RE: a few more questions

Hamel, Kathy (ECY) t

o

: Hamel, Kathy (ECY), Jordan Page 07/15/2009 02:03 PM

Cc: "Jennings, Jonathan (ECY)", "Weaver, Duane (ECY)"

History: This message has been forwarded.

Sorry. For some reason, my spell checker did not work on this document. I was relying on that to correct the spelling and typos. Kathy

From: Hamel, Kathy (ECY)

Sent: Wed 7 / 15 /

2009 11:00 A M

To: Page.Jordan@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: Jennings, Jonathan (ECY); Weaver, Duane (ECY) Subject: RE: a few more questions

Hi Jordan, Here are the answers to some of your questions. I have asked Jon Jennings to answer your questions about the mosquito and moth permit.

Question In your previous email, you mentioned that you had enough information to remove monitoring requirements for shoreline/streamside spraying of glyphosate, triclopyr, and imazapyr. Are there any more agents or use patterns for which Ecology has determined that no further monitoring in necessary? Was it determined that these scenarios resulted in negligible environmental impact?
Answer I think that I explained in my earlier email, that under our grant program we require any entity who gets a grant and uses an herbicide to monitor after treatment. If they treat multiple times and we feel that we have enough information from that specific lake and that specific herbicide, we will relieve them of further monitoring.

Our rotenone permit did not get reissued (individual permit to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). Had it been reissued, I believe that there were some changes in monitoring. I think that some monitoring parameters may have been discontinued, but other monitoring added. As I was not managing or writing that permit, I am not sure what was dropped and what was added. However, due to staff changes, the original permit is still in effect and on-line at: http :// www

. ecy

. wa

. gov / programs / wq / pesticides / final

_ pesticide

_ permits / fish / fishmgmt

_ fin alper 6

. pdf

For the shoreline/streamside spraying of glyphosate, triclopyr, and imazapyr, if they got detections at all, they were negligible amounts. This held true for different plant species and different application methods. We felt that this type of activity was not having any adverse environmental impact. Because the target weed was a state-listed noxious weed, the impacts to plant habitat were benficial. We had also made promises to permitholders that we would only require them to collect data that we considered meaningful and would relieve them of monitoring that answered our questions. Before we required monitoring after stream or lake side spraying, we did not have any information on what kind of levels we might see in the water after spraying. It was wonderful to actually collect the data, but we believe that we have enough data to discontinue this type of monitoring. Should we add a new chemical or a use a new method of spraying, we may ask for additional monitoring. Because we require our permit holder (WA Department of Agriculture) to submit a monitoring plan each year, that gives us the flexibility to change our monitoring requirments from year to year and base these changes on previous monitoring results.

Question Why did Ecology revoke the Nuisance Plant and Algae Permit, and what will its replacement

entail?
Answer It's a long story and involves a lawsuit and the noxious weed permit. Ecology orginally issued the Noxious Weed permit to the Washington Department of Agriculture. They in turn contacted with "limited agents" (often county weed boards, Nature Conservancy, and other entities) for the treatment of state-listed noxious weeds. This included submersed species like Eurasian watermilfoil as well as wetland and shoreline species such as purple loosestrife. We did the limited agent idea because Washington has a
state law that mandates control of some classes of noxious weeds and another law that directs agencies like Ecology to not over burden aquatic noxious weed efforts with permitting conditions. Because another state law requires we charge an annual permit fee, we have a 60 day waiting period after the NOI is recieved, and other administrative hoops, by becoming limited agents under Agriculture's permit, we eliminated those hoops and thus did not over burden noxious weed treatments. This greatly streamlined noxious weed control permitting.

At the same time we had lake groups with native nuisance plant and algae problems that are used to getting permits from Ecology. Because these are native plants that provide habatit we separated permitting for these plants from noxious weeds. This permit (Nuisance Plant and Algae) required the discharger (generally the pesticide applicator) to submit the NOI on behalf of their clients (lake groups). These folks did have to pay permit fees, advertise in a newspaper of general circulation, etc. It was in this permit the Ecology required integrated pest management (IPM) plans. We gave them two years without an Ecology approved plan to treat, but by the third year, they had to have an approved IPM plan before they could legally treat their lake.

Things started becoming difficult with these two permits after the second year. The original noxious weed permit worked well, except for one instance. There is a big lake in Seattle - Lake Washington. It has infestations of state-listed noxious weeds - milfoil and Brazilian elodea. It also has several salmon species and runs including ESA listed runs. Applicators were using the "relaxed" requirements of the noxious weed permit to go around and sell "weed-free" water front to Lake Washington residents. The Washington Toxics Colition is headquartered in Seattle. They grew concerned about the increasedand piecemeal treatment on Lake Washington. They sued the Department of Agriculture over this. Although both Agriculture and Ecology were concerned about this practice of selling weed-free waterfront, there was no legal way to stop this under the existing permit or we would have done so.

Agriculture and the Toxics Coalition settled the lawsuit by Ecology agreeing to rescind both the original noxious weed permit and the Nuisance Plant and Algae permit. Ecology agreed to reissue both permits in a modified form. The reissued version of the noxious weed permit did not cover any in-lake treatment of noxious weeds like milfoil. It did cover wetland and shoreline species. It has since been reissued again with some minor tweaks. This permit works very well now.

Ecology also reissued the nuisance weed permit as the Aquatic Plant and Algae Management permit. It now covers in-lake treatments for both noxious and native species. People treating milfoil now have to pay fees, wait 60 days for coverage issuance, etc. Luckily people plan ahead and it seems to work fairly well. As for Lake Washington, the new permit makes it harder for individuals to get coverage and it limits treatment for individuals in Lake Washington. While there are still treatments taking place on the lake, they are more limited and are generally done by govenments (cities) or homeowners groups. I would say that this did acomplish at least some of the Toxics Coalition purpose in bringing their suit (actually they would love to see no herbicide use).

