the railroad ROW. Today's herbicide label
rates for the railroad ROW is now at 4 . 0 lbs. A.I. per acre or
less for the most frequently applied herbicides in
Massachusetts.
-2-
We must understand that the 10-fold decrease in herbicide use
between 1950 and 1980 was not driven by regulation or
economics, but was the combined result of research and
development, and concern over possible adverse impacts of
chemicals on man and his environment. In the last eight years,
the label rate of application for railroad ROW herbicides
decreased another 3 fold. It should be noted that these
products which the railroad industry has selected to apply on
their ROW are several times more costly than other ROW
herbicides. The evolution of this VMP is the direct result of
an awareness of man and environment , highly trained
professionals and research, development, and implementation of
scientifically sound programs based on an integrated approach
to vegetation control.
This VMP outlines the railroad industry's 5-year plan to manage
the various parts of the railroad ROW with respect to
vegetation control. This document will explain in great detail
the goals and objectives associated with vegetation management
on the railroad ROW. The VMP represents careful planning,
programming, and decision making by a team of highly qualified
professionals so that the general welfare and safety of
railroad employees and the public at large are ensured, while
at the same item, no unreasonably adverse effects are caused to
man or the environment. Appendices are included for ease of
reference.
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this VMP is to establish the operations,
processes, procedures, and professional guidelines involved in
the railroad' s overall vegetation management program to
control, eradicate, or manage vegetation which interferes with
the ROW by causing a reduction in safety to passengers,
property or personnel. This plan will document the how's and
why's of vegetation management while ensuring no unreasonable
adverse effects/risks to the general public and the environment
by implementing an IPM approach into all phases. This VMP
provides the necessary information, details, responsibilities,
references, professional resources, and basic operational
procedures to inform municipalities, interested citizens,
railroad employees, and contractors regarding the railroads'
vegetation management program. Minimizing the risk of
unreasonable adverse effects on human health, environment, and
sensitive areas while guaranteeing the safety of all people
making public passage or performing work on the ROW are the
foundation of the railroads' goals and objectives associated
with vegetation management.
;. -3-
f
To ensure safety, physical and visual access to each component
of the railroad ROW is required. Only through direct visual
inspection of all the components, such as the ballast, ties,
spikes, plates, switches, rails, signs, gates, etc. , which are
located on the various sections of ROW, can the proper
maintenance, repair, replacement, and safety of the system be
accomplished. The Federal and Massachusetts governments have
recognized the importance of safety and have a variety of laws
and regulations governing the condition of railroad ROWfs.
Federal law requires railroads to control vegetation.
Specifically 49 C.F.R. Subsection 213 .37 states:
Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately
adjacent to roadbed, must be controlled so that it does not:
(a) Become a fire hazard to track carrying structures
(b) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals
(c) Interfere with railroad employees performing normal
trackside duties
(d) Prevent proper functioning of signal and
communication lines
(e) Prevent railroad employees from visually inspecting
moving equipment from their normal duty stations
Federal law also requires vegetation to be controlled so it
does not obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals.
Visibility is important both for railroad personnel working on
or near trains and for motorists crossing railroad tracks.
Train engineers and other operating personnel must be able to
see all types of railroad signals. These signals indicate the
status of the traffic on the track ahead and also indicate when
whistles must be sounded as the train approaches a road
crossing. Signs also provide other types of safety information
as well. Motorists must be able to see trains as they approach
railroad crossings and employees must be able to visually
inspect moving rail equipment.
Federal laws require vegetation control to ensure proper
functioning of signals and communication lines. Trees and
plants short out electrical equipment and cause failure of
communication systems and signals.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities has broad
regulatory authority over railroads . Railroad Safety
Regulations 220 CMR 150. 00 set forth regulations concerning
track inspection, track maintenance, and track alterations.
The statutory and regulatory intent is specific: the safety of
the railroad must be guaranteed through inspection ,
maintenance, and repair of the ROW. Maintenance and inspection
require vegetation control management . Clearly the
Commonwealth has intended each railroad within Massachusetts to
maintain their ROW's, which includes but is not limited to
vegetation management, or be in violation of law and
-4-
v
regulations, and subject to liability and fines.
In general, vegetation control by railroads is essential to
enable railroad employees to perform normal trackside duties.
Vegetation holds moisture and can cause employees to slip or
fall while moving rail equipment. Leaves and branches from ROW
brush may strike employees leaning out of windows to visually
inspect trains or while riding on the sides of rail cars during
switching operations. Leaves and twigs may also enter and
block engine intake vents. Vegetation can hide litter, rocks,
and animals. Finally, it prevents the workers from seeing
damaged, broken, or improperly adjusted track. All of these
can cause dangerous, even life threatening accidents.
Railroad ROW vegetation is managed in order to:
- Maintain drainage of the track structure
- Maintain visibility for crossings, signals, signs, etc.
- Maintain the safety and health of railroad employees and
residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
- Improve working conditions
- Conform with Federal and State laws
- Reduce the source of weed seeds. to adjacent fields
- Prevent overgrowth of weeds in urban and suburban areas
- Improve the appearance of the railroad
The roadbed is the area supporting the track. Track carrying
structures, such as bridges, support the weight of the train as
it passes . Vegetation and moisture on or near wooden
components can quickly weaken them beyond the point at which
they are capable of supporting normal train traffic, thus
causing accidents and derailments . Ties and other wood
structures are usually treated with flammable wood
preservatives . Even light fires can burn away wood
preservatives and allow decay to penetrate and shorten the
normal useful life of the wood.
The entire railroad roadbed and adjacent area are designed to
carry water away from the tracks. The ballast is the area
between and under the ties. It is constructed of large clean,
crushed stone, compacted around the ties to support the track.
Pore space within the ballast section allows water to drain
away from the ties and into drainage ditches which carry water
completely away from the track area. Dirt falling from passing
-5-
a
trains, washed or blown in, or carried by animals can provide '
adequate seedbed areas for some plants. Plant seeds carried to
the track area by the same mechanisms as the dirt can sprout
and begin to develop. As the sprouts develop they produce
fibrous root systems which expand through the ballast and begin
to accumulate additional dirt. The fibrous roots of most
plants are continuously dying and renewing themselves adding
decaying plant material to the accumulating dirt. This mixture
of dirt and plant material holds moisture and allows the
original plant to develop at a faster rate, provides a better
seedbed for new plants, reduces drainage away from the roadbed
area, and holds moisture near the ties. Reduced drainage and
increased moisture around the ties and other wooden structures
encourages decay and reduces the useful life of these
structures.
Another problem occurs with the above ground portion of plants
growing near the rails. Trains depend on friction between the
steel rails and steel wheels for moving and braking. Anything
that reduces friction between the wheels and rails can create
dangerous problems. A light rain which wets the track can
double or triple minimum stopping distances required, depending
on the trains total weight, speed, and the slope involved.
Most plant tissues are immediately crushed between the wheel
and rail , but release water and plant sap which acts as a
lubricant just as rain does and may increase stopping distance
by the same proportions.
IV. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT/VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
Integrated Pest Management as performed by the railroads
involves careful planning, organizing, coordinating, and
implementing an overall program involving all operational
departments and personnel, so that all possible techniques of
vegetation control will be utilized. By identifying and
coordinating the activities of other divisional and operational
units such as repair, ballast replacement, construction,
communication, and other ROW responsibilities, the railroad can
control vegetation as an indirect benefit of their prime goal
and function. Thus, unnecessary application of herbicides will
be prevented. All non-chemical techniques and methods which
remove or control pest vegetation will be identified and
integrated into the overall VMP process and the scheduling for
all Yearly Operation Plan (YOP) activities. Thus, no sector or
area of the ROW will receive herbicide treatment if a routine
or operational activity will remove the vegetation during the
process. This operational procedure will further reduce the
reliance on chemical control and the amount of herbicide
applied each year.
-6-
v
The long-term goal for every VMP, railroad or other, is to
reduce the need for vegetation management. Whenever possible
and wherever consistent with the ROW system, the railroad
industry will implement an integrated approach to vegetation
management by encouraging plant communities which hinder the
development of target vegetation. This integrated vegetation
management program, which utilizes physical, chemical, and
natural methods to control vegetation, will address public,
environmental , and economic concerns by minimizing the
applications of and reliance on herbicides. Due to the unique
structure of the railroad ROW, different environmental areas on
the ROW such as road crossings and yards, each require
different levels of vegetation control and will be selectively
managed based on the site and target species. Within a
framework of IPM, a team of professionals comprised of
roadmasters, engineers of track and vegetation control, and
herbicide application specialists will develop annual Yearly
Operational Plans that select those vegetation control methods
which minimize risk for the general public and the environment.
Over the 5-year period, the railroad industry will constantly
monitor and evaluate the success of their program and integrate
appropriate new methods in their VMP and YOPs. Procedures to
monitor and evaluate the IPM program are described in detail in
Section VIII, pages 23 through 25.
Federal laws require the maintenance of vegetation located on
the roadbed and certain other areas. This target vegetation
will be totally eliminated from the following areas:
- Ballast section
- Ballast shoulder
- Yards
- Switches, signals, and signs
- Highway grade crossings
- Bridges, bridge abutments, and buildings
- Off-track areas
- Inside of curves
To date, no environmentally and economically feasible and safe
alternatives to herbicides have been developed for use in areas
of the right-of-way requiring total vegetation control. No
mechanical equipment has been developed that will operate in
close proximity to the track components in the roadbed area and
the movement of trains, often at high speeds, would make manual
weed control dangerous. As a result, the integrated approach
to vegetation management in these areas is limited to the
selective application of herbicides to target vegetation along
with control obtained through track maintenance activity. When
herbicide use is needed, the type and density of vegetation,
site condition, and the time of year will be factors in
determining the herbicide type, application rate, adjuvants,
and application equipment. These factors will be selected to
attain maximum control and minimize any unreasonable adverse
effects. In railroad yards and on certain heavily vegetated
areas of the ROW< pre-emergent herbicides will be applied which
may eliminate a post-emergent treatment that same year. Each
-7-
V
herbicide treatment will be tailored to the specifics of the
site , sensitive area proximity , vegetation , and local
environmental factors. The specific details will be included
in each YOP.
In areas, such as those adjacent to the ROW roadbed, where
total vegetation control is not required, various selective
vegetation control techniques are practiced. The goal and
purpose of this integrated vegetation control approach will be
to increase competition for light and growing space with
desirable species by selectively eliminating woody species.
Throughout the remainder of the VMP, the term brush shall
denote target species which interfere with the ROW system and
be must be controlled. Shrub shall denote a desirable species
(non-target) which can be tolerated on the adjacent area and
will be selectively managed. By selectively removing these
target species by hand cutting or foliar treatments, the non-
target species will not be affected. If a target species
capable of resprouting, is hand cut or mowed, a cut stump
treatment will be applied to prevent sprouting and the need for
further herbicide applications. In the above cases, the target
vegetation is eliminated, and the desirable species such as
grasses and sedges will rapidly grow and fill the area due to
the increased sunlight, water, and nutrients. The selective
elimination of woody and brush species is site, species, and
density dependent. The selection of technique will also take
into consideration the preservation and enhancing of non-target
desirable species. In no case would a pre-emergent herbicide
be used in these areas.
In certain adjacent areas of the ROW, branches and limbs of
trees grow into or have the potential to move into the roadbed
area striking trains or fouling overhead communication lines.
In these cases, the tree will not be eliminated if a selective
side trimming of those encroaching limbs can be made from an
aerial lift mounted on hi-rail equipment, or on a truck.
Selective side trimming will be done on a site by site basis
according to the type and density of target vegetation present
and its propensity to invade the roadbed area or foul
communication lines. Trees and brush on the ROW which act as a
buffer between the adjacent property and ROW will only be
managed if they will interfere with the function and safety of
the ROW. Selective vegetation management increases desirable
vegetation, prevents erosion, and is aesthetically pleasing to
adjacent property owners.
Two examples of non-chemical activities which are part of the
railroad's integrated vegetation management program are the
improvement of clearances under highway overpasses and the
underground placement of communication and fiber optic cables.
Under this VMP, both of these non-vegetation projects would be
identified and incorporated into the program. First, the sites
and timing of projects would be integrated into the plan. No
-8-
IIID `
vegetation control would be scheduled for that part of ROW
which would be under construction and for the period of time
immediately prior and after completion of the project. If
selective side trimming of trees on the ROW or adjacent
property is necessary, it will be done in accordance with the
guidelines set forth in the VMP and YOP.
Bridge reconstruction by the Railroad illustrates two key
points of an integrated VMP. No herbicide treatment in the
area of reconstruction is necessary immediately prior to or
after completion of the bridge project. The adjacent area to
the ROW and the embankments to the bridges are seeded with
grass. The quick-growing grasses stabilize the soil and slow
invasion by brush species. These areas would have received
herbicide treatment under non-integrated management.
Fewer applications and reduced reliance on herbicides, as
illustrated by these two examples, multiplied several times
throughout the system, represent the potential for significant
reduction in herbicide use which, in turn, further minimizes the
risk of adverse effects on the general public and the
environment.
In summation, the VMP of the railroad industry is an integrated
plant management program. The railroad's vegetation management
programs do not rely on a fixed application schedule or
eliminate all vegetation with herbicides in all areas. The ROW
will receive a Vegetation Site Inspection monitoring the
vegetation on the roadbed and adjacent areas. All operational
and divisional activities scheduled for that year will be
identified for those sites. If those activities will control
the vegetation on those sites, no other vegetation management
activities will be contracted. On those areas, in which the
vegetation will not be controlled by non-VMP activities an
assessment will be performed to determine the most selective
vegetation management approach (see Operational Procedure,
Section VII) .
V. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Concern for public and employee welfare and safety is the
principle reason for vegetation maintenance on the railroad
ROW. Railroads are unique, among the various type of ROW's in
their relationship to interstate commerce. Railroads carry a
constant flow of raw material and finished products into, out
of, and through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Major track
segments have few alternate or duplicate routes and cannot be
closed easily or for long periods of time for vegetation
maintenance without major service disruptions. Vegetation
maintenance must be scheduled around the normal schedule of
rail traffic. Detailed planning and scheduling is required to
-9-
accomplish vegetation maintenance activities within a narrow
time window. This document reflects the railroad's continuing
efforts to review and evaluate vegetation control practices.
This effort has led to practices which allow the development of
very low-growing vegetation on many areas adjacent to the
shoulder (Figure 1) .
A. Roadbed
Figure 1 is an artists concept of an idealized railroad ROW.
The roadbed is a man-made structure which consists of the rail
and ties, ballast, ballast shoulder and its drainage system.
The ballast and ballast shoulder are constructed of hard stone
which supports the track. It distributes the load on the track
evenly and drains water away from the roadbed. The roadbed
drainage system is constructed to carry water draining out of
the ballast away from the track.
B. Bridges
Open deck bridges, such as some over water, will not be
treated. Stonework in bridge abutments and similar structures
must be treated because plant roots can loosen and destroy
mortar in cracks. The area under bridges will be maintained in
low growing vegetation down slope to a point 1
t which native trees and shrubs can be allowed to develop fully
without entering the bridge structure.
C. ROW Area Adjacent to the Shoulder
Figure 1 illustrates typical areas on the railroad ROW area
adjacent to the shoulder. These areas are generally between
the roadbed and the edges of the ROW on either side. Shrubs in
these areas provide a visual screen blocking the view of
railroad traffic and serve to reduce the noise from rail
traffic in adjacent areas. These areas may be maintained to
include a wide variety of shrubs and herbaceous plants.
On the side of the ROW containing overhead signal and
communication lines, low growing shrubs and most herbaceous
plants will be maintained and encouraged in an effort to reduce
the invasion of tall growing trees into these areas. Tall
growing trees growing near overheard signal and communication
lines must be controlled.
Low growing vegetation will be encouraged in areas containing
underground communication or signal lines. In areas where
above ground lines are present, low growing vegetation will be
encouraged on the area opposite the lines. Shrubs in these
areas provide a visual screen blocking the view of railroad
-10-
Figure 1
Railroad Areas Requiring Vegetation Control
(Line of Road)
I I I I
Area Adjacent j Ballast Ballast Ballast Area Adjacent ' J s
to Shoulder I Shoulder 1 Section 1 Shoulder 1 to Shoulder 1 0_� `
(�-
)�• I i I ' 1 ��w
! tt1',
L/ V
1 I 1 f I
1 Communication i I 1
JJ 1 Lines
i 1 I 1 1 I 1
Roadbed
rTa j 1 I i I (in accordance
1 1 with Federal law) I�
1 1 t ;-
:.�1 1 I
10' 10'
40' 40'
traffic from adjacent land owners and also reduce the noise
from rail traffic in the adjacent land. Vegetation on the area
adjacent to the should must be controlled in the following
situations.
1. Grade Level Road Crossings
At grade level road crossings vegetation must be controlled to
provide safe lines of sight between motorists and rail traffic.
2. Railroad Signals and Switch Boxes
The area around signal poles and switch boxes will be
maintained weed free providing a safe line of sight between the
engineer and the signals.
3. Inside Curves
In the area adjacent to the shoulder, on the inside of curves,
low growing vegetation must be maintained to allow railroad
employees to inspect trains as they move around the curves.
D. Railroad Facilities
Railroad facilities include yards , buildings , fueling
facilities, and off-track areas. Yards are areas with multiple
tracks and switches where trains are assembled, disassembled,
and equipment is stored . Buildings include offices ,
maintenance and repair buildings, and signal towers, usually
within yards. Fueling areas are locations where locomotive
fuel is stored and distributed. Off-track areas are locations
that are not assessable from rail, such as auto-unloading
sites.
Railroad facilities must be maintained weed free to allow safe
and efficient operation, reduce fire hazards and permit proper
inspection of railroad track.
VI. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
The Railroad's Vegetation Management Program is defined and
limited by the construction of the privately owned ROW. The
individual components of the railroad ROW as described in
Section IV, have two distinctly different vegetation management
requirements. On the ROW roadbed and other specialized areas,
no vegetation is permitted as per Federal and Massachusetts
laws and regulations. On the adjacent areas of the ROW,
certain woody, vine and brush species must be selectively
managed . Therefore, unlike other ROW' s, the methods of
railroad ROW management is limited to two basic vegetation
-11-
control techniques and one indirect method. The two basic
vegetation control techniques are herbicide applications and
mechanical techniques. The indirect method includes any ROW
operational activity which eliminates vegetation as a secondary
benefit.
A. Mecbanical Equipment and Techniques
Mechanical control techniques or mechanical cutting techniques
are limited to woody and brush vegetation which will include
only those target trees that will interfere with the ROW, etc.
The mechanical techniques will be used in the areas adjacent to
the roadbed. Mechanical control will remove unwanted woody
vegetation in areas restricted for herbicide application. As
stated prior , these trees and brush interfere with
communication lines, reduce visibility, or intrude into the
track zone. Therefore, mechanical cutting is a solution to
these problems and others.
Mowing is the mechanical process of cutting a woody target
species with cutting heads. The cutting heads are mounted on
hydraulic arms that greatly extend the lateral reach of the
equipment. These machines can be mounted on off-track, on-
track, or hi-rail equipment. Large machines are required for
railroad application because of the wide range of conditions
found on the ROW. On-track equipment has the advantage of not
having to operate over rough terrain. Off-track equipment can
work independently of train movement but production may be
limited by the difficulty of moving over rough terrain. Off-
track equipment also has the advantage of being able to operate
under communication and signal lines. However, local by-laws
or railroad safety guidelines may restrict the use of brush
cutters within developed or recreational areas. Mechanical
cutters, such as mowers, present certain safety problems which
the railroad personnel must take into consideration. Not only
is brush cutting potentially hazardous to the general public,
but the laborers are at a higher risk during work. In
Massachusetts, the compensation rate for workers using cutting
techniques is set well above herbicide applicators.
Cutting can be accomplished using chain saws, axes, and other
hand tools; however, most railroad cutting is done using
rotary-type hydraulic cutting equipment. In certain no-spray
and buffer zones, target vegetation may be removed by manual
cutting by a ground crew. It must be stated that the entire
adjacent area could not be managed with this technique. Lack
of skilled woodsmen, prohibitive costs, inaccessible areas, and
time requirements are just a few of the factors which prevent
the railroad from regressing to this out-dated technique.
Likewise manual removal or mowing of the ballast area is
-12-
unacceptable because of logistic problems and inefficient
vegetation control. Cutting heads are too large to fit between
the rails and can only be used on the ballast shoulder. As
discussed earlier, plants growing in the ballast quickly
produce roots that prevent the flow of water away from the
track area. Mechanical cutting of vegetation in the ballast
area would only remove the plant tops. The roots would be left
to resprout or if killed, will continue to decay, accumulate
additional dirt, and hold moisture. Cutting also allows the
upper portion of the plant to decay on the site and add to the
growing seedbed litter between the stones.
H. Herbicide Application
Herbicides are pesticides used to control unwanted vegetation.
Herbicides have been extensively applied on ROW's to control
vegetation because of their specificity, range of target
species, degree of control, economics, and application methods.
Herbicides are essential to eliminate vegetation on the ROW
roadbed (the ballast/shoulder area) . There is no known
mechanical method for adequate vegetation control on the ROW
roadbed as per Federal and Massachusetts laws and regulations.
The ballast and shoulder must be free and clear of all
vegetation. This requirement necessitates that vegetation be
removed down to and including the root system.
A herbicide control program can be modified into an integrated
vegetation management approach depending on the area to be
treated, target species, time of application, and category of
herbicide . The two herbicide categories are pre-emergent
herbicides, which the plant absorbs through developing roots
before emerging from the ground and post-emergent herbicides,
which the plant absorbs through foliage and other green
portions, or through woody portions of the plant (i.e. bark,
stem, roots)
Target species will be divided into two categories: weeds and
brush.
1. Weed Control
The weed control program is designed to eliminate all
vegetation located on the roadbed and in the yards. Herbaceous
vegetation is the primary cover type with a lesser number of
shrubs and tree seedlings also present. A combination of pre-
and post-emergent herbicides accomplishes the goal of complete
vegetation eradication.