Ecology dropped the IPM requirement from the new Aquatic Plant and Algae Mangement permit. While we strongly encourage IPM planning, we found that it did not work well under this permit. Most of the lake groups that treat have been doing this for 20-40 years and are happy with this method. They did not want to change and resented the planning process. The lake groups hired their applicator to develop the plans. The applicator cut and pasted material and did minimal and very substandard plans that did not meet Ecology requirements or approval. When Ecology sent the plans back for revision, they tended to get the same poor plans back for reapproval. The lake groups resented this and saw this as useless buercracy. For many of the plans, Ecology ended up in legal battles. Our hearings board tended to side with the lake groups that Ecology was being too picky. It became somewhat of a useless paper exercise rather than a true IPM planning process. When we had to redo the nuisance weed permit, our management told us to eliminate anything that required Ecology approval, especially the plans. It was costing us lots of money in attorneys and we were not achieving the environmental result we had hoped for. It was a good idea in principle, but it just didn't work in practice for this permit.

Question Who in Washington is required to submit an NOI for coverage under a general permit and under

what circumstances?
Answer That varies between permits. For the Aquatic Plant and Algae Permit, it is the discharger (applicator). Because we don't want to facilitate applicators gettingcoverages on their own and going around and selling their services (sometimes unneeded), we require that the NOI be signed by a homeowners group such as a Lake Management District, homeowner association, or lake association. This certifies that the group has retained the applicator on their behalf to acquire coverage to treat the lake. For applicators, we require separate coverages for each lake. On a big lake like Lake Washington, an applicator may hold several separate coverages for different groups or govenments. We also allow governments to acquire coverage but they have to tell us who their licensed applicator is. To give govenments a break, they can acquire one coverage to cover multiple lakes. For example, the city of Federal Way holds one coverage but it is for two lakes. Individual applicators must acquire coverages for each
lake.

For the noxious weed permit the permit holder is the Washington Department of Agriculture and they submit the NOI. The others treating under that permit are all "limited agents" of Agriculture. A similar situation occurs under the mosquito permit but the Washington Department of Health is the permit holder. Agriculture's coverage is for five years. Their limited agents must obtain that status on an annual basis.

Question Up to this point, have the results of any monitoring exercise indicated an instance of noncompliance, triggered a need for permit modification, or been a flag for any other type of

p roblem?

Answer Not that I am aware of. I'll forward that question to the staff handling the irrigation permit and the burrowing shrimp permit to see if they have anything to add. We did have a situation in eastern WA lakes, where the applicator was applying liquid 2,4-D. He swore that he was applying the correct amount, but the milfoil was not dying and the 2,4-D concentrations were not at effacacious levels. By switching applicators, we discovered that the original applicator was not appying the chemical deep into the plant beds. We think that 2,4-D must have been volatalizing from the surface waters in the hot eastern WA climate. The new applicator used a method to ensure that the chemical was applied directly into the plant beds. The mifloil died and the 2,4-D residue levels were at sufficient concentrations to ensure good treatment. In this instance, monitoring (and of course poor plant control) flagged the problem.

Question For those permits that require the submission of an IPM plan or any variant, muts Ecology review these plans prior to coverage becoming effective for the permittee? Are the plans made available to the public?

Answer IPM plans have worked for the noxious weed permit. Also we have about 45 IMP plans for milfoil and in-lake weeds that were done under the grant program. The carrot works so much better for doing these plans and particularly when you pay for them. But no, we generally gave folks a grace period to get their IPM plans done. In the meantime, thenoxious weeds were growing and with weeds, you really don't want to wait. We have minimum standards for IPM plans. I think that I provided that information to you, but I have also been corresponding with your pesticide office so I may be getting you two confused. Yes, these plans get posted on our website. For the IPM plans done under our grant agreement, we may post an occasional excellent plan to others to use as an example, but they are available on request. We send copies to our library.

Sorry that this is so long. It has been complicated to develop and administer all these permits.

Kathy

From: Page.Jordan@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Page.Jordan@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Mon 7 / 13 /

2009 11:35 A M

To: Hamel, Kathy (ECY) Subject: a few more questions

Kathy,

Thank you for all of the very helpful information you have provided thus far. I have a few more questions concerning Washington's monitoring

scheme...

In your previous email, you mentioned that you had enough information to remove monitoring requirements for shoreline/streamside spraying of glyphosate, triclopyr, and imazapyr. Are there any more agents or use patterns for which Ecology has determined that no further monitoring in necessary? Was it determined that these scenarios resulted in negligible environmental impact?

In the mosquito larvicide permit, I notice that the monitoring requirement directs the permittee only to report larvicide application quantities. Is this the requirement for the restricted use chemical larvicides as well (which I understand may only be used under special conditions in WA)? Has there been any discussion on what monitoring would be required for an adulticide permit?

I am unclear on the monitoring requirement for moth control. Does this permit require water samples to be analyzed for residuals of Btk or are the requirements more similar to those found in the mosquito larvicides permit?

Why did Ecology revoke the Nuisance Plant and Algae Permit, and what will its replacement entail?

Who in Washington is required to submit an NOI for coverage under a general permit and under what circumstances?Up to this point, have the results of any monitoring exercise indicated an instance of noncompliance, triggered a need for permit modification, or been a flag for any other type of problem?

For those permits that require the submission of an IPM plan or any variant, muts Ecology review these plans prior to coverage becoming effective for the permittee? Are the plans made available to the public?

Thanks again for your all your help.

Jordan Page, ORISE Fellow Office of Wastewater Management, Permits Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N W Washington DC 20460

Phone: 202.564.2952 Page.Jordan@epa.gov