-13-
Pre-emergent Herbicide Program:
The pre-emergent herbicide program is directed primarily to the
yards, and incorporates IPM to minimize the amount of herbicide
used. This program is especially important with regard to
employee safety because most employee activities take place
within the yards. The scheduling of a main line or yard track
section for a pre-emergent herbicide application will depend on
a review of the previous year's vegetation density and control
efforts and an estimate of vegetation density for the upcoming
season.
Pre-emergent herbicide applications within the yards may be
accomplished from a hi-rail spray truck. This on-track vehicle
has the advantage of not having to operate over rough terrain.
These hi-rail trucks have a rear mounted boom located
approximately 18 inches above the ground (Figure 2) . Spray
nozzles are equipped with a spring-loaded shut-off valve to
prevent dripping when the pressure. is turned off.
Herbicide sprayed from these hi-rail trucks is applied at low
pressure between 30 and 40 PSI . Low pressure as defined by CMR
333 11. 02 shall be under 60 PSI.
In Massachusetts, pre-emergent herbicide applications to sites
needing treatment will be climate dependent; favorable weather
conditions are required. Traditionally, with favorable weather
conditions, a pre-emergent treatment may begin in March.
Post-emergent Herbicide Program:
The post-emergent herbicide program is directed primarily
toward vegetation eradication on the railroad ROW main lines
and branch lines.
Post-emergent herbicide application may begin in mid-May but is
weather and target species dependent. All treated areas are
later inspected and the effectiveness of the treatment is
evaluated. If necessary, a second treatment is selectively
applied to vegetated areas (see CMR 333 11. 03 (8) ) .
2 . Brush Control
The brush control program is designed to control vegetation in
areas adjacent to the shoulder through the selective use of
post-emergent herbicides. The type of herbicide selected will
depend on the species of target vegetation present.. The
application method will depend on the density of target
vegetation and previous mechanical control methods. Shrubs and
herbaceous vegetation in these areas are not considered part of
the target vegetation.
-14-
Figure 2
Typical Spray Pattern
Note: Spray can be controlled to selectively treat all
portions (Ballast, Shoulder, and Adjacent Area)
or any of the individual portions alone.
I
Area Adjacent I I Area Adjacent
to Shoulder I Roadbl:d I to Shoulder
I .
Ballast I Ballast ( Ballast
Shoulder I Section I Shoulder I.
I I
I /Nozzles (olrected
I Downward)
1 AT A
18" Haxlmum
I I
I >l� y r I
a j r F % 4T tF�rsry Roadbed t• r rr ,rTf�P y.r .
yyR� .1�T.'tu rl a�nr�r} / r .'�ir7 r r ,�i. a i
dJr ?iI��1: 1 �1...i..Z�.1:. .. 1[%
14' 12' 10' B' 6' 4' 2' 2' 4' 6' B' 10' 12' 14'
There are several methods for the application of post-emergent
herbicides to the target vegetation. The variety of methods
allow the applicator to selectively apply the herbicide
directly onto the target vegetation. These applications are
described below:
Foliar:
Selective application of the herbicide to the foliage and or
stem by a variety of low-pressure mechanical spray devises.
Foliar application is often used for side trimming: selective
application of herbicide to the target portions of a tree to
selectively terminate said portions without removing the entire
tree. This type of application is useful on busy, high speed
rail lines where the work intervals between trains are too
short for slower mechanical methods. The herbicides are applied
under low pressure (30-40 PSI) . Selective foliar application
will not be used on vegetation over 12 feet in height, except
for side trimming (333 CMR 11.03 (5) ) . During side trimming
operations in residential areas, the Railroads will utilize low
pressure herbicide application techniques and appropriate
adjuvant or agents to reduce the drift of herbicides. Previous
studies and experience indicate minimal drift occurs, usually
within 5 Ft. of side trimming operations, when using low
pressure applications and adjuvants.
Stem:
selective application of the herbicide in a petroleum or crop
oil base carrier to the lower portion of the main stem (trunk
of a tree) . The equipment for basal spraying is often a
manual-pump apparatus.
Cut surface•
Application of a herbicide to the stump immediately after a
cutting procedure which may include mowing. Traditionally, the
herbicide is manually painted or squirted directly onto the cut
stump surface.
Post-emergent herbicides applied to control woody vegetation in
the adjacent areas will begin mid-May and may continue
throughout the year on selective sections of the ROW as part of
the railroad's IPM program. Stem and cut surface treatments
are effective year round. As in weed control, all treated
areas are later inspected and evaluated. If further treatment
is needed, a post-emergent herbicide is selectively applied to
unwanted vegetation. Every consideration will be taken to
minimize herbicide use while guaranteeing the overall safety of
the ROW system.
-15-
The beneficial effects of herbicide applications on the ROW
system cannot be overlooked for several reasons . The
registration of herbicides specifically labeled for use on
ROW's by the EPA and Commonwealth of Massachusetts based on
risk analysis is further support for their continued use. When
applied by a Massachusetts certified applicator (in the
category Right-of-Way Pest Control) according to label
direction and in accordance with all Federal and State laws and
regulations including an approved VMP and YOP, a herbicide
selected from the Department of Food and Agriculture/Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) recommended list is expected
to have no unreasonable adverse effects to the general public
and the environment. Many mechanical techniques present real
danger and risk to both the general public and workers. As
stated before, no adequate mechanical method is available for
controlling vegetation found on the ROW roadbed and other areas
which must be kept devoid of all vegetation. Public and
employee safety begins with the Federal and state mandated
requirements to visually inspect the entire ROW system.
Herbicides provide the most reliable and generally safe method
to prevent and remove weeds which inhibit said inspections.
The Worker Safety Statistics demonstrate the significantly more
workers will be injured or killed when using manual or
mechanical cutting instead of herbicides. Also, herbicides
prevent plants, plant roots and vines from fouling the roadbed
ballast. These plants reduce and restrict water drainage from
the roadbed. Thus, excess water accelerates the degradation
and destablization of roadbed.
Since herbicides are available in a wide variety of dry and
liquid forms, the railroad may select the most efficacious
herbicide for that particular site and target vegetation.
Thus, the target plant may be selectively eradicated while
minimizing impacts on nontarget, desirable species. Limited,
selective application of herbicides minimizes the chance of
unreasonable adverse effects to the general public and the
environment. The applicator can also accurately deliver the
herbicide to only the target vegetation through the use of
adjuvants.
The applicator controls the pressure, selects the proper
er
nozzle, and has absolute control at which speed the vehicle
will travel the ROW.
The applicator is constantly monitoring the environment. If
the weather conditions change, such as high wind, rain,
temperature inversion, etc . , the applicator will stop
immediately.
-16-
The EPA and Massachusetts Law require the applicator to keep
daily records of herbicide spraying operations. The records
include weather conditions, herbicide/adjuvant mixture
components and proportions, equipment, rate of application,
adverse conditions, and the exact location of treated and non-
treated track and adjacent areas.
In summation, the highly trained professionally certified
applicators, under the guidance and supervision of on-site
railroad personnel, will apply herbicides chosen from the state
recommended list (CMR 333 11.04 (1) (d) specific for the target
vegetation and site. By using state-of-the-art equipment and
specific adjuvants, the applicator will efficiently and
economically manage the vegetation on the ROW.
VII. SENSITIVE AREAS
Sensitive areas have been defined in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Regulation 333 CMR 11. 00 . A copy of the
regulations is included in Appendix B. Sensitive areas include
any areas within the ROW including, but not limited to, the
following areas:
a. Within the primary recharge area of a public drinking
water supply well
b. Within four hundred (400) feet of any surface water
used as a public water supply
c. Within one hundred (100) feet of any appropriately
marked private drinking water supply well
d. Within one hundred (100) feet of any standing or
flowing water
e. Within one hundred (100) feet of any wetland
f. Within one hundred (100) feet of any agricultural or
habitated area
The most common types of sensitive areas encountered are areas
within 100 feet of standing or flowing water or wetlands.
Those sensitive areas that have been delineated with permanent
markers in the field are a,b,c,d, and a above. Additionally,
although these areas are readily identifiable in the field,
delineation tags were placed for standing and flowing bodies of
water because they may be obscured from the R/W during some
season of the year.
Within "sensitive areas" only a limited number of herbicides
that have been approved for these areas by DFA and DEP can be
applied. The current list of sensitive area approved herbicies
is provided in Appendix D. Additionally, no herbicides,
including those of which are approved for sensitive areas, can
be applied within 10 feet of standing or flowing water.
-17-
A. Identification and Location of Wells and Surface Water
Supplies
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental ,
Protection, Office of Planning and Program Management, Division
of Water Supply have developed data and overlay maps
highlighting public water supplies, aquifers and drainage
basins for most of the State. Areas not covered are clearly
identified.
Local sources of specific information included the Conservation
Commission, Water Department and Board of Health. Private
wells on record with the DFA will be delineated. This
information is provided to the railroad through DFA or other
State agencies.
Prior to field delineations topographic maps were marked
identifying the locations of public wells and water supplies.
The specific locations were obtained from overlay maps provided
by the DEP and the Division of Water Supply. Public water
supplies were marked using the symbol and number codes
developed by the Division.
B. Identification and Delineation of Wetlands
The following definition and description is from the Wetlands
Protection Act Regulations 310 CRM 10 . 55 (2) :
(c) The boundary of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands is the line
within which 50 percent or more of the vegetational community
consists of wetland plants species . Wetland plant species
shall include but not necessarily be limited to those species
identified in the Act. Wetland plant species are also those
listed in the National List of Plant Species That Occur in
Wetlands : Massachusetts (Fish & Wildlife Service , U. S .
Department of the Interior, 1988) with an indicator status of
Facultative, Facultative+, Facultative Wetland-, Facultative
Wetland, Facultative Wetland+, or Obligate Wetland, and with
the addition of Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and plants
exhibiting physiological adaptations to life in saturated
conditions.
(i) . The boundary as determined by 508 or more wetland plant
species shall be presumed accurate where:
(a) all dominant species have an indicator status of
obligate in the vegetational community;
(b) all dominant species have an indicator status of
obligate or facultative wetland in the vegetational
community and the slope is distinct or abrupt in the area
between the nonwetland plant community and the wetland
plant community;
(c) The area where the work will occur is clearly limited
to the buffer zone, except to site an on-site sewage
treatment and disposal system pursuant to 310 CMR 15. 000;
or
(d) The issuing authority determines that sole reliance on
wetland plant species will yield and accurate delineation.
-18-
(ii) Where the boundary is not presumed accurate in 310 CMR
10 . 55 (2) (c) ( i) or to overcome the presumption, credible
evidence shall be submitted by a competent source ,
demonstrating that the boundary of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands
is the line within which 508 of the vegetational community
consists of wetland plants species and saturated or inundated
conditions. The issuing authority shall consider or may
require credible evidence of saturated or inundated conditions
when determining the boundary. Indicators of saturated or
inundated conditions sufficient to support wetland plant
species shall include one or more of the following:
a. groundwater, including the water table, within the
major portion of the root zone;
b. observation of surface water;
c. characteristics of hydric soils, as described in the
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual dated
January 1987 .
( iii) Where vegetation or site has been disturbed (e .g.
cutting, removing or other destruction of vegetation, the
boundary is the line within which there are indicators of
saturated or inundated conditions sufficient to support wetland
plant species or other credible evidence from a competent
source that the area supported wetland plant species prior to
the disturbance.
The following field guides are valuable resources providing
lists and descriptions of wetland plants in Massachusetts and
the surrounding region. Helpful field guides include:
- Field Guide to Wetland Plant Identification
- Freshwater Wetlands: A Guide to Common Indicator Plants
of the Northeast
- Inland Wetland Plants of Connecticut
- Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGLC. 131.s. 40)
- Guide to Inland Vegetated Wetlands in Massachusetts
- US EPA New England Plant Identification and Protection
Laws
- Wetland Plants of the State of Massachusetts
Small wetlands, variable wetland situations, and the specific
boundary to any wetland must be determined in the field.
The wetland maps listed below provide a general guide to the
location of wetlands.
- US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory
Maps (scales of 1:24, 000 and 1:25,000) ; available from the
University of Massachusetts/Amherst, Cartographic
Information Research Services.
- DEP Wetlands Restriction Maps (scale usually 1: 1,000) ;
about 158 of the state has been mapped; contact the
Division of Wetlands and Waterways to request maps.
- US Soil Conservation Service Maps (scales vary) ;
available for most communities: note mulch and peat soils.
- US Geological Survey Topographic Maps (scale of
1:25, 000) ; shows major wetland areas; older maps useful
for locating small streams; historical flood records also
available.
-19-
- McConnell Land-Use Maps, available from the University
of Massachusetts/Amherst, Department of Forestry and
Wildlife Management; delineates wetlands using aerial
photos (scale 1: 25 , 000) and quantifies wetland acreage
from years 1951, 1971, and, for part of the state, as
recently as 1990. (Caution: some forested swamps not
included in wetland classification. )
- Regional Planning Agencies' 208 Water Quality Survey
wetlands maps (scales vary) ; not all planning agencies
have copies.
- US Army Corps of Engineers wetlands maps (scales vary) ;
usually done for a specific program such as Natural Valley
Flood Storage Project; historical flood elevation records
also available.
- Federal Emergency Management Agency (formerly under the
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) has
delineated 100-year and 500-year floodplain elevations for
most of the communities in the Commonwealth (scale 111-
4001 ) ; small streams often omitted; towns should request
more detailed mapping if many flood-prone areas are
excluded or if no map is yet available. Although the 100-
year floodplain boundary rarely coincides with the
vegetated wetland boundaries, these wetlands frequently
occur within the 100-year floodplain.
C. Field Procedure
1. Preparation
Prior to doing the field work, appropriate field maps will be
consulted to determine the general location of sensitive areas
on the railroad ROW.
2. Boundary Establishment
The sensitive area boundaries which are not readily
identifiable in the field will be established for these areas.
All boundaries use minimum distances specified in the
regulations. In most locations the delineation marker was
placed as much as 15 feet beyond the minimum in order to find
the best, strongest, and most visible location for the marker.
The occurrence of standing water in man-made drainage ditches
will not be used as a principal indication of wetlands. The
four major indications are vegetation, topography, soils, and
hydrology. (Hydrology of a site relates to the distribution
and circulation of water on the surface and in the soil) .
-20-
Vegetation and signs of obvious hydrology will be used to
determine wetland boundaries according to the DEP Wetland
Protection Act Regulations. Soils are helpful in verifying
wetland boundaries, but will not be used as a determining
factor in typical situations. Vegetation responds quickly to
changes in soil moisture and drainage. Plants are more likely
to indicate newly forming wetlands, or wetlands that are in the
process of enlarging. Soils are useful as indications of long-
term hydrologic conditions. They are especially useful for
disturbed sites and drier wetlands lacking typical wetland
plants.
Topographic depressions where water collects, or where the
water table is close to the surface, usually allow the
development of wetlands. The boundary of a wetland in a low,
flat area surrounded by hilly terrain often corresponds to the
"break" in the slope, or the point at which the land begins to
flatten.
Once the boundary of a wetland has been established distances
will be measured to establish appropriate no-spray and buffer
zones. Permanent markers will be installed along the ROW and
color coded in order to indicate the proper spray status of the
area to the herbicide applicator.
3. Approval of Findings
The Conservation Commission of each municipality was given the
opportunity to observe and inspect the wetland delineation
markers. A request for a determination of applicability was
filed with each conservation commission pursuant to the Wetland
Protection Act regulations, 310 CM 10. 05 (3) a.2 . Form 1 was
accompanied by a map of the ROW indicating the areas and type
of delineation which was made. These determinations are
effective for the duration of the VMP as specified in 310 CMR
10. 05 (3) (b) (1) .
Data relating to the following is submitted to the Conservation
Commission in each town as part of the Yearly Operational Plan.
- Maps, or updates thereof, locating the ROW and
Sensitive areas not readily identifiable in the field.
- Herbicides proposed including application rates,
carriers, adjuvants
- Herbicide application techniques and alternative
control procedures proposed
- The company which will perform any herbicide treatment
- Identification of target vegetation
- Individual representing applicant supervising YOP
- Flagging methods to designate sensitive areas on the
ROW
- Herbicide Fact Sheets as approved by the Department
- Procedures and locations for handling, mixing, and
loading of herbicide concentrates.
-21-
D. Operational strategies and Procedures
Vegetation control procedures within the railroad ROW will be
made consistent with all state and Federal regulations.
The general vegetation control strategies will exclude the use
of herbicides in any application which would result in drift
to:
1. Any area within 10 feet of standing or flowing
water,
2 . Or an area within 400 feet of a public drinking
water supply well,
3 . Or an area within 100 feet of any surface water
used as a public water supply,
4 . Or an area within 50 feet of a private drinking
water well marked in accordance with 333 CMR
11. 04 (2) (c) 3 .
On the railroad roadbed no suitable alternative to herbicide
vegetation control is currently available. On all other areas
mechanical methods will be the treatment of choice. In the
years following mechanical vegetation control , herbicide
treatments may be used to control vegetation regrowth. The
selection of the herbicide and method of application will
depend on the type and density of target vegetation present.
In the area adjacent to the shoulder where herbaceous and some
low-growing, woody plants can be encouraged, selective cutting
of tall-growing trees will be used as needed.
All notification procedures required by State regulations will
be followed. Several days prior to scheduled maintenance
activities, a railroad track inspector or other person familiar
with the delineation marking system assigned to the task, and
equipped with delineation maps and/or log sheets, will review
the area scheduled for treatment to ensure all delineation
markers are in place and visible.
Immediately before beginning any herbicide application, the
applicator will review with "the Railroad" officials the
location of all sensitive areas not readily identifiable in the
field but marked with delineation plates. They will also
review sensitive areas which can be readily identified in the
field; these are agricultural and inhabited areas.
A railroad company pilot vehicle will proceed through an area
scheduled for herbicide application, approximately 1/4 mile
ahead of the spray vehicle. An observer in the pilot vehicle
will be trained to recognize the delineation markers and
readily identify all types of sensitive areas. As the pilot
vehicle passes a delineation marker, the operator will signal
the application vehicle to ensure that proper action is taken
by the application vehicle. When moving into or out of no-
spray areas, the worker in control of the spray vehicle, will
be signaled by another employee or by the pilot vehicle, to
cease or commence spraying.
-22-
VIII. OPERATIONAL GUIDE LINES FOR APPLICATORS RELATIVE TO
HERBICIDE USE
A. Guidelines for Sensitive Areas
1. Site Review
On sites believed to need vegetation control a review of the
vegetation conditions will be made. The review will be made by
the track inspector or other person experienced in vegetation
management. On the areas adjacent to the shoulder, the need
for and type of control will be identified and the treatment
required will be determined. The density and type of target
species present will be noted in each area for use in
developing a control strategy.
2 . Office Procedures
All available information will be analyzed in the following
way. Areas scheduled for construction or other activity that
will relate to or eliminate the need for vegetation
maintenance, at that time , will be identified. If the
vegetation on these areas will be controlled or eliminated,
they will be removed from further consideration in the program
now being developed. Next, the sensitive areas delineated will
be reviewed to ensure that appropriate measures have been taken
to protect these areas. The treatment methods prescribed in
each sensitive area buffer zone will be reviewed and, whenever
possible, a mechanical or more selective herbicide application
prescribed. No-spray areas will be reviewed as to the overall
vegetation conditions occurring, and mechanical methods will be
used to selectively remove or side trim trees leaning into the
roadbed area. New and developing vegetation control techniques
will be reviewed to determine whether or not a suitable
alternative to herbicide applications has been developed for
use on the roadbed in sensitive areas.
This analysis will provide the site specific information
required in the YOP. The YOP will be developed and submitted
to DFA for approval as per 333 CMR 11. 06 (1) .
B. Preparation for Herbicide Application
At least a, 21-day notice prior to the scheduled application
date, will be given to the Conservation Commission, Board of
Health, and Mayor of each community following Massachusetts
State regulations.
Prior to the scheduled application date, a qualified railroad
employee will traverse the treatment area with the sensitive
area maps and record to ensure that all delineation markers are
in place and visible.
-23-
1. Basic Reguirements
To protect the public welfare and eliminate adverse impacts on
the environment, railroad herbicide application crews must have
an operator who is licensed and certified in the State of
Massachusetts. Applicators must also have a licensed and
certified Field Supervisor who reports daily to "The Railroad"
or other qualified railroad employee who is assigned to this
task. "The Railroad" is responsible for adherence to this VMP
by railroad employees or their contractor. Applicators must
follow all railroad safety regulations and all herbicide label
directions.
a. Daily Field Report of Vegetation Control Activities
The daily field report of Vegetation control activities will be
filled out each day by operators doing the work. The daily
field report will include, but not be limited to:
- Date
- Vehicle and Equipment Numbers
- Track Name, Number, and Designation
- Chemical Received
- From
- Chemical Name
- Number of Containers
- Quantity lbs. /gals.
- Chemical Left or Forwarded
- To
- Vehicle Number
- Number of Containers
- Quantity lbs. /gals.
- Weather
- Wind Velocity at time 6am 9am 12noon Spm 6pm
- Wind direction at time 6am 9am 12noon Spm 6pm
- Temperature at time 6am 9am 12noon 3pm 6pm
- Rain (in inches) at time 6am 9am 12noon 3pm 6pm
- Acres Treated
- Roadbed Area
- Area Adjacent to the Shoulder
- Mainline
- Sidings
- Branch
-24-
- Industrial Track
- Bridge
- Crossings
- Daily Summary
- Beginning Time
- Ending Time
- Hours Treating
- Total Hours Reported
- Daily Beginning Odometer Reading
- Daily Ending Odometer Reading
- Contractor Person on Job (list each individual)
- Railroad Person on Job (list each individual)
- Daily Summary of Chemicals Applied
- Name
- EPA Establishment No.
- EPA Registration No.
- Concentrate:gals/lbs.
- Mix Rate and Application Rate per Acre
- Tank or Mix Number
- Chemical Name and Amount Added to Tank
- Water in Gallons or Inches of Depth
- Adjustments Names and Amount
- Location Where Water Taken
b. Herbicide Application Loa
In addition to a daily Field Report, a Herbicide Application
Log will be filled out. the herbicide log will include, but
not be limited to
- Time
- Mile Post and Location
- Spray Type and Meter Reading
- Gallons Per Mile
- Remarks: Spray Plan, City, Vegetation, Weather, etc.
2. Herbicide Application
The applicator will not handle, mix or load herbicide
concentrate on a ROW within 100 feet of a sensitive area.
Whenever possible, the applicator will handle, mix, or load
herbicide while parked on a non-porus surface such as concrete
or asphalt, but not within 100 feet of a sensitive area.
At the time of treatment, before the application begins, the
herbicide applicator will review the sensitive areas, maps, and
records with a qualified railroad employee. A pilot vehicle
will proceed through the area approximately ; mile ahead
-25-
of the spray vehicle . As the pilot vehicle passes a
delineation marker or a sensitive area readily identifiable in
the field, the operator will signal the spray vehicle, so that
he may modify his operation appropriately. In no-spray areas,
as the applicator passes the boundary, he will verify that no
herbicide is deposited in the area with the assistance of
another employee.
Water for mixing of herbicide may be obtained, in accordance
with local ordinances or regulations, from ponds and streams
using tanks and hoses equipped with DEP approved anti-siphon
device to keep herbicide from flowing back into the source
following (CMR 333 10. 03-15, 16, 17) .
I%. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE
"The Railroad" will review and evaluate new and innovative
alternative land uses on the ROW. Safety considerations
preclude most alternative land uses on the railroad ROW. The
size, weight, and speed of trains and their cargoes being
transported are hazardous to any activity inside the ROW
boundary. Even agricultural activities might interfere with
the operation of the railroad by reducing visibility to inspect
trains and impeding drainage away from the ballast area.
Some uses of the ROW that are compatible with railroad uses
include construction and maintenance of electric distribution
and transmission lines, telephone lines, and cable TV lines.
Other uses that may be used on wider railroad ROW's are sewer
and water lines and major pipelines.
Parties interested may submit alternative land use proposals
for "The Railroad's" consideration. A list of addresses for
railroads participating in this plan may be found in Appendix
A.
S. REMEDIAL PLAN TO ADDRESS SPILLS AND RELATED ACCIDENTS
This remedial plan is offered as a guide to proper procedures
for addressing pesticide accidents. Since every incident is
different, applicators must weigh factors specific to the
situation and use their own judgment to decide the appropriate
course of action. Because applicators normally carry only
small amounts of herbicides , the potential for serious
accidents is relatively small.
Federal and state statutes establish emergency response
procedures that must be followed by the companies and their
contractors in the event of a spill or related accident. under
the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, it is the
applicators legal responsibility to clean up pesticide spills
resulting from their use and handling of the product.
applicators are liable for damages, subject to penalties, and
obligated to clean up and decontaminate areas resulting from
pesticide spills.
-26-
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act 1980 (CERCLA) 42 U. S. C. 59601 et. seq. , and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA) 33 U. S.C. §125 et.
seq. are aimed at eliminating the accidental discharge of oil
and hazardous substances into the environment, providing for
the cleanup of such substances, and establishing responsibility
for costs of cleanup. CERCLA and CWA are implemented by the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) 40 CFR $300 et. seq.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 21E, the Massachusetts Oil
and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and Response Act,
Section 3 authorizes the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) to act to secure the benefits of
the CWA and CERCLA to the Commonwealth by promulgating and
enforcing a Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310 CMR 40.000,
establishes standards and procedures for the discovery of
discharges, notification of DEP, assessment of the problem, and
implementation of appropriate remedial response actions, as set
forth in 310 CMR 40. 500.
The Farm Chemical Handbook (published by Meister Publishing
Co. , Willoughby, Ohio) , U.S. Department of Transportation 111987
Emergency Response Guidebook" (available from UNZ and Company,
Jersey City, New Jersey) , herbicide labels, and material safety
data sheets provide reference information for the chemicals
being used. Applicators should carry equipment for emergency
action including sand or other absorptive material, broom,
shovel , and heavy duty plastic bags or other leak-proof
sealable container.
XI. IDENTIFICATION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS
DEVELOPING THE. PLAN
This Vegetation Management Plan was developed for Conrail in
1989 by Environmental Consultants, Inc. (ECI) . Mr. Paul A.
Johnston was the Project Manager. Mr. Johnston has a B.S. in
Forest Resources Management and a M.S. in Silviculture from
West Virginia University. Mr. Frank DeVilbiss, Engineer of
Vegetation Control for Conrail, assisted Mr. Johnston with
preparation of the Plan. Mr. DeVilbiss has a S. S. in Forestry
from Pennsylvania State University and has over twenty years of
experience in all aspects of vegetation management.
With approval from the Department of Food and Agriculture, the
Vegetation Management Plan was subsequently adopted for use by
other members of the Massachusetts Railway Association (MRA)
including : Amtrak, Bay Colony Railroad, Central Vermont
Railway, Housatonic Railroad, Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority, Massachusetts Central Railroad, Pioneer Valley
Railroad, The Providence and Worcester Railroad.
-27-
This first revision of the Vegetation Management Plan was
developed by the Massachusetts Railway Association ' s
Maintenance of Way Committee. Members of the Committee who
participated in the redrafting of this Plan include: Mr. Eli
Mistovich, Amtrak; Mr. Wayne Duffett, Bay Colony Railroad; Mr.
Michael Olmstead, Central Vermont Railway; Mr. Frank DeVilbiss,
Conrail ; and Mr. Scott Conti , Providence and Worcester
Railroad.
-28-
APPENDIX A
VARIATIONS FROM BASIC PLAN
1. Personnel
2 . Sensitive area markers
1. CONTACT PERSON FOR PARTICIPATING RAILROADS
1. MR. ELI MISTOVICH
AMTRAE
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
32 COBBLE HILL ROAD
SOMERVILLE, MA 02143
2 . MR. WAYNE DUFFETT
HAY COLONY RAILROAD CORPORATION
420 WASHINGTON STREET
BRAINTREE, MA 02184
3 . MR. MICHAEL OLMSTEAD
CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY (N.E. CENTRAL RAILROAD)
2 FEDERAL STREET
ST. ALBANS, VT 05478
4 . MR. FRANK DEVILBISS
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
2001 MARKET STREET 10-B
P 0 BOX 41410
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19101-1410
5. MR. JOHN HANLON
HOUSATONIC RAILROAD COMPANYv INC.
PO BOX 1146
CANAAN, CT 06018
6. MASSACHUSETTS HAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY(AMTRAK)
500 ARBORWAY
JAMAICA PLAIN, MA 02130
7 . MR. FORREST VAN SCHWARTZ
MASSACHUSETTS CENTRAL RAILROAD CORP.
ONE WILBRAHAM STREET
PALMER, MA 01069
S. MR. MARC LEVINE
PIONEER VALLEY RAILROAD
PO BOX 995
ONE DEPOT STREET
WESTFIELD, MA 01086
9. MR. SCOTT CONTI
PROVIDENCE i WORCESTER RAILROAD COMPANY
P 0 BOX 16551
WORCESTER, MA 01601
2. BENBITIVE AREA NAREERS
Sensitive area markers presently in use may be one or any
combination of the following:
a. Plates - Color coded metal plates nailed to the railroad
ties
b. Paint - Paint applied to the web or base of the rails
c. Posts - Color coded posts adjacent to the track
Sensitive area markers presently employed .by participating
railroads are as follows:
Amtrak/MBTA Commuter Rail - plates, paint and/or posts
Bay Colony Railroad - plates and/or paint
Central Vermont Railway - plates and/or paint
(New England Central Railroad)
Conrail - plates and/or paint
Housatonic Railroad - plates and/or paint
Massachusetts Central Railroad - plates and/or paint
Pioneer Valley Railroad - plates
Providence & Worcester Railroad - plates
Additional details concerning sensitive area markers may be found
in the Yearly Operational Plans issued by participating
railroads.
APPENDIX B
333 CMR 11.00: Right of Way Management
333 CMR 11.00: RIGHTS OF WAN' MANAGEMENT
Section
11.01: Purpose
11.02: Definitions
11.03: General Provisions
11.04• Sensitive Area Restrictions
11.05: Vegetation Management Plan (VMP)
11.06: Yearly Operational Plan (YOIr)
11.07: Public Notification
11.08: Notice of Modification and Revocation
11.09: Right-of-Appeal
11.10: Penalties
11.01: Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the implementation of Integrated
Pest Management (lPr1) Techniques and to establish those standards.
requirements and procedures necessary to minimize the risk of unreasonable
adverse efrrcts on human health and the environment associated with the use
of herbicides to maintain rights-of-way and to establish a statewide and
uniform regulatory process. These regulations establish procedures which
guarantee ample opportunity for public and municipal agency review and input
on right-of-wap maintenance plans.
11.02: Definitions
For the purpose of 333 CbIR 11.00. the following definitions shall apply.
Agricultural Area. shall refer to.'but not be limited to. actively cultivated
gardens. greenhouses. orchards. fields. oa.ctures. and other areas where
herbicides might impact adversely on the vegetation under cultivation or
agricultural management.
Aoolicant. shall refer to any person representing federal, state or local
governments or agencies. utilities, railroads. pipelines, that intend to maintain
a right-of-way by the application of herbicide.
Ballast. shall refer to the coarse gravel or crushed rock onto which the ties.
tracks and any switching, signaling and communication devices of a railroad
are laid.
Broadcast. shall refer to any non-selective herbicide application technique
which results in application to all vegetation within a target area.
Department. shall refer to the Department of Food and Agriculture.
Foliar Treatment. shall refer to any technique which applies herbicide to
leaves of the target vegetation.
Inhabited Area, shall refer to. but not be limited to residences. schools.
hospitals. parks and recreational facilities or other areas in which humans
generally live. work or gather.
Low Pressure. shall refer to pressure under 6o psi.
Maps. shall refer to maps which are of such accuracy and scale. as determined
by the Department. to provide sufficient detail so that sensitive areas can be
delineated. or which show bench marks or other permanent structures located
on the right-or-way which allow the delineation of sensitive areas.
Persdn. shall refer tc. but is not limited to. an individual. association.
partnership. cnrporation. company, business organization. trust. estate. the
Commonwealth or its political subdivision, administrative agencies, public or
quasi-public corporation or body. or any other legal entity or its legal
representatives, agent or assignee. or a group of persons.
12/21/90 333 CMR - 69
11.02: continued
Person aggrieved. shall refer to any person who. because of an act or failure to
act by the Department may suffer an injury in fact which is different either in
kind or magnitude fmcn that suffered by the general public and which is within
the scope of the interests identified in these Regulations. Such person must
specify in writing sufficient facts to allow the Department to determine
whether or not the person is in fact aggrieved.
Primary Recharge Area. that land area delineated by Zone II as defined in 310
CMR 24.06 or to such cases as when the primary recharge area has not heen
designated it shall be. in the interim, be defined as a one half mile radius Irvin
the public drinking water supply well unless otherwise determined by the
Department of fstvironmental Protection.
Right(s)-of-wav IRON'). for the purpose of this regulation shall refer to any
roadway, or thoroughfare on which public passage is made and any corridor or
land over which facilities such as railroads, powerlines. pipelines. conduits.
channels or communication lines are located.
Selective Application, shall refer to the application of herbicide. in such a
manner that the delivery to the target vegetation is optimized and delivery to
non-target vegetation and the environment is minimized.
Sensitive Areas. shall refer to any areas. within rights-of-way. including but
not limited to the following, in which public health. environmental or
agricultural concerns warrant special protection to further minimize risks or
unreasonable adverse effects:
(a) within the primary recharge area'of a public drinking water supply well:
(b) within 400 feet of any surface water used as a public water supply:
(c) within 100 feet or any identified private drinking water supply well:
(d) within 100 feet of any standing or flowing water:
(e) within 100 feet of any wetland:
(f) within 100 feet of any agricultural or inhabited area.
Stem Treatment. shall refer to any technique including stump, basal, stem•
injection. banding, frill. girdle and any other treatment which delivers
herbicide at low pressure to the stump, base or stem of the target vegetation.
Target Vegetation. shall refer to any plant species which has the potential to
interfere with the operation of the rights-of-way.
Touch-up Application, shall refer to limited application or herbicides following
an initial treatment. which is necessary to achieve the desired vegetation
control.
Vegetation Management Plan (VMPI, shall refer to a long term management
plan for the appiicant's right-of-wag system which describes the intended
program for vegetation control over a five year period.
VMP Advisor• Panel. shall refer to the Vegetation Management Plan Advisory
Panel as set forth in 333 CMR 11.05(4).
Pearly Operational Plan (YOP). shall refer to the yearly operational plan which
describes the detailed vegetation management operation for the calendar year
consistent with the terms of the long term Vegetation Management Plan.
Water Supply. shall refer to any raw or finished water source that is presently
used. reserved for future use. or under investigation for future use .by a public
water system as defined in 310 CMR 23.02. or used as a source of private
drinking water by one or more persons. This shall include all land and waters
used as. or tributary to. a public water system except those exempted under
310 CIdR 22.20.
Wetlands. with the exception of land subject to flooding shall refer to areas
subject to protection under M.G.L. C. 131. S. 40 which include the following
areas as defined in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) = (c):
.1111 Inn e„ Poo - en
11.02: continued
(a) Any bank, the ocean
any freshwater wetland. any estuary
any coastal Welland. any creek
any beach, boroerrng any river
any dune. on any stream
any flat. any pond
any marsh. or any lake
or any Swamp
(b) Land undrr any of the water bodies listed above
(c) Land subject to tidal action
11.03: General Pmvisions
(1) No person shall use an herbicide for the purpose of clearing or maintaining
a right-of-way unless appropriately certified by the Department or unless
appropriately licensed by the. Department and working under the on-site
supervision of an appropriately certified applicator.
(2) No person shall use an herbicide for the. purpose of clearing or maintaining
a right-of-way except in accordance with a Vegetation Management Plan
(VMP) and a Yearly Operational Plan (YOP) as appmved by the Deparinuml.
Such documents shall bp available at the work site at all limps during herbicide
applications and be made available to the Department and mwticipal officials
including the Conservation Commission and Board of Flealth upon reasonable
request.
(3) No person shall handle. mix or load an herbicide concentrate or. a
right-of-way within 100 ft. of a sensitive area.
(4) T a peri:-a-cr of any sensitive areas which are not readilt• identifiable on
the ROW shall he appropriately marked prior to any herbicide applications.
The precise method used in marking these areas shall be identified in the VMP.
(5) No foliar application of herbicides shall be used to control vegetation
greater than 12 ft. in height except for side trimming.
(6) No herbicide shall be applied when the wind velocity is such that there is a
high propensity to drift off target and/or during measurable precipitation.
(7) No person shall apply herbicides by aircraft for the purpose of clearing or
maintaining a right-of-way.
(8) No touch-up applications shall be carried out except under the following
conditions:
(a) Touch-up applications must occur within 12 months of the date of
approval of the YOP.
(b) The Department. the Conservation Commission. the Board of Health.
and Chief elected official of :he municipality shall be notified by certified
mail at least 21 days prior to any application.
(c) No more than 10% of the initially identified target vegetation on the
applicant's right-of-way in any municipality may be treated and the total
amount of herbicide applied in any one year shall not exceed the limits
specified by the label or Yearly Operational Plan.
(d) The Department may impose such additional restrictions or conditions
on the use of herbicides as it deems necessary to protect public health and
the environment.
(9) The Department will maintain mailing lists of individuals and groups
desiring to obtain notices on various aspects of the Program.
11.04: Sensitive Area Restrictions
(1) General
(a) No more than the minimum labelled rate of the pesticide product for
the appropriate site. pest, and application method shall be applied.
12/21/90 rruo _ -+
11.04: continued
(b) Herbicides applied in sensitive areas shall be applied selectively by low
pressure foliar techniques or stein application.
(c) No person shall apply herbicides for the purpose of clearing or
maintaining a right-of-way in such a manner that results in drift to any
arra within 10 feet of standing or flowing water in a wetland or area within
400 feet of a public drinking water supply well: or area within 100 feet of
any surface water used as a public water supply: or area within 50 fret of a
private drinking water supply identified in accordance with 333 CMR
11.0412)IC)(3)•
(d) The Department. in cooperation with the Department of Environmental
Protection. and subject to a Memorandum of Understanding will evaluate
herbicides currently registered for use on rights-of-way and will distribute
a list of herbicides recommended for use in sensitive areas and guidelines
for their use. The Memorandum of Understanding will set forth a procedure
for this evaluation based on all available data relative to environmental
fate and toxicity. Such list, guidelines and procedures will be subject to
review and comment by the Department of Public Health provided that
such comments are provided to the Department within a reasonable tame.
The Department, on August 15 of the calendar year. will make available the
list and guidelines to applicants and to the VMP Advisory Committee.
Applicants proposing to use an herbicide which has been registered for use
on rights-of-way but has not yet been evaluated pursuant to the provisions
of the Memorandum of Understanding may request that such herbicides be
evaluated pursuant to said provisions. For an herbicide which has been
evaluated pursuant to the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding.
applicants proposing to use such herbicide in a manner inconsistent with the
terms and conditions of use imposed in the guidelines may request a
modification nr waiver of such terms or conditions.' A request for such
modification or waiver shall provide a detailed rationale for use. including
all relevant data including but not limited to environmental fate. efficacy
and human health effects of the proposed herbicide. Such herbicides and/or
uses shall be subject to the evaluation standards adopted by the
Departments of Food and Agriculture and Environmental Protection in the
Memorandum of Understanding.
Commentary
Applicants subject to the provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act. who
wish to apply pesticides registered for use in Massachusetts to
rights-of-way. may choose to apply herbicides determined to be suitable
for use in sensitive areas in accordance with the provisions or the
Memorandum of Understanding mentioned above or. alternatively,
applicants may proceed pursuant to the provisions of 310 CMR 10.00 as
authorized by M.C.L. e. 131. s. 40.
(e) The Department may impose such additional restrictions or conditions
on the use of herbicides within or adjacent to sensitive areas as it
determines necessary to protect human health or the environment. Such
changes may be proposed by a municipal agency or individual during the
public comment period.
(2) Water Suoolies
(a) Public Ground Water Suoolies
1. No herbicides shall be applied ,within 400 feet of any public ground
water supply well.
2. No herbicides shall be applied within the primary recharge area of a
public ground water supply well except under the following conditions:
a. A minimum of 24 months shall elapse between applications: and
b. Herbicides shall be applied selectively by stem application or low
pressure foliar techniques.
(b) Public Surface ttiater Suoolies
1. No herbicide shall be applied ,within 100 feet of any surface ,eater
used as a public ,eater supply.
2. No herbicide shall be applied between 100 feet and 400 feet of any
surface water used as a public ,eater supply except under the following
conditions:
,lr9,/Gn '17'1 rMR _ ;�
11.04. continued
a. A minimum of 24 months shall elapse between applications; and
b. Herbicides shall be applied selectively by low pressure fuliar
1' techniques or stem application.
(c) Private Unnkina Water Suupli .5
1. No herbicide shall be applied on or within 50 feet or any private
drinking water supply identified in accordance with 333 CMR
11.0412)lcI(3)•
2. No herbicide shall be. applied between 50 feet and 100 feet of any
private drinking water supply identified in accordance with 333 CMR
11.04(2)(c)(3) except wider the following conditions:
a. A minimum of 24 months shall elapse between applications: and
b. Herbicides shall be applied selectively by low pressure foliar
techniques or stem application.
3. It shall be the responsibility or the applicant to adhere to the
sensitive area restrictions around identified private wells. The
applicant shall consult with the Urpartment to identify private wells
that are located within too feel or the rights-of-way. Tine Department
shall request the location or private wells along the right-of-way from
the Department of Environmental Management and local Hoards of
Health. Wells identified to be within 100 leet shall be kept on file by
the applicant for delineation on the maps in the YOP and be. listed in the
YOP. The VMP must include the method of locating identified private
wells in the field prior to the application of herbicides.
(3) Surface Waters
(a) No herbicide shall be applied on or within ten feet of any standing or
flowing surface water which is not a public water supply. No herbicides
shall be applied between ten feet and 100 reel of any standing ur flowing.
surface water which is not a public water supply except under the following
conditions:
1. A minimum or 12 months shall elapse between application: and.
2. Herbicides shall be applied selectively by low pressure foliar
techniques or stem application.
(4) Wetlands
(a) No herbicide shall be applied on or within ten reel of a wetland.
(b) No herbicide shall be applied between ten feet and t00 feet of a
wetland except under the following conditions:
1. A minimum of 12 months shall elapse between applications: and
2. Herbicides shall be applied selectively by low pressure foliar
techniques or stein application.
(c) Notwithstanding 333 CMR 11.04(4)(a). public utilities providing
electric. gas. water. telephone. telegraph and other telecommunication
services may apply herbicides on or within ten feet of a wetland in
accordance with the following conditions:
1. Submission of a study. the design of which is subject to prior
approval by the Departments of Food and Agriculture and
Environmental Protection. evaluating impacts of proposed vegetation
management programs on wetlands: and
2. A finding by the Department. after consultation with the Advisor)•
Committee. that the proposed vegetation management program will
result in less impacts to the wetland than mechanical control.
3. Notwithstanding the above. no herbicides shall be applied on or
within ten feet of any standing or flowing water in a wetland.
(5) Inhabiled and Agricultural Areas
fa) No high pressure foliar herbicide applications shall be carried out
within 100 feet of any inhabited area or any agncultural area during the
growing season.
(b) No foliar herbicide shall be applied within 100 feet of any inhabited
area or any agricultural area during the growing season except under the
foliowtng conditions:
1. A minimum or 12 months shall elapse between applications: and
2. Herbicides shall be applied selectively by lour pressure foliar
techniques or stein application.
12/21/90 333 CMR - 73
11.05: Vegetation Management Plan (VMPI
(1) General
(a) Unless otherwise specified by the Department, all VMPs should be
submitted by the applicant no later than September 1 prior to the calendar
year of the proposed first year of maintenance. All approved VMPs shall
take effect on January I unless otherwise specified by the Department. and
shall be effective for a five year period unless otherwise modified, or
revoked by the. Department.
lb) The VMP shall be presented on forms and/or format approved by the
Department.
(2) Requirements. The VMP shall include but not be limited to the following:
(a) General statement of goals and objectives of the VMP..
(b) Identification of target vegetation.
(c) Intended methods of vegetation management and rationale for use.
including vegetation control techniques, equipment proposed for use and
liming of applications and alternative control procedures.
(d) Justification of herbicide applications proposed.
(e) Methods, references and sources for identifying sensitive areas and
control strategies proposed for sensitive areas.
(f) Operational guidelines for applicators relative to herbicide use.
(g) Identification and qualifications of individuals developing and
submitting a plan.
(h) A description of Integrated Pest Management Programs or other
techniques/programs to minimize the amount and frequency of herbicide
application.
(i) Description of alternative land use provisions or agreements that may
be established with individuals, state. federal or municipal agencies that
would minimize the need for herbicide. including the rationale for
accepting or denying any reasonable request made by any individual.
(j) Remedial plan to address spills and related accidents.
(7) Public Notice. Review and Comment
(at Upon receipt of the proposed VMP. the Department shall schedule and
hold appropriate regional public hearings affording all interested parties the
opportunity to comment on the proposed plan.
(b) At least 21 days prior to the public hearings. the Department shall
publish notice of the hearings in the Environmental Monitor and regionally
located newspapers. and send notice to municipalities covered by the plan
and to the appropriate mailing list. The notice will include locations where
copies of the VMP can be reviewed.
(c) The public shall have no less than 45 days. starting from publication of
the Environmental Monitor notice. to comment upon proposed VbtPs. uniess
the Department extends the comment period for good cause.
(d) At least 21 days prior to the end of the public comment period, the
applicant shall send a copy of the proposed VMP to the chief elected
official. the Board of Health and the Conservation Commission in affected
communities upon their request.
(4) VMP Advisory Panel
(a) There snail be a VMP Advisory Panel charged with the responsibility of
reviewing Vegetation Management Plans and the accompanying public
comments. The Panel shall recommend approval, denial or modification to
the Department.
(b) The Panel shall consist of the Commissioner(s) or designees of the
following Departments:
Department of Food and Agriculture, non-voting
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Public Health
Department of Public Works and
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Natural Heritage Program
a representative appointed by the Commissioner of
DFA from each of the following groups:
Massachusetts Association of Conservation
Commissions:
• 11.05: continued
Massachusetts Association of Health Boards:
University of M assachuse t is/Extension Service.
railroads:
utilities:
applicator and an
environmentalist
A member shall be appointed for a term of one. two or three vears.
Appointed members shall serve at the discretion of the Commissioner. No
member shall siirve more than six consecutive years. Appointed panel
members shall serve without rompensation and shall not be reimbursed for
any expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties. The
Commissioner of the Department or designee shall serve as an ex officio
non-voting member to the VtiIP Advisory Panel.
(c) The Department of Food and Agriculture's Representative shall chair
the VMP Advisory Panel. This chairperson shall coordinate efforts of tho
Department and the Panel to process the VbIPs.
Id) The VMP Advisory Panel shall conduct business in accordance with the
time. place and procedures agreed upon.
(e) The VMP Advisory Panel shall review all complete VMPs including all
written and public hearing comments. The Advisory Panel may, if
necessary, request from the applicant additional inforniation. Within 30
days of the end of the comment and review period. unless extended for good
cause, the VMP Advisory Panel shall recommend to the Dcparunent in
writing approval, denial or modification of each VMP.
(5) Disposition of VMP
la) 30 copies of the proposed VMP shall be submitted to the Department.
The Department shall distribute copies of the proposed VMP to each
member of the Advisory Panel.
(b) Within 30 days of the end of the public comment period unless
extended for good cause. the VMP Advisory Panel shall review the VNIPs
and recommend in writing to the Department approval, denial or
modification of each VMP: if necessary. the Panel may request from the
applicant additional inforniation.
Ic) Within 31 days of the end of the VMP Advisory Panel review period.
unless extended by tipe Department for good cause. the Department will
notify the applicant and the Advisory Panel in writing one of the following:
1. request for additional information or modification: or
2. denial of VMP: or
3. approval of VMP.
(d) The VMP may be modified. withdrawn or amended by the applicant
through a written request sent by certified mail to the Department.
(e) Resubmission of a denied VMP. updating of a VMP. or a significant
amendment to an approved VMP shall be processed according to 333 CINIR
11.05.
(f) The applicant must send a copy of the approved VMP to the chief
elected official. Board of Health. and Conservation Commission in each
municipality covered by the plan.
(6) Time for Action. Non action on a Vegetation Management Plan within
time specified herein does not constitute approval of the submitted plan. In the
event that the Department fails to notify the applicant of a decision within the
time specified above and upon written request from the applicant. the
Commissioner must issue a finding within ten days of receipt stating the reason
for the delay and providing an estimated completion date.
11.06: Yearly Operational Plan O'OPI
(1) General
la) The applicant is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of al:
information submitted with the YOP. The YOP shall be consistent with the
objectives of the VMP and shall describe the intended operational program
for that calendar year.
(b) The YOP shall be presented on forms and/or format approved by the
Department.
12/21/90 333 CMR - 75
11.06: continued
(2) Renuirements. The YOP shall include but not he limited to the following:
(a) Maps locating the ROW and Sensitive areas not readily identifiable in
the field.
(b) Herbicides propused including application rates, carriers. adjuvants.
(c) Herbicide application techniques and alternative control procedures
proposed.
(d) The company which will perform any herbicide treatment.
le) Identification of target veitetation.
(f) Individual representing applicant supervising YOP.
(g) Flagging methods to designate sensitive areas on the ROW.
(h► Herbicide Fart Sheets as approved by the Department.
(i) Procedures and locations for handling, mixing and loading of herbicide
concentrates.
(3) Public Notice. Review and Comment
(a) Upon submittal of the YUP for approval. the Department will publish a
notice in the. Environmental Monitor. Said notice shall be provided by the
applicant and shall include the information on the municipalities through
which the rights-of-way pass, a brief description or the intended program.
and the procedure for public review and comment.-The Department will
distribute copies of the Environmental Monitor notice to the appropriate
mailing list and the applicant.
(b) The applicant shall provide by certified mail under separate cover to
the Board of Health, Conservation Cnnmmnission and chief elected municipal
official a copy of the proposed YOP and the Environmental Monitor notice
for the city or town in which the herbicide treatment is proposed. The
applicant shall maintain copies of the packet sent to municipalities and
certified mail receipts as part of the recordkeeping requirements. 333 CMR
10.15.
(c) The Department shall allow a 45 day comment period on propused
YOPs, unless extended for good cause. commencing with the publication of
the notice in the Environmental Monitor and receipt of the proposed YOP
and Environmental Monitor notice by each municipality.
(d) The Department may approve, deny or modify YOPs after the 45 day
comment period has expired.
(4) Disnosition of YOP
(a) The YUP shall be submitted by the applicant to the Department at
least 90 days prior to the proposed commencement of application to allow
completion of the comment period and review.
(b) The Department shall review the YOP to ensure that the YOP is
consistent with the approved VMP. Any inconsistencies or deficiencies will
be noted by the Department and returned to the applicant.
(c) Where practical. the Department shall approve or deny the YOP within
90 days of receipt. The Department will provide notice of the decision to
the applicant.municipal agencies and commentators in writing.
(d) The approved YOP in conjunction with the VMP shall govern the
application of herbicide for a period not to exceed 12 months in accordance
with other laws and regulations of the State and Federal governments and
impose such conditions as necessary to minimize the risk of adverse effects
on human health and the environment.
(5) Time for Action. Non action on a Yearly Operational Plan within the time
specified herein does not constitute constructive approval of the submitted
plan. In the event that the Department fails to notify the applicant of a
decision within the time specified above and upon a written request from the
applicant the Commissioner must issue a finding within 10 days of receipt
stating the reason for the delay and providing an estimated completion date.
11.07: Public Notification
The applicant shall provide by certified mail under separate cover. at (east
21 days in advance of the application of herbicide to the right-of-way. R notice
to the Department and to the Mayor, City Manager or Chairman of the Board
of Selectman, the Board of Health, and the Conservation Commission in the
,,,.. „I r\AD - -,r
11.07: continued
municipality where the right-of-way lies. The notice shall include but not be
limited to the approximate date on which such spraying shall occur. provided
however, that said spraying shall not conclude more than ten days after said
approximate date: a copy of a DFA approved Herbicide Fact Sheet on the
active ingredient(s) of the herbicidels) used: the name and address of
contractor who will make the application or the name of the certified .
employee who will make the application.
This notice may run concurrently with the public notice.. and comment
period in 333 CMR 11.00(3) provided the application is made after the close of
the public notice and comment period and all modifications to the YOP are
made before the application takes place and approval is granted by the
Department.
11.08: Nntice of Modification and Revocation
(1) The Department may suspend approval of any VMP or YOP. by written
notice to the applicant and applicator. halting the application of herbicide to
that right-or-way of the above mentioned YOP. After 21 days if the applicant
does not request a hearing. the Department may revoke or modify the VMP and
YUP, if it finds:
(a) that the terms. conditions of restrictions thereof. are being violated or
are inadequate to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on the environment or
on human health: or
(b) that the applicant has made a false or misleading statement in the
VMP or YOP: or
(c) that the applicant has violated any provision of the Massachusetts
Pesticide Control Act or FIFRA. or any regulations. standards. orders or
license issued under either.
!2) Upon notice of revocation or modification. the applicant may modify the
YOP by written requnst to the Department. Applications to modify the YOP
shall be submitted in the manner set forth in 333 CMR 11.06 and disposed of in
the manner set forth in 333 CMR 11.06. The Department may waive all or part
of the requirement if it determines that the proposed changes do not
significantly change the, tenors of the approved YOP.
11.09: Rights of ADoeal
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Department to approve. deny.
modify or revoke a Vegetation Management Plan or a Yearly Operational Plan
may request an adjudicatory hearing. The request for a hearing must be sent to
the Department by Certified mail or hand delivered within 21 days after the
date of decision or notice by the Department. Al the same time the request for
a hearing must be sent by Certified mail or hand delivered to the applicant and
the Pesticide board. The request should state clearly and concisely the facts of
the proceeding. the reasons the decision is alleged to be inconsistent with 333
CMR 11.00 and the relief sought by the adjudicatory hearing. The adjudicatory
hearing before the Pesticide Board shall be conducted as set forth in M.G.L.
c. 30A and M.G.L. c. 1328. s. 13.
11.10: Penalties
Any person who violates any provision of 333 Cb1R 11.00 shall be subject to
the criminal and civil penalties set forth in M.C.L. c. 132B. s. 14.
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
333 C-klR 11.00: M.G.L. c. 1328.
t?niron 333 CMR - 77
APPENDIX C
310 CMR
Preface to Wetlands Regulations
Relative to Right-of--Way Management.
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENPINEERINC
PREFACE TO WETLANDS REGULATIONS RELATIVE
TO RIGHTS OF WAY MANAGEMENT
1987 REGULATORY REVISION
In 1983, the Massachusetts Pesticide Control Act, Ch. 132B, was amended to
require notification of conservation commissions prior to application of
herbicides on rights of way. Many commissions became aware for the first time
that application of herbicides on rights of way may result in alteration of
wetlands and, with the exception of exempt utilities, may require action under
the Wetlands Protection Act. On July 18. 1986, the Department issued a final.
decision after adjudicatory hearing in DEQE Hearing Docket Nos. 83-28 and
63-35 (Clinton and Leverett) finding that the application of specific herbicides
by the railroads to track and ballast within 100 feet of wetland areas would
alter those wetlands and was therefore subject to jurisdiction under the Act,
requiring the filing of Notices of Intent with the local conservation commissions.
The Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) initiated a Generic
Environmental Impact Report (CEIR) evaluating alternatives for rights of way
management. A technical, advisory task force of environmentalists, agencies
and rights of way managers assisted in the CEIR preparation and, based on
results of the study. recommended to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs a
framework for a coherent state-wide rights of way regulatory program. DFA
published draft regulations to implement this program in 1986 and received
extensive public commentary. Final regulations, 333 CMR 11.00, became
effective on July 10, 1987.
The DFA regulations*require persons proposing to apply herbicides to rights
of way to first receive approval of a five year Vegetation Management Plan
(VMP) and Yearly Operating Plan (YOP). These regulations identirY certain
'sensitive areas% including wetlands and public and private surface and
groundwater supplies, where the application of herbicides is, in most instances.
prohibited, and areas adjacent to the sensitive areas where use of herbicides is
curtailed
DEQE worked closely with DFA to include provisions which give maximum
protection for water supplies and provide protection for wetlands at least equal
to that provided under the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations. To
eliminate duplicate review under the Wetlands Protection Act, DEQE has
adopted changes to the.wetlands regulations which allow herbicide applications
on rights of way in accordance with the DFA regulations without filing a Notice
of Intent under the Wetlands Protection Act. However, non-exempt applicants
will still be required to file a Request for Determination of Applicability to the
appropriate conservation commission to establish boundaries of wetlands on or
near the right of way. Specifically, these regulations presume that work
performed in accordance with a VMP and YOP, as may be required under DFA
regulations. will not alter an area subject to protection under the Wetlands
Protection Act.
During the public comment period on its proposed regulations, the
Department identified several issues of major concern. After consideration of
all comments, the Department has determined that, except for minor points of
clarification and the addition of an automatic expiration date. no further
changes in the regulations are warranted at this time. A discussion of these
issues follows.
A. Presumption vs. Limited Pro'ect. Several commentators suggested that
conservation commissions should retain the authority to review each herbicide
application on rights of way through the usual Notice of Intent process. These
regulations create a preemption that herbicide application carried out in
accordance with an approved VMP and YOP under the DFA regulations will not
alter wetlands and that the filing of a Notice of Intent is therefore not
required. This procedure was established pursuant to the recommendation of
the GE1R task force which states:
11/10/89 320 CMR - 214
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENCiNEER1NG
10.00: continued
The regulations which provide for approval of Vegetation
Management Plans by the Department of Food and
Agriculture should be conditioned on review and approval by
the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
(DEQE) of those portions of the Plans that deal with
wetlands. The DEQE should be required to certify to the
DFA that these portions of the Plans will result in
compliance with the substantive and procedural provisions
which'protect the interests of the Wetlands Protection Act.
If the regulations are so drawn. activities under a Plan
approved by DEQE would not constitute an alteration of
wetlands as defined under the Wetlands Protection Act
regulations.
Since the DFA regulations provide that DEQE is a member of the VMP
advisory'panel which reviews and makes recommendations on the approval of
VMPs, the GEIR task force recommendations have been fully implemented.
Therefore, the Department has determined that it would be duplicative to
require the filing of individual Notices of Intent in each municipality for each
application of herbicides to rights of way.
H. Adepuacv of Setback from wetlands. The DFA rights of way regulations
prohibit application of he
on or within ten feet of wetlands and strictly
limit herbicide application from ten feet to 100 feet of wetlands. Many
commentators questioned the adequacy of these setback requiremeyts and
suggested that a 50 or 100 foot no spray zone would be more appropriate.
Several commentators suggested that the proposed setback requirements were
inconsistent with the Department's adjudicatory hearing decision in the Clinton
and Leverett cases.
The no spray zone surrounding wetlands is necessary for three reasons: to
compensate for mapping errors. to compensate for applicator errors and to
assure that herbicides will not migrate into wetlands after application on the
adjacent uplands. During the public,comment period, the Department received
no evidence demonstrating that the ten-foot setback established in the DFA
regulations will not be adequate. The DFA regulations establish a procedure for
selecting a limited number of herbicides that may be applied in the limited
spray zone rom 10 to 100 feet from wetlands) which is adjacent to the no
spray zone. Herbicides that will be selected for use in these limited spray
(f
zones under the DFA regulations are those which available data demonstrate
will not migrate further than ten feet.
The applicators have argued that they can maintain a level of accuracy in
mapping of wetlands and in application of herbicides to assure that herbicides
will not be inadvertently applied within ten feet of wetland areas. The
Department is not convinced that these claims are unreasonable: however. in
order to confirm their accuracy, the Department has included in Lhe final
regulations an automatic expiration date two years from the effective date,
which is coterminous with the expiration date of the DFA regulations. During
the two-year effective period of these regulations. the Department expects
applicators to conduct studies monitoring herbicide application operations and
to submit a report concerning impacts of herbicide application on wetlands
under these new regulations detailing the accuracy of wetlands mapping, the
accuracy of herbicide application. and the extent of herbicide migration. The
results of this study will provide a basis for recommendations by the
Department for amendments to the DFA regulations and a decision on
reauthorization of these amendments to the Department's wetland regulations.
Finally. the Department does not find the setbacks requirements established
In the DFA regulations to be inconsistent with its decision in the Clinton and
Leverett eases. In that decision, the Department assumed a worst-case
analysis in terms of an herbicide known to be highly mobile which was applied
to the track and ballast areas adjacent to wetlands. The Department found,
based on the particular facts of these cases and the particular herbicide
11/10/89 310 CMR-215
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING
30.00: continued
proposed for application that there would be a migration of that herbicide into
the wetlands from application within the 100-foot buffer zone that would be
sufficiently concentrated to cause alterations of the wetlands plants. However,
the DFA rights of way management regulations set up a procedure for
identification of herbicides which are relatively immobile and which are
preappmved for applicatior on the buffer zone in order to avoid alteration of
wetlands plants. Furthermore, guidelines for application of the selected
herbicides will also be established. Finally, no herbicides may be applied within
'ten feet of wetland areas. in-light of the strict controls placed on application
of herbicides within the 1o0-foot buffer zone under the DFA regulations, the
Department finds that adoptions of the proposed regulatory scheme is fully
consistent with its previous adjudicatory hearing decision in the Clinton and
Leverett cases.
C. Imoaets of Herbicides Aoolication on wildlife Habitat. The Department is
currently developing regulation under the Act to protect wildlife habitat. The
effective date of these regulations is November 1. 1987. One commentator
expressed concern regarding the impact of herbicide application on wildlife
habitat in wetlands, and particularly on the habitat'of rare, 'state-listed'
wildlife species. As discussed above. the Department has determined that the
DFA regulations provide for protection of wetlands from alterations due to
herbicide application. However, the OFA regulations do not include floodplain
in their definition of wetlands, although those regulations do prohibit herbicide
application within 10 feet of any standing or flowing surface water. Beyond
that, there is no specific protection of wildlife habitat, including rare species,
in floodplain areas.
The Department is concerned that the DFA regulation do not specifically
address protection of wildlife habitat in floodplain, in particular those rare,
'state-listed' wildlife species. Therefore, as a member of the VMP advisory
panel, the Department will review VMPs for potential effect on wildlife habitat
and specifically will recommend disapproval of any VMP that will have an
adverse effect in areas mapped by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species
Program, as habitat of any rare, 'state-listed' wildlife species. Furthermore.
the Department expects applicators to incorporate into the previously discussed
two-year monitoring study a section detailing
the effects of herbicide
application on wildlife habitat in floodplain and on the habitat of rare,
'state-listed' wildlife species. The Department will use the results of this
study DFA re as the basis for recommending any amendments to the regulations
and a decision on reauthorization of these amendments to the Department's
wetlands regulation.
11/10/89 310 CMR-216
APPENDIX D
Herbicides aproved for use on
sensitive areas of railroad ROW's
as of 1 January 1995.
s.
i
The following is the "LIST" of recommended herbicides for use in sensitive areas within
Rights-of-Way pursuant to 333 CMR 11.04(1)(d).
Trade Name EPA Reg. No. Active Ingredient Use Restrictions
Accord 524-326 Glyphosate None
Rodeo 524-343 Glyphosate None
Roundup 524-308 Glyphosate None
Arsenal 241-273 Imazapyr 3 Pints/acre Every
3rd Year or 2 Pints
Every Other Year
Chopper RTU 241-330 Imazapyr None
Arsenal NS 241-346 Imazapyr 3 Pints/acre Every
3rd Year or 2 Pints
Every Other Year
Krenite 352-376 Fosamine Ammonium None
Krenite S 352-395 Fosamine Ammonium None
Krenite UT 352-395 Fosamine Ammonium None
Escort 352-439 Metsulfuron Methyl None
Banvel CST 55947-32 Dicamba Sponge Application
to Cut Stump
Garlon 4 464-554 Triclopyr (Butoxy 0.5 Pints/acre
ethyl ester) within 10 feet;
3.0 pints/acre
within 50 feet
Applications of herbicides for the purpose of railroad Rights-of-Way maintenance which are riot
recommended above are subject to the provisions of MGL c.131 Section 40, and MGL c.21A
Section 2, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
}
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
OFFICIAL BUSINESS I II II
SENDER INSTRUCTIONS
Print your name,address and 21P Code
in the space below.
• Complete Items 1,2,3,and 4 on the
reverse. U.S.MAIL
• Attach to front of article if space
permits, otherwise affix to beck of
Morse
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
• Endorse article "Return Receipt USE, $300
Requested"adjacent to number.
RETURN Print Sender's name, address, and ZIP Code in the space below.
TO
SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items 1
3 and 4.
Put your address in the "RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card
from being returned to you.The return receipt fee will provide you the name of the erson delivered to and
t_h_e date ofddeliver . For additional fees the following services are available. onsuh postmaster for tees
and e ech k boxleSl for additional service(s) requested.
1. ❑ Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
(Extra charge). (Extra (harge)
3. Article Addressed to: 4 Article Number
o
Type of Service:
❑ Registered ❑ Insured
C// rel ✓ f4Certified ❑ COD
t/ //__ r /-/ /- /f ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt
for Merchandise
Always obtain signature of addressee
or agent and DATE DELIVERED.
5. Signature — Addressee R. Addressee's Address (ONLY if
X requested and fee Paid)
6. Signature — Agent
X
7. Date of Delivery
PS Form 3811, Apr. 1989 +U.S.G.P.G.1989-238-815 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT