### FACT SHEET FOR FISHER Y RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

WASHINGTON DEPARTME NT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

SUMMARY

The State of Washington Department of Ecology (Department) has tentatively determined to issue an individual permit to the Washington Depa rtment of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for the application of rotenone, an aquatic pesticide us ed to manage fish populations in lakes and streams in the State of Washington. Any short te rm toxicity to aquatic organisms is allowed under the terms of the permit and the water qua lity modification provisions to accommodate the application of rotenone, an aquatic pesticide th at is occasionally used by WDFW biologists to manage fish populations. The WDFW will conduc t monitoring to determine the extent and duration of the short-term wa ter quality reduction resulting fr om rotenone applications.

The proposed terms, limitations and conditions cont ained herein are tentative and may be subject to change, subsequent to public comments a nd testimony provided at public hearings. The WDFW will not be re lieved of any responsibility or liability at any time during the life of the permit for: (1) violating or exceeding State water quality standards; or (2) violating any other local, State, or Federal regulati on or standard as may pertain to the individual facility. Any application of pesticide to su rface waters of the state requiri ng NPDES permit coverage found not covered under the individual permit will be c onsidered to be operating without a discharge permit and subject to potential enforcement action.

On March 12, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of A ppeals decided that the application of an herbicide in compliance with the labeling re quirements of Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not exempt an irrigation district from needing an NPDES permit ( Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District ). Ecology, as had many other states, had previously been issuing orders that were not NPDES permits that placed protective conditions on the use of pesticides in waters of the state. This individual permit will replace those short term modifications where pesticide applications are di rected into surface waters of the state for the purpose of managing fish populations in lakes and streams.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... ........1

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................2 Legal ........................................................................................................................2 Rotenone Use In Fisheries Management .................................................................3 Rotenone Use By The Washington Department Of Fish And Wildlife...................3 Restoration Of Native Fish Habitat..........................................................................5 Evaluation Of Available Fish Control Options........................................................5 Wildlife Management ..............................................................................................6 WDFW Lake And Stream Rehabilitation Procedures .............................................7 Pre-Treatment Procedures........................................................................................7 Treatment Procedures ..............................................................................................8 Rotenone Safety Procedures ....................................................................................9 Post-Treatment Procedures ......................................................................................9 Number And Size Of Waters Treated......................................................................9 Frequency Of Rotenone Treatments ......................................................................10 Target Species........................................................................................................10 Timing Of Rotenone Treatments ...........................................................................10 Permit Status ..........................................................................................................11

PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................11 TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFL UENT LIMITATIONS..................................................11 Detoxification Of Rote none Treated Waters .........................................................13 SURFACE WATER QUALITY-BASE D EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS .........................14 Water Quality Based Requirements.......................................................................14 Narrative Criteria ...................................................................................................15 Sediment Quality ...................................................................................................16 SEPA Compliance .................................................................................................16 Description of the Receiving Water.......................................................................16 Eligibility and Geographi cal Area of Coverage.....................................................16 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION ......................................................................17 GROUND WATER QUALITY LIMITATIONS..............................................................18 Procedure for Obtaining Approval for th e Discharge of Wastewater Containing Antimycin or Other Products Not Specified In the Current Permit.......................18

OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS .................................................................................................19 MONITORING..................................................................................................................19 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING .........................................................................19 LAB ACCREDITATION ..................................................................................................19 GENERAL CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................20

PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES .........................................................................................20 PERMIT MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................20FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE ........................................................20

REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES........................................................................20

APPENDIX A--PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION....................................................23

APPENDIX B--GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................24

APPENDIX C—WDFW Policy C-3010 .......................................................................................28

APPENDIX D—Schedule of Activities ........................................................................................29

APPENDIX E—RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ..........................................................................31FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 1 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology INTRODUCTION

This fact sheet is a companion document that provides the basis for issuance of the Fisheries Resource Management National Po llutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Individual Permit. The Department of Ecology (the Departme nt) is proposing to issue this permit, which will allow the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to discharge wastes from aquatic pesticide (rotenone) applications, used to manage fish populations in surface waters of the State of Washington, which are also waters of the United States, pursua nt to the provisions of chapters 90.48, 90.52, and 90.54 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) as amended. This f act sheet explains the nature of the proposed discharges, the Department's decisions on limiting the pollutants in the wastewater, and the regulatory and technical ba sis for these decisions.
The Federal Clean Water Act (FCWA, 1972, and later modifications, 1977, 1981, and 1987) established water quality goals for the navigable (s urface) waters of the United States. One of the mechanisms for achieving the goals of th e Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System of permits (NPD ES permits), which is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EP A has delegated responsi bility to administer the NPDES permit program to the State of Washington on the basis of Chapter 90.48 RCW which defines the Department of Ecology's aut hority and obligations in administering the wastewater discharge permit program.
The regulations adopted by the St ate include procedures for is suing permits (Chapter 173-226 WAC), water quality criteria for surface and ground waters (Chapters 173-201A and 200 WAC), and sediment management standards (Chapter 17 3-204 WAC). These regulations require that a permit be issued before discharge of wastewat er to waters of the state is allowed. The regulations also establish the basi s for effluent limitations and ot her requirements which are to be included in the permit. One of the require ments (WAC 173-220-060) for issuing a permit under the NPDES permit program is the preparation of a draft permit and an accompanying fact sheet. Public notice of the availability of the draft perm it is required at least thirty days before the permit is issued (WAC 173-220-050). The fact sh eet and draft permit are available for review (see Appendix A--Public Involvement of the fact sheet for more detail on the Public Notice procedures).
The fact sheet and draft permit have been revi ewed by the Permittee. Errors and omissions identified in this review have been corrected before going to public no tice. After the public comment period closed, the Depart ment summarized the substantive comments and the response to each comment. The summary and response to comments will become part of the file on the permit and parties submitting comments will receive a copy of the Department's response. The fact sheet will not be revised. Comments and the resultant changes to the permit will be summarized in Appendix E--Response to Comments.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 2 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Facility Name and Address Lakes and streams in the State of Washington

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

L EGAL

The Federal Insecticide, Fungici de, and Rodenticide Act of 1979 (FIFRA), as administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requires that all persons who apply pesticides classified as restrict ed use be certified according to the provisions of the act or that they work under the supervision of a certified applicator. Commercial and public applicators must demonstrate a practical knowledge of the prin ciples and practices of pest control and safe use of pesticides, which will be accomplished by means of a "core" examination ( Pesticide Laws & Safety ). In addition, applicators us ing or supervising the use of any restricted use pesticides purposefully applied to standing or running wate r (excluding applicator s engaged in public health related activities) are requi red to pass an additional exam ( Aquatic Pest Control ) to demonstrate competency as described in th e code of federal regulations as follows:

Aquatic applicators shall demonstrate practical knowledge of the secondary effects which can be caused by improper applica tion rates, incorrect formulati ons, and faulty application of restricted pesticides used in this category. They shall demonstrate practical knowledge of various water use situations and the potential of downstream effects. Further, they must have practical knowledge concerning po tential pesticide effects on plants, fish, birds, beneficial insects and other organisms which may be present in aquatic environments. Applicants in this category must demonstrate prac tical knowledge of the principl es of limited area application (40 CFR 171.4).

A March 12, 2001 decision by th e Ninth Circuit Court in Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District found that an applicator should have obta ined coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to application of aquatic pesticides to an irrigation canal in Oregon. The canal discharged water into a creek where a fish kill occurred. The decision addressed residues and ot her products of aquatic pesticides.

Headwaters, Inc. and Oregon Natural Resources Council filed a Clean Wa ter Act citizen suit against the Talent Irrigation Di strict (TID) for applying aquati c herbicide into a system of irrigation canals. Reversing a dist rict court’s opinion, the Ninth Circ uit held that application of the pesticide in compliance with the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not exempt TI D from having to obtain a NPDES permit, and that the irrigation ditches were "waters of th e United States" under the Clean Water Act.

Ecology, as had many other states, had been i ssuing administrative orders (short termFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 3 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology modifications), that were not NPDES permits, th at placed protective c onditions on the use of pesticides in waters of the state. Based upon the Ninth Circuit Court’ s decision, Ecology decided to write NPDES permits for all temporary water quality modifications fo r the application of aquatic pesticides under WAC 173-201A-110(1), including piscic ides used in fisheries management. This individual permit replaces the short term modifications that were previously issued to the Washington Department of Fish a nd Wildlife for the application of pesticides into surface waters of the state for the purpose of managing fish populations in lakes and streams.

R OTENONE U SE I N F ISHERIES M ANAGEMENT

Over the years, fisheries biologists have tried a number of techniques to eliminate nuisance fish from lakes: nets, traps, dynamite, electros hocking, predator stocking, and even complete drainage. But the use of fish poisons has been by far the most widespread; and of these poisons, rotenone is the most commonly used today. In mo st cases, the technique is relatively simple: all the fish in a lake are killed so that sportf ish, usually trout, can then be stocked, free from predatation or competition from other sp ecies (Bradbury 1986, cited in WDW 1992).

Rotenone itself is an alkaloid poison made from the roots of ce rtain South American and Asian plants. Natives in those areas have for centuries killed fish for food by scattering rotenone in ponds and rivers (Bradbury 1986, cited in WDW 1992).

Michigan biologists in the 1930’s were the first to make extens ive use of rotenone for fish management, and it quickly became popular na tionwide (Bradbury 1986, cited in WDW 1992). By 1949, 34 states and several Canadian provin ces were using rotenone routinely for the management of fish populations (Finlayson et al . 2000). The number of states and provinces using rotenone has changed littl e since 1949, but the quantity of ro tenone use has declined during a ten year survey period from 1988-1997 (McClay 2000).

A recent survey of rotenone use (1988-1997) indicat es that the preferred formulation of rotenone appears to have changed. Agencies now appear to be placing a greater emphasis on the use of powdered rotenone, especially for treating standi ng waters. This trend is probably due to reduced costs and improved distribution techniqu es from the powdered formulation, as well as increased environmental and public health concerns for the inert ingredients contained in liquid formulations. Although liquid formulations have proven safe for use, according to EPA FIFRA evaluations, some agencies have found it more di fficult to plan and execute treatments using these formulations because of the demands for environmental monitoring studies not normally required for projects that utilize the powder formulation (McClay 2000).

R OTENONE U SE B Y T HE W ASHINGTON D EPARTMENT O F F ISH A ND W ILDLIFE

This section was adapted from the following documents:

Washington Department of Wildlife - Fi nal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), Lake and Stream Rehabilitation, 1992-1993, Report #92-14.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 4 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), Lake and Stream Rehabilitation: Rotenone Use and Health Risks, January, 2002.

To satisfy the annual demand for productive freshw ater fishing, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stocks selected waters with trout fr om hatcheries and transp lanted bass, crappie, walleye, and additional warmwater fish species from other waters . Many waters are managed for specific fisheries, such as trout -only or warmwater species. The management emphasis for state waters is decided according to habitat parameters, public desi res, recreational demands, and previous management efforts. Occasionally, th ese waters become overpopulated with fish species outside this management emphasis. This often results in increased predation and/or competition, hence poor growth and survival, of targeted game fish. If carp overpopulate, fish survival decreases and nesting bird habitat is degraded due to siltation and uprooting of emergent vegetation. Infestations of these fish species occur through migration from other waters or through illegal transport and introductions. Thre e management options are available if this happens:

1) Take no action; 2) Change the management emphasis for the water; 3) Eliminate competing species and st ock with desired gamefish species.

Option 1 will result in an increase in numbers of fish outside the management emphasis to a point where the water no longer supp orts a viable gamefish fishery.

Option 2 allows for a viable fishery, but is rela tively costly. For example, to establish a trout fishery, the cost of producing finge rling trout in a state hatchery is about 25% of the cost of a legal-sized trout (Washington Department of Fi sh and Wildlife, 1983). Even though fry survival is lower when compared to legals, they can still be more economical in some cases. Furthermore, legal-sized trout are considered a lower quality fish than naturally-reared fry-origin trout, and are usually smaller as well.

Option 3 is the preferred or most ef ficient alternative that allows th e lake to continue to provide a viable fishery. Rotenone is the method currently us ed by WDFW to eliminate fish in lakes and is far more economical than either options l or 2 above. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (1984) compared the costs of three di fferent management strategies for a typical lowland trout lake in western Wash ington (Lake Erie, Skagit County).

These options were:

1) trout-only lake maintained by fry st ocking and periodic rotenone treatment; 2) mixed-species lake maintained by trout fry stocking (no rotenone); and 3) mixed species lake maintained by le gal-sized trout stocking (no rotenone).

The cost of Option 3 was about one-fourth the cost of either Option 1 or 2. Also note that option 2 is not likely to be a viable alternative in many lakes for the reasons already discussed.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 5 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology R ESTORATION O F N ATIVE F ISH H ABITAT

WDFW has successfully used rote none treatment to eliminate ill egally planted, non-native fish (e.g. northern pike) from lakes were they have been shown to negatively impact native fish populations (e.g. coho salmon) by completing for f ood and space, and in some cases actually using native fish as forage. Il legally planted fish populations c ould also serve as a source for additional illegal plants into other lakes.

E VALUATION O F A VAILABLE F ISH C ONTROL O PTIONS

The WDFW Supplemental Environmental Impact St atement – Lake and Stream Rehabilitations 1992 identifies and evaluates all ava ilable control methods for targeted pest (fish) species. These options include the use of fish toxicants (piscicides); predator/competitor stocking; and mechanical means, such as water level draw down, netting and trapping, dams and barriers, electrofishing, and removing congreg ations of spawning fish. Thes e options are evaluated in the FSEIS and are summarized as follows:

1. Fish Toxicants. Two fish toxicants (piscici des) are available, rotenone and Antimycin. Rotenone is regarded as safer and less pe rsistent than Antimycin when used to rehabilitate lakes. 2. Predator stocking. The use of apex predators (e.g. tiger mus ky) as pest control is now being used on an experimental basis in so me systems with mixed species management goals with varying degrees of success. Large apex predators also eat trout and are not the most effective option in “tro ut only” managed waters. 3. Mechanical means.

a. Water level drawdowns: Very few lakes have water level control facilities. Accordingly, this is not regarded as an effective option. b. Lakewide netting and trapping: There are some accounts where this method has been shown to be effective. Most atte mpts using commercial fishing gear have failed because they are extremely labor inte nsive and therefore not cost effective.

c. Dams and barriers: This method prohib its the migration of undesirable spawning fish to their spawning grounds. This met hod has little practical value since most of the target species are lake spawners. d. Electrofishing: This method has never b een successful as a long term control measure for the same reasons that netting and trapping fail typically.

e. Removing congregations of spawning fish: There are several accounts of success with this method. Adult fish are allowe d to congregate in spawning areas which are subsequently blocked off. The fi sh are then poisoned, electroshocked or netted. However, to actually effectiv ely control an undesirable fish population, this technique must be repeated annually. This method is rarely appropriate, since most of the species targeted by WDFW spawn lake-wide or over broad areas of the lake rather than congregating in any one section of the water.

In a letter to the Department, dated Nove mber 6, 2001, the WDFW Resident/Native Fish Program Manager provided a comparison of av ailable fish control methods (Table 1).FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 6 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology Table 1: Comparison of fish control methods

Criteria Fish Toxicants (rotenone) Predator / Competitor Mechanical

Impact on aquatic environment Moderate – short term. Total detoxification through natural breakdown takes place normally within 5 weeks (Finlayson et al. 2000) Moderate – long
term Moderate – short
term

Ability to
meet water quality standards Excellent – Concentrations of rotenone for proposed work is not toxic to humans (Finlayson et al. 2000) Good - immediate Good - variable

Effectiveness for goal Excellent – Good Low Low – moderate

Cost effectiveness It has been estimated that for every dollar spent on rotenone and trout stocking, anglers gained between $32 - $105 worth of fishing Moderate High Cost – low
return

Suitability for treatment sites Suitable for most sites Suitable for most sites Suitable for very few sites

Protection for human health

concerns Human health concerns can be adequately addressed by following label restrictions and safety procedures No human health

concerns No human health

concerns

Response to
emergency Can be adequately addressed No emergency
response necessary Human health concerns can be adequately addressed

Based upon previous criteria table, rotenone is WDFW’s preferred option to control undesirable fish species in managed waters (WDFW 2001).

W ILDLIFE M ANAGEMENT

Lakes are also rehabilitated by the WDFW to improve the quality of waterfowl habitat. The primary objective is to remove carp or other competitive species from potentially productive nesting and rearing duck habita t to increase the amount of fo od (aquatic invertebrates) and vegetative cover. Candidate waters ar e primarily one to three feet deep.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 7 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology WDFW L AKE A ND S TREAM R EHABILITATION P ROCEDURES

WDFW Policy POL-C3010 Lake and Stream Reha bilitation authorizes th e use of rotenone to conduct lake and stream rehabilita tion activities. This policy statement identifies the various roles and actions of WDFW staff involved in the rehabilitation program including relevant deadlines (Appendix C).

“Schedule of Activities – Lake Rehabilitation Program” is an internal WDFW document that summarizes the general timeline involved in the lake rehabilitati on program including the schedule of planning, public no tification, approval, treatment and post-rehabilitation reporting (Appendix D).

P RE -T REATMENT P ROCEDURES

A lake or stream is selected for rotenone trea tment when a viable fishery can only be provided with introductions of legal-sized fish. Thes e determinations are made by the WDFW Area Fisheries Biologist directly char ged with managing the lake's game fish. Standard indicators of fishery performance are the average catch per hour on opening day, fish sizes and abundance from annual pre-season surveys. When poor performance is coupled with gillnet and/or electroshocking data showing an increase in speci es outside the management emphasis, the Area Biologist may recommend treatment of the wate r to his supervisor, the Regional Fisheries Program Manager.

A Pre-Rehabilitation Plan containing vital information on the proposed treatment must be completed by the Area Fish Biologist.

In calculating the dosage of rotenone needed, the biologist considers a variety of physical and biological factors, the most important being target species, wa ter chemistry, past successes or failures in the lake and presence of weedy shorelines.

The rotenone product label contai ns application directions, in cluding a table with various application rates for lakes and ponds. Sin ce these application rates are based upon a concentration of 5% active rotenone, adjust ments are required because the powder used by WDFW rarely contains only 5% active rotenone. To ensure co rrect application rates, each shipment is chemically assayed by the supplier fo r rotenone content. Powder formulations used in recent years has assayed betw een 7% and 8% active rotenone. This permit requires WDFW to follow all label requirements, including a maximu m application rate of 0.25 parts per million (ppm) active rotenone for lake treatments. Info rmation regarding specific treatments will be submitted to the Department in an annual report, including the quantity and concentration of rotenone applied to each body of water and the ch emical assay performed by the supplier.

The Regional Fisheries Program Manager presents his list of proposed tr eatments along with justifications for each water body to the Fisheries Management Di vision of WDFW. Approval at this stage may depend not only on the validity of the biological justif ications, but on otherFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 8 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology considerations such as the la ke's public use and its importan ce as a recreational fishery, and finally the availability of rotenone. Statewide pr iorities are established, and a list of candidate lakes developed.

After developing a list of candidate lakes, the public is notified through a general news release, usually in early summer. Ar ea Fish Biologists also solicit public opinion from lakeshore residents and other groups in the area. Public m eetings are held in the vicinity of the waters proposed for treatment prior to a final decision. A final list of candidate lakes is issued for public review in the counties where the lakes ar e located as an addendum to the 1992 FSEIS to meet State Environmental Policy Act requirements.

The WDFW Director presented with the list of ca ndidate lakes for agency approval. Even with the Director’s approval, there is still a chance that a lake may not be treated if all the pretreatment steps such as outlet detoxification an d/or water control (e.g. diking or damming) have not been completed or other conditions have changed at the intended time of treatment.

Fishing regulations are liberalized, when possibl e, by emergency regulation to utilize fish in waters scheduled for rehabilita tion. Warmwater game fish, usually mature bass, are collected (depending on need) prior to rehabilitation, to be utilized as broodstock for waters nearby which are managed for warmwater fisheries. On some la kes, bass that have floated to the surface have been netted by WDFW employees and bass cl ub volunteers, revived by dipping the fish in potassium permanganate, and moved to mixed-species or spiny ray lakes to augment or start a population (Fletcher 1976, cited in WDW 1992). WDFW typica lly transplants 200-300 fish from a single lake during this type of procedure (WDW 1992).

T REATMENT P ROCEDURES

In keeping with EPA’s 1993 cha nges to the rotenone product labe l, WDFW has modified their rotenone application procedure to reduce applicator and publi c exposure to rotenone (WDFW 2002). The changes to reduce exposure are identi fied as the preferred alternative and are summarized in the FSEIS 2002 as follows:

The supervisor of the application project wi ll be charged with ensuring that all label requirements are followed and all safety requirements are met. The application procedure for powdered rotenone product will be changed to a method pioneered by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, see be low. Additionally, Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPR) will be adopted for use by the applicator crews and support staff. Procedures will also be adopted as they ar e developed by the Washington Department of Ecology in WDFW’s pretreatment proce ss to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requireme nts, see below. NPDES permits are now required for all pesticide applications that are to or will affect state waters.

The new rotenone application method, pioneered by the Utah State Department of Natural Resources – Division of Wildlife Resources involv es mixing powdered rotenone into slurry. The Utah application method involves using a pump a nd aspirator to vacuum rotenone powder from standard packaging to mix with lake water a nd apply the mixture. Standard packaging forFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 9 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology powdered rotenone is a sealed, heavy gauge, remova ble plastic liner inside hermetically sealed, pressed fiber 50 kilogram drums. The powder and water are combined inside the aspirator chamber forming a slurry. The slurry is discha rged directly on to th e reservoir surface or delivered into barge tanks from the aspirator nozzle (Thompson et al. 2001). For a detailed description of the application procedure, refer to “Utah’s Procedure for Mixing Powdered Rotenone into a Slurry” by Thompson et al 2001, published by the American Fisheries Society.

R OTENONE S AFETY P ROCEDURES

WDFW’s human health and safety procedures ar e summarized in a WDFW internal memo, dated February 3, 2001. This memo is included in WDFW’s 2002 FSEIS as Appendix C.

P OST -T REATMENT P ROCEDURES

In lakes with a stream outlet, runoff from the la ke must be controlled or detoxified. In some cases, the runoff is small enough that it can be dammed off (using sandbags, for example) until the rotenone is naturally degraded. When this is not possible, and oxidizing agent – usually potassium permanganate – is dripped into the outle t stream to detoxify the rotenone before it can harm fish and invertebrates downstream. Between 1977 and 1984 such detoxification was necessary in only 16% of the lakes treated. Pfei fer (1985) provides a detailed account of outlet detoxification procedures, includ ing dosage/detoxification curves and case histories in Martha and Silver Lakes, Snohomish County (WDW 1992).

Rotenone degrades naturally in a few days to ei ght weeks at the most in lowland lakes, and somewhat longer in sub-alpine or alpine lake s (WDFW 2002). At intervals following treatment, WDFW Area Biologists usually perform a simple bioassay to determine how long the lake remains toxic to fish: hatchery rainbow trout are commonly suspended in the water column in wire cages and when these fish survive 1-6 days in the lake, it is considered nontoxic (WDW 1992).

The biologist submits a Post-Rehabilitation Fo rm for each treated water; it describes, among other things, the possibility of a complete kill, water condi tions at the time of treatment, and any detoxification measures taken (WDW 1992).

Fish are restocked the following spring. During the post-treatment years, the Area Biologist continues to monitor fish surviv al and growth, as well as catc h rates for the water (WDW 1992).

N UMBER A ND S IZE O F W ATERS T REATED

The first rotenone treatment in Washington St ate took place in September, 1940 on King Lake (Pend Oreille County). Since that time 503 state waters have b een treated at least once. The chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide toxaphene was occasionally used instead of rotenone; its useFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 10 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology was discontinued in the late 1960's, and since then, rotenone has been the only fish poison applied in Washington State.

Almost all treatments have occurred in lake s and ponds, with only occasional stream or slough treatments. Waters treated since 1940 represent 6.1% of the total surface acreage of all lakes below 2,500 feet elevation in the state (WDFW 2002).

F REQUENCY O F R OTENONE T REATMENTS

Rotenone rarely if ever kills al l the fish in a lake. Problem species often repopulate the lake naturally over the course of time. Occasionally, some fish may avoid lethal c oncentrations of rotenone by taking refuge near unde rwater springs or freshwater inlets. In addition, problem species are often reintroduced il legally by anglers or lakeside re sidents. These may be the same species that originally degraded the targeted fi shery, or new ones. The ne t result of any of these cases is the same: trout production will eventua lly decline, and the lake may have to be rehabilitated again.

Of 503 Washington State lakes that have been treated, 283 (55%) ha ve been treated more than once. The average length of time between tr eatments has been 7.74 years (WDFW 2002).

T ARGET S PECIES

In the eastern half of the state pumpkinseed sunf ish was most frequently targeted for elimination, in the western half of the state yellow perch was most frequently targete d. Other important target species statewide include carp, crappie, brown bu llhead (catfish), and largemouth bass. All are introduced, non-native species.

A particular lake may experience recurring problems with the same ta rget species over the course of many years. Often, however, th e target species on frequently-r otenoned lakes changes over the years. This is often the case in "urban" lake s which are frequent targets for illegal fish introductions.

T IMING O F R OTENONE T REATMENTS

Seventy-eight percent of rotenone treatments in th e state have taken place in the fall, mostly in September and October. Only 22% have been sp ring treatments, and these occurred mostly in March. All spring treatments were on eastern Washington lakes.

Rotenone is usually applied in the fall because wa ter levels are low, aquatic vegetation is sparse, recreational use of the lake is reduced and since most lakes su mmer thermal stratification has ended (allowing rotenone to circ ulate throughout the water column). Fall treatments are also desirable when early Spring spawners are target ed (e.g. perch). Spring rotenone treatments are occasionally performed on certain lakes with ex tensive shallow or weedy areas; higher waterFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 11 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology levels in the spring make these areas more acces sible by boat. Where irrigation water storage affects water level, early spring is the pe riod of lowest water level and flow.

P ERMIT S TATUS This is a previously unpermitted activity unde r the NPDES program. A permit application was submitted to the Department on April 5, 2002 and accepted by the Department on April 5, 2002.

PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS

Federal and State regulations requ ire that effluent limitations set forth in a NPDES permit must be either technology- or wate r quality-based. Technology-based limitations are based upon the treatment methods available to treat specific pollutants. Tec hnology-based limitations are set by regulation or developed on a case-by-case basis (40 CFR 125 .3, and Chapter 173-220 WAC). Water quality-based limitations are based upon compliance with the Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), Sediment Quality Standards (Chapter 173-204 WA C) or the National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992). The more stringent of these two limits must be chosen for each of the parameters of concern. Each of th ese types of limits is described in more detail below.
The limits in this permit are based in part on information received in the application. The effluent constituents in the application were ev aluated on a technology- and water quality-basis. The limits necessary to meet the rules and re gulations of the State of Washington were determined and included in this permit. Ec ology does not develop effluent limits for all pollutants that may be reported on the a pplication as presen t in the effluent

. Some pollutants are not treatable at the conc entrations reported, are not controllab le at the source, are not listed in regulation, and do not have a reasonable pot ential to cause a wa ter quality violation

. Effluent limits are not always developed for pollutants that may be in the discharge but not reported as present in the applicatio n. In those circumstances the permit does not authorize discharge of the non-reported pollutants. Effluent discharge cond itions may change from the conditions reported in the permit application. If si gnificant changes occur in any cons tituent, as described in 40 CFR 122.42(a), the Permittee is required to notify the Department of Ecology. The Permittee may be in violation of the permit until the permit is modifi ed to reflect additional discharge of pollutants.

TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Federa l Water Pollution C ontrol Act (FWPCA) established discharge standards, prohibitions, and limits based on pollution control technologies. These technology-based limits are "best practica l control technology" (BPT), "best available technology economically achievable" (BAT), and "best conventional pollutant control technology economically achievable" (BCT). T echnology-based effluent limits may be taken from the federal effluent guidelines or develo ped on a case-by-case basi s, otherwise known asFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 12 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology Best Profession Judgement (BPJ). BPJ limits ma y be numerical limits or Best Management Practices (BMP’s).

The State has similar technology-based requirement for pollutant contro l described as: "all known, available and reasonable methods of c ontrol, prevention, and treatment" (AKART) methods. AKART is referred to in State law under RC W 90.48.010, RCW 90.48.520, 90.52.040 and RCW 90.54.020. The Federal technology-based limits and AKART are similar but not equivalent. AKART may be mo re stringent than Federal regulations and may include requirements which are in state regulation.

The pesticide application industry has been re gulated by EPA under the terms of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rode nticide Act of 1979 (FIFRA), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Titles 40 and 21, and other state and fede ral laws and rules. The product label use requirements were developed by EPA in accordan ce with FIFRA and CFR. EPA requires the pesticide manufacturer to register each pestic ide and provide evidence that the pesticide will work as promised and that environmental harm will be minimized. The standards for environmental protection are different betw een the Clean Water Act (CWA) and FIFRA, however this permit specifies that the permittee must meet label requirements and applicable state and federal laws and rule s regarding pesticide use.

Although WDFW has provided the Department with a list of several formulated rotenone products registered with the EPA, only two forms of powdered rotenone (Prentox ® PrenfishTM Fish Toxicant Powder and Peru Cube Powder ® ), and two forms of liquid rotenone (Prentox ® PrenfishTM Toxicant and Noxfish ® Fish Toxicant) are currently registered by the Washington State Department of Agricult ure (WSDA). If other rotenone piscicide products become registered with WSDA, they are also covered under this permit.

According to the Material Safety Data Sheet s (MSDS) provided by WDFW, the liquid rotenone product Prentox ® PrenfishTM Toxicant contains 80% in ert ingredients, including aromatic petroleum solvents (naphthalene, trimethylbenzen e, and acetone). These chemicals are not found in powdered rotenone formulations.

The permit will restrict the use of liquid rotenone (e.g. Prentox ® PrenfishTM Toxicant) for the following reasons:

1. Human health concerns. According to EPA’s IRIS databa se, benzene is classified as a “known” human carcinogen for all routes of exposure based upon convincing human evidence as well as supporting evidence from animal studies. (U.S. EPA, 1979, 1985, 1998; ATSDR, 1977). 2. Air quality concerns. VOCs contained in liquid form ulations could cause air quality problems, especially in urban areas cla ssified as non-attainment zones. 3. Alternative formulations exist. When compared to liquid rotenone, powdered rotenone applied using the Utah method, is effective in meeting fish control objectives.

The permit will require that the use of liquid rote none products be limited to spot applications in areas that are not practicably accessible by boat, such as marshy areas. Open water areas onFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 13 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology lakes that are accessible by boat must be treated with powdered rotenone formulations, mixed with water, and applied using a method pioneer ed by the Utah State Department of Natural Resources – Division of Wildlife Resources. This method involves mixing powdered rotenone with lake water, using specialized equipment, to fo rm a slurry that is applied to the surface of the
water.

D ETOXIFICATION O F R OTENONE T REATED W ATERS

WDFW typically only treats “clo sed basin” lakes that do not discharge. However, when rotenone treated waters may discharge and thre aten aquatic life out side the area, rapid detoxification is required. Si nce 1992, such detoxification has been necessary in 3.6% of the lakes treated in Washington (WDFW 2002).

Potassium permanganate (KMnO 4 ) is the chemical most often used to quickly neutralize (oxidize) rotenone formulations (WDFW 2002; Finl ayson, et al. 2000). The rotenone label also allows the use of chlorine for neutralization, but its use is not proposed by WDFW at this time. Rotenone degrades naturally within one to eigh t weeks depending on pH, alkalinity, temperature, and dilution with untreated wa ter (Schnick 1974, cited in WDFW 2002). Rotenone toxicity can last longer in more sterile sub- alpine or alpine lakes. Pota ssium permanganate is seldom required for use by WDFW. Rotenone treatment timing is selected so that periods of very low of no flow are the case during the time that treated wa ter remains toxic. Very low outlet flow is a requirement to insure that the outlet flow can be neutralized for the peri od that outflow would be toxic. Potassium permanganate ca n be applied by two methods. Th e crystals can be dissolved in water and the solution dripped or the crystalline chemical can be metered into the receiving water. Archer (2001) found that the free flowing crystalline form used in potable water treatment plant applications was the best product to use for dri pping the crystalline form. He stated the ease of controlling app lication rates as the advantage. The procedure to determine the amount of potassium permanganate required is found in the American Fisheries Society Rotenone Use in Fishery Management manual (F inlayson, et al. 2000) an d in Archer (2001).

This permit requires that treated waters be effect ively neutralized and deto xified using potassium permanganate so that water quality standards are not exceeded below the neutralization zone. For purposes of this permit, neutralization zone is defined as the downstream waters where potassium permanganate has been applied but has not yet fully neutralized the rotenone, due to the lag time normally associated with detoxifi cation. The neutralizati on zone is typically considered the distance that water would be expe cted to travel in 20 mi nutes (Finlayson et al. 2000; Horton 1997). Since the neutralization zone may contain toxic levels of rotenone and potassium permanganate, some fish mortalitie s may be expected within this zone.

Since potassium permanganate its elf may be toxic to non-targeted organisms at 2 ppm (Marking and Bills 1975, cited in Archer 2001), detoxi fication procedures must utilize calibrated equipment to achieve the minimum effective co ncentration of potassium permanganate to oxidize the rotenone within the neutralization zo ne. Below the neutralization zone, rotenone must be totally neutralized and residual potassium permanganate levels maintained at a non-toxic level of 1 mg/L, not to exceed 2 mg/L (Finlayson et al, 2001). Detoxification is most effectiveFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 14 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology against rotenone concentrations up to about 1 ppm of 5% formulati on and detoxification is nearly impossible at rates greater than 3.2 ppm (Horton 1997). In situations where detoxification is required, rotenone applications should not exceed the minimum amount required to kill the target species.

Potassium permanganate concentrations must be closely monitored us ing a field calibrated spectrophotometer to keep residual permanganate levels at a level that effectively neutralizes rotenone while preventing damage to aquati c life downstream of th e treatment area and neutralization zone.

SURFACE WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
In order to protect existing water quality and preserve the designated beneficial uses of Washington's surface waters, WAC 173-201A-060 stat es that waste discharge permits shall be conditioned such that the discharge will meet es tablished Surface Water Quality Standards. The Washington State Surface Water Quality Sta ndards (Chapter 173-201A WAC) is a state regulation designed to protect the beneficial uses of the surface waters of the state. Surface water quality-based effluent limitations may be based on an individual waste load allocation (WLA) or on a WLA developed during a basin wide total maximum daily loading study (TMDL).

W ATER Q UALITY B ASED R EQUIREMENTS

The use of rotenone to rehabilita te lakes and streams affects surf ace waters of the State. These waters are protected by chapte r 173-201A WAC, Water Quality St andards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. The purpose of these st andards is to establish the highest quality of State waters, through the reduction or elimination of contaminant disc harges to the waters of the State, consistent with: public health; public enjoyment; the propagation and protection of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; and existing and future beneficial uses. This purpose is reached, in part, by compliance with the limitations, terms and cond itions of this wastewater discharge permit.

The lake and stream rehabilitati on activities which discharge, dire ctly or indirect ly, to surface waters shall be required to meet the State wa ter quality standards for Class AA and Class A surface waters as given in chapter 173-201A WAC. The characteristic beneficial uses of Class AA and A surface waters include, but are not lim ited to, the following: domestic, industrial and agricultural water supply; stoc k watering; the spawning, reari ng, migration and harvesting of fish; the spawning, rearing and ha rvesting of shellfish; wildlife habitat; recreation (primary contact, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic enjoyment of na ture); commerce and navigation.

RCW 90.48.035 authorizes establishmen t of water quality standards fo r waters of the State. The State has implemented water quality standards in chapter 173-201A WAC. All waste discharge permits issued pursuant to NPDES or State Wastewater Discharge (SWD) regulations are conditioned in such a manner that all authorized discharges shall meet State water qualityFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 15 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology standards. Standards include an "antidegradation" policy which stat es that beneficial uses shall be protected.

N ARRATIVE C RITERIA

In addition to numerical criter ia, "narrative" water quality criteria (WAC 173-201A-030) limit toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material concentrations below t hose which have the potential to adversely affect characteristic water uses, cause acute or chronic toxici ty to biota, impair aesthetic values, or adversely affect human heal th. Narrative criteria protect the specific beneficial uses of all fresh (WAC 173-201A- 130) and marine (WAC 173-201A-140) waters in the State of Washington.

The Department has determined that, when properl y applied and handled in accordance with the terms and conditions of the individual permit, la ke and stream rehabili tation activities will comply with State water quality standards, will maintain and protect the existing characteristic beneficial uses of the surface waters of th e State, and will protect human health. New information regarding previously unknown envi ronmental and human health risks may cause reopening of the individual permit.

No mixing or dilution zone shall be authorized to the Permittee for any discharge to surface waters under this individual permit. The short term water quality modification provisions of the permit will allow the discharges authorized by the individual permit to cause a temporary diminishment of some benefici al uses while the water body is altered to improve recreational fishing opportunities, public enjoym ent and in some cases for nativ e fish restoration. The short term modification will be short in that the actua l impairment will be short lived, while the overall availability of authorization extend s through the term of the permit.

The activities authorized by this individual permit do not have a reasonable potential to cause a violation of state water quality standards (WAC 173-201A) so long as th e activities are carried out under the short term water qua lity modification. The water qua lity modification provides for an exception to meeting certain provisions of th e state water quality standards such as meeting all beneficial uses all the time. Activities c overed under this permit are allocated a temporary zone of impact on beneficial uses, but the impa ct must be transient, and must allow for full restoration of water quality and protection of beneficial uses upon pr oject completion. The conditions of this permit constitute the requirement s of a short term water quality modification.

Washington’s water quality standards now include 91 numeric health-based criteria that must be considered in NPDES permits. These criteria we re promulgated for the state by the U.S. EPA in its National Toxics Rule (Federal Regist er, Volume 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992).

The permit does not shield for inert ingredients or adjuvants for which the chemical composition has not been disclosed to Ecology.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 16 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology S EDIMENT Q UALITY

The Department has promulgated aquatic sediment standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC) to protect aquatic biota and human health. These standa rds state that the Department may require Permittees to evaluate the potential for the discha rge to cause a violation of applicable standards (WAC 173-204-400).

The Department has determined through a review of the discharger char acteristics and effluent characteristics that this discharge has no reasonable potential to violate the Sediment Management Standards.

SEPA C OMPLIANCE

Rotenone use related to fish management ac tivities has undergone environmental impact evaluations by WDFW in 1992 and 2002. The use of pesticides is conditioned to mitigate environmental impacts of concern noted in th ese evaluations. This individual permit will undergo SEPA. The conditions of this permit s hould satisfy any water quality related SEPA

concerns.

For each lake proposed for rehabilitation, WDFW provides public announcements including local newspaper, internet / web site informati on, and news releases. WDFW also conducts local public meetings to solicit public input regarding each proposed treatment. All lakes proposed for treatment are included in an annual addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) - Lake and Stream Rehabilitati ons. The FSEIS is subject to a 30 day public comment period. The annual SEPA process must be completed prior to conducting lake or stream rehabilitation activities

D ESCRIPTION OF THE R ECEIVING W ATER

Although the permit is valid for lakes and st reams throughout Washingt on, WDFW typically treats only lowland lakes with clos ed basins or no outlet stream. If an outlet stream is present it will be properly detoxified with potassium permanganate using approved methods.

E LIGIBILITY AND G EOGRAPHICAL A REA OF C OVERAGE

For the purposes of the individual permit, the fish control activities for which the permit is valid includes surface waters of the enti re State. All lakes proposed fo r treatment are included in an annual addendum to WDFW’s Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on Lake and Stream Rehabilitation.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 17 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION

The proposed wastewater discharge is ch aracterized for the following parameters:

Table 2: Wastewater Characterization – Powdered Rotenone Formulations

Product Name Application Rate Active Ingredient Concentration in Treated Waters Prentox ® PrenfishTM Fish Toxicant Powder or Peru Cube Powder ® Application rates on label range from 0.10 - 5 ppm (based upon 5% active rotenone). 0.005 – 0.25 ppm

Potassium Permanganate (if neutralization is required) Variable application rate depending on concentration of rotenone, total alkalinity, and organic demand. Application rates will be calculated and applied in accordance with “Rotenone Neutralization Methods” by Archer (2001). Variable concentration in the rotenone neutralization zone, based upon formulas in Archer (2001). Below, the neutralization zone, the concentration will not exceed 1 ppm.

Table 3: Wastewater Characterizati on – Liquid Rotenone Formulation

Product Name Application Rate Active Ingredient Concentration in Treated Waters Prentox ® PrenfishTM Toxicant 1 Application rates on label range from 0.10 - 5 ppm (based upon 5% active rotenone) 0.005 – 0.25 ppm active
rotenone

Potassium Permanganate (if neutralization is required) Variable application rate depending on concentration of rotenone, total alkalinity, and organic demand. Application rates will be calculated and applied in accordance with “Rotenone Neutralization Methods” by Archer (2001). Variable concentration in the rotenone neutralization zone, based upon formulas in Archer (2001). Below, the neutralization zone, the concentration will not exceed 1 ppm.
1 Inert ingredients include aromatic petroleum solvent, not to exceed 80% (9.9% naphthalene, 1.7% 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and 7.5% acetone (M aterial Safety Data Sheet, U.S. Dept. of Labor)

The permit does not shield for inerts or adjuvants for which the chemical composition has not been disclosed to the Department of Ecology.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 18 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology GROUND WATER QUALITY LIMITATIONS
The ability of rotenone to move through soil is low to slight. Rotenone moves only 2 cm through most types of soils. An exception would be in sandy soils where the movement is about 8 cm. Rotenone is bound strongly to organic matter in so il so it is unlikely that rotenone would enter groundwater (Finlayson et al . 2000, Dawson et al. 1991).
California Department of Fish and Game has m onitored rotenone applications for 15 years and has concluded that toxicity and other effects can be confined to the treatment and neutralization areas and ground waters were not cont aminated (Finlayson et al. 2001).
The Department has promulgated Ground Water Qu ality Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC) to protect beneficial uses of ground water. Permits issued by the Department shall be conditioned in such a manner so as not to allow viola tions of those standa rds (WAC 173-200-100).
This Permittee has no discharge to ground and therefore no limitations are required based on potential effects to ground water.

Procedure for Obtaining Approval for the Disc harge of Wastewater Containing Antimycin or Other Products Not Specified In the Current Permit

Antimycin-A, registered as Fintrol, is the only ot her piscicide that is registered with the EPA for general use in the United States (Finlayson et al. 2000). According to the PICOL database (Washington State University), Fintrol Con centrate - Antimycin A (EPA No. 39096-2) is presently registered for use as a fish toxicant in Washington. Antimycin, when used in proper concentration, is less harmful than the recommen ded killing concentration of rotenone to aquatic animals other than fish (U.S. Dept. of Interior 2000). Antimycin use is the only control method, other than dewatering, that is cap able of complete eradication of fish populations. It also controls all post-embryonic life stages and can be selective by fish sp ecies (Finlayson et al. 2000). This permit requires WDFW to complete the SEPA process for Antimycin by June 1, 2005. Based upon the information gathered duri ng the SEPA review, Ecology may modify the permit to authorize the use of Antimycin for cer tain types of management activities, such as native fish restoration in streams.

In addition, WDFW may propose th e use of piscicide products other than rotenone, once the SEPA process is completed for the product. Based upon the outcome of the SEPA review process, Ecology will decide if the permit should be modified to allow use of the new product. If modified, Best Management Practices (BMPs) may be established to prevent or minimize environmental impacts associated with pesticide applications.

Other herbicides may be applied on a limited basis in the context of a research and development effort under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Departme nt of Agriculture (WSDA) through the issuance of a Washi ngton State Experimental Use Permit (WSEUP). A WSEUP is required for all experiments involvi ng pesticides that are not fede rally registered or uses not allowed on the federally register ed pesticide label. Limited amounts of an experimental use pesticide may only be distributed or used for testing purposes after a written permit has beenFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 19 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology obtained from WSDA for pur poses which include gathering data in support of registration under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodentic ide Act (FIFRA) Section (3) or Section 24(c). In most situations only a state WSEUP is require d for the use of an experimental pesticide. A federal EUP is required when a small-scale testwill be conducted on a cumulative total of more than 10 acres of land per pest on terrestrial sites or on more than one surface acre of water per pest. When testing for more than one target pe st at the same time and in the same locality, the 10-acre limitation shall encompass all of the target pests. Any person may apply to the EPA for a federal experimental use permit for pesticides , which are usually valid for only one year. Applicants holding a valid federal experimental use permit must also apply for and be granted a state experimental use permit before initiati ng any shipment or use of the pesticide in Washington. All other conditions of this permit apply as to appropriate monitoring and public notification procedures.

OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS

MONITORING

The WDFW will conduct monitoring to determine the extent and duration of the short-term water quality reduction resulting from rotenone app lications. Monitoring will be adequate to determine if non-target organisms downstream from the treatment area have been adversely impacted by the treatment.

Monitoring of residual pesticides and or oxi dizers (e.g. potassium permanganate) may be required to confirm assumptions of safety when applications are performed in compliance with the FIFRA label. The intent is to gather information to confirm the assumptions of persistence and toxicity relative to th e rate of application. This informa tion may better define the period of temporary diminishment of beneficial uses.

The concentration of powdered rotenone products may vary by lot (Finlayson et al. 2000). The rotenone supplier analyzes each lot to determine the concentration of active rotenone. This assay is used by WDFW to adjust the application rate stated on the label, wh ich contains a general guide that is based upon 5% product. The concen tration of active roteno ne in the formulation used must be reported to the Department in annual Post Treatment Reports.

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING

The conditions of S3. are based on the author ity to specify any appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements to prevent and control waste discharges (WAC 173-226-090).

LAB ACCREDITATIONFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 20 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology With the exception of certain parameters the permit requires all monitoring data to be prepared by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of Chapter 173-50 WAC, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories

.

GENERAL CONDITIONS
General Conditions are based directly on state an d federal law and regulations and have been standardized for all individual industrial NPDES permits issued by the Department.

PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES

PERMIT MODIFICATIONS

The Department may modify this permit to impo se new or modified numerical limitations, if necessary to meet Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters, Sediment Quality Standards, or Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters, base d on new information obtained from sources such as inspections, effluent monitoring, SEPA review, or Department approved engineering reports.

The Department may also modify this permit as a result of new or am ended state or federal regulations.

RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
This proposed permit meets all st atutory requirements for author izing a wastewater discharge, including those limitations and conditions believe d necessary to control toxics, protect human health, aquatic life, and the be neficial uses of waters of the State of Washington. The Department proposes that this proposed permit be issued for five (5) years.

REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES

Archer, D.L. 2001. Rotenone neutralization met hods. Paper presented at American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Augus t 20-24, 2000, St. Louis, Missouri.
Bradbury, W.A., and R.L. Pfeifer. 1986. Fisherie s investigations of Lakes Washington and Sammamish, 1980-1983. Final Report, Part 6: a survey of public attitudes towards the fisheries of Lakes Washingt on and Sammamish. Cited in Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Final – Supplemental environmen tal impact statement: lake and stream rehabilitations, 1992-1993. WDW, Habitat and Fisheries Management Divisions, Report 92- 14, Olympia, WA.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 21 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology Dawson, V.K., W.H. Gingerich, R. A. Davis, and P.A. Gilderhus. 1991. Rotenone persistence in freshwater ponds: effects of temperatur e and sediment adsorption. Pages 37-54 in Finlayson , B.J., S. Siepman, and J. Trum bo. 2001. Chemical residues in surface and ground waters following rotenone applications in California lakes and streams. Paper presented at American Fisheries Societ y Annual Meeting, August 20-24, 2000, St. Louis, Missouri
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

1992. National Toxics Rule. Federal Register, V. 57, N o. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992.
1991. Technical Support Document for Wa ter Quality-based Toxics Control . EPA/505/2- 90-001.
1988. Technical Guidance on Supplementary St ream Design Conditions for Steady State Modeling . USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water . EPA/600/6-85/002a.
1983. Water Quality Standards Handbook. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Finlayson, B.J., R.A. Schnick, R.L. DeMong, W.D. Horton, W.McClay, C.W. Thompson, and G.J. Ticacek. 2000. Rotenone use in fisheries management: administrative and technical guidelines manual. American Fisher ies Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 200 pp.
Finlayson , B.J., S. Siepman, and J. Trumbo. 2001. Chemical residues in surface and ground waters following rotenone applications in Calif ornia lakes and streams. Paper presented at American Fisheries Society Annual Meet ing, August 20-24, 2000, St. Louis, Missouri
Fletcher, D.H. 1976. Salvage of bass affected by rotenone. WDW, unpublished report. 8 pp. Cited in Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Final – Supplemental environmental impact statement: lake and stream rehabi litations, 1992-1993. WDW, Ha bitat and Fisheries Management Divisions, Re port 92-14, Olympia, WA.
Horton, W.D. 1997. Federal Aid in Sport Restor ation fishery management program, lake renovation procedures manual. Idaho Departme nt of Fish and Game (IDFG 97-8) March 1997. Boise, ID.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1975. Toxicity of potassium permanganate to fish and its effectiveness for detoxifying Antimycin. Transa ctions of the Ameri can Fisheries Society 104 (3): 579-583. Cited in Archer, D.L. 2001. Rotenone neutralization methods. Paper presented at American Fisheries Societ y Annual Meeting, August 20-24, 2000, St. Louis, Missouri.
McClay, W. 2000. Rotenone use in North Ameri ca (1988 – 1997). Fisheries, Vol 25, No. 6. 15- 21 pp.
Pfeifer, R.L. 1985. Potassium permanganate de toxification following lake rehabilitation: procedures, costs, and two case histories. WDW, Fish Mgt. Division. Cited in Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Final – Supplemen tal environmental impact statement: lakeFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 22 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology and stream rehabilitations, 1992-1993. WDW, Habitat and Fish eries Management Divisions, Report 92-14, Olympia, WA.
Schnick, R.A. 1974. A review of the literature on the use of rotenone in fisheries. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Rep. LR-74-15. (NTIS microfilm PG-235-454). 130 pp. Cited in Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Final – Supplemen tal environmental impact statement: lake and stream rehabilitations, 1992-1993. WDW, Habitat and Fish eries Management Divisions, Report 92-14, Olympia, WA.
Thompson, C.W., C. Clyde, and D. Sakaguchi . 2001. Utah’s procedure for mixing powdered rotenone into a slurry. Paper presented at American Fisheries So ciety Annual Meeting, August 20-24, 2000, St. Louis, Missouri.
Tsivoglou, E.C., and J.R. Wallace.
1972. Characterization of Stream Reaeration Capacity . EPA-R3-72-012. (Cited in EPA 1985 op.cit.) U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Se rvice. 2000. Environmental assessment for using a piscicide for brook trout re storation – Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Tuckaseigee Chapter of Trout Unlimited Web Site. <http://www.smokyonthefly.com/tucktu/brook_trout_proposal.htm>

U.S. Department of Labor. U ndated. Material Safety Data Sheet. Product: 655-422, Prentox ® PrenfishTM Toxicant.
Washington Department of Wildlife. 1983. Draft – Environmental impact statement, lake rehabilitation program, 1983-1984. Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Fi nal – Supplemental environmental impact statement: lake and stream rehabilitati ons, 1992-1993. WDW, Habitat and Fisheries Management Divisions, Re port 92-14, Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Final – Supplemental environmental impact statement: lake and stream rehabilitation: ro tenone use and health risks. Olympia, WA.
Washington State Department of Ecology.

1994. Permit Writer’s Manual . Publication Number 92-109
Wright, R.M., and A.J. McDonnell.
1979. In-stream Deoxygenation Rate Prediction . Journal Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE. 105(EE2). (Cited in EPA 1985 op.cit.)FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 23 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology APPENDIX A--PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION

The Department has tentatively dete rmined to issue a permit to the applicant listed on page 1 of this fact sheet. The permit contains conditions a nd effluent limitations wh ich are described in the rest of this fact sheet.
Public notice of application was publ ished on July 18, 2001 and January 22, 2002 in the Washington State Register (WSR 01-15-082 and WSR 02-03110) to inform the public that an application had been submitted and to invite comment on the issuance of this permit.
The Department will publish a Public Noti ce of Draft (PNOD) on April 24, 2002 in the Aberdeen Daily World, the Bellingham World, th e Kennewick Tri-City Herald, The Olympian, the Seattle Times, the Spokesman Review, and th e Yakima Herald to inform the public that a draft permit and fact sheet are av ailable for review. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the draft permit. Th e draft permit, fact sheet, and related documents are available for inspection and copying between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays, by appointment, at the regional office listed below. Written comments should be mailed to: Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Attention: Kathleen Emmett PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Any interested party may comment on the draft pe rmit or request a public hearing on this draft permit within the thirty (30) day comment period to the address above. The request for a hearing shall indicate the interest of th e party and reasons why the heari ng is warranted. The Department will hold a hearing if it determines there is a sign ificant public interest in the draft permit (WAC 173-220-090). Public notice regardi ng any hearing will be circulated at least thirty (30) days in advance of the hearing. People expressing an intere st in this permit will be mailed an individual notice of hearing (WAC 173-220-100).
Comments should reference specific text follo wed by proposed modification or concern when possible. Comments may address technical i ssues, accuracy and completeness of information, the scope of the facil ity’s proposed coverage, adequacy of environm ental protection, permit conditions, or any other concern that woul d result from issuance of this permit.
The Department will consider all comments received within thirty (30) days from the date of public notice of draft indicated above, in formulating a fina l determination to issue, revise, or deny the permit. The Department's response to all significant comme nts is available upon request and will be mailed directly to peopl e expressing an interest in this permit.
Further information may be obtained from th e Department by telephone, (360) 407-6127 or by writing to the address listed above.
This permit and fact sheet was written by Jeff Killelea, Water Quality Program, Department of Ecology.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 24 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology APPENDIX B--GLOSSARY
Acute Toxicity --The lethal effect of a compound on an or ganism that occurs in a short period of time, usually 48 to 96 hours.

AKART -- An acronym for “all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment”. Ambient Water Quality --The existing environmental conditi on of the water in a receiving water body.

Ammonia --Ammonia is produced by the breakdown of nitrogenous materials in wastewater. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms, exerts an oxygen demand, and contributes to eutrophication. It also increases the amount of chlorine needed to disinfect wastewater. Average Monthly Discharge Limitation --The average of the measured values obtained over a calendar month's time. Best Management Practices (BMPs) --Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other physical, struct ural and/or managerial practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the State. BMPs include treatment systems, operating procedures, and practices to control: plant s ite runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from ra w material storage. BMPs ma y be further categorized as operational, source control, erosion and sediment control, and treatment BMPs.

BOD 5 --Determining the Biochemical Oxygen Demand of an effluent is an indirect way of measuring the quantity of organic ma terial present in an effluent that is utilized by bacteria. The BOD 5 is used in modeling to measure the reduction of dissolved oxygen in a receiving water after effluent is discharged. Stress cau sed by reduced dissolved oxygen levels makes organisms less competitive and less able to sustai n their species in the aquatic environment. Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defi ned as a conventional pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act. Bypass --The intentional diversion of waste stream s from any portion of a treatment facility.

Chlorine --Chlorine is used to disinfect wastewaters of pathogens harmful to human health. It is also extremely toxic to aquatic life.

Chronic Toxicity --The effect of a compound on an orga nism over a relatively long time, often 1/10 of an organism's lifespan or more. Chr onic toxicity can measure survival, reproduction or growth rates, or other parameters to measure the toxic effects of a compound or combination of compounds. Clean Water Act (CWA) --The Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law 92- 500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483, 97-117; USC 1251 et seq. Compliance Inspection - Without Sampling --A site visit for the purpose of determining the compliance of a facility with the terms and conditi ons of its permit or with applicable statutes and regulations.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 25 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology Compliance Inspection - With Sampling --A site visit to accomplish the purpose of a Compliance Inspection - Without Sampling and as a minimum, sampling and analysis for all parameters with limits in the permit to asce rtain compliance with those limits; and, for municipal facilities, sampling of influent to ascertain compliance with the 85 percent removal requirement. Additional sampling may be conducted. Composite Sample --A mixture of grab samples collected at the same sampling point at different times, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing discrete samples. May be "timecomposite"(collected at constant time intervals) or "flow-proportional" (collected either as a constant sample volume at time intervals pr oportional to stream fl ow, or collected by increasing the volume of each aliquot as the flow increased while maintaining a constant time interval between the aliquots. Construction Activity --Clearing, grading, excava tion and any other activity which disturbs the surface of the land. Such activities may include road building, constr uction of residential houses, office buildings, or industria l buildings, and demolition activity.
Continuous Monitoring –Uninterrupted, unless otherw ise noted in the permit.

Critical Condition --The time during which the combination of receiving water and waste discharge conditions have the highest potential for causing toxicity in the receiving water environment. This situation usually occurs wh en the flow within a water body is low, thus, its ability to dilute effluent is reduced.

Dilution Factor --A measure of the amount of mixing of e ffluent and receiving water that occurs at the boundary of the mixing zone. Expressed as the inverse of the percent effluent fraction e.g., a dilution factor of 10 m eans the effluent comprises 10 % by volume and the receiving water 90%. Engineering Report --A document which thoroughly ex amines the engineering and administrative aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report shall contain the appropriate informati on required in WAC 173-240-060 or 173-240-130.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria --Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicators of pathogenic bacteria in the effluent that are harmful to humans. Pa thogenic bacteria in wast ewater discharges are controlled by disinfecting the wastewater. Th e presence of high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in a water body can indicate the recent release of untreated wastewater and/or the presence of animal feces.

FSEIS -- Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Grab Sample --A single sample or measurement taken at a specific time or over as short period of time as is feasible.

Industrial Wastewater --Water or liquid-carried waste from industrial or commercial processes, as distinct from domestic wastewater. These wastes may result from any process or activity of industry, manufacture, trade or business, from the developmen t of any natura l resource, or from animal operations such as feed lots, poultry houses, or dairies. The term includes contaminated storm water and, also, l eachate from solid waste facilities. Major Facility-- A facility discharging to surface water w ith an EPA rating score of > 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 26 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology Maximum Daily Discharge Limitation --The highest allowable dail y discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reas onably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. The daily discharg e is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. Method Detection Level (MDL)-- The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is above zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte. Minor Facility-- A facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of < 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact. Mixing Zone --An area that surrounds an effluent disc harge within which wa ter quality criteria may be exceeded. The area of the authorized mi xing zone is specified in a facility's permit and follows procedures outlined in st ate regulations (Cha pter 173-201A WAC). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) --The NPDES (Section 402 of the Clean Water Act) is the Federal wastewater pe rmitting system for discharges to navigable waters of the United States. Many states, in cluding the State of Washington, have been delegated the authority to issue these permits . NPDES permits issued by Washington State permit writers are joint NPDES/ State permits issued under both State and Federal laws. pH --The pH of a liquid measures its acidity or alkalinity. A pH of 7 is defined as neutral, and large variations above or below this value ar e considered harmful to most aquatic life.

Piscicide – Fish poison or toxicant such as rotenone , used for fish cont rol, eradication or sampling.

ppm – Parts per million (equivalent to mg/L or mg/kg). Quantitation Level (QL)-- A calculated value five times the MDL (method detection level). Responsible Corporate Officer -- A president, secretary, treasure r, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal busine ss function, or any other person who performs similar policy- or decision-mak ing functions for the corporati on, or the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or have gross annual sales or expenditures ex ceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has b een assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures (40 CFR 122.22). Technology-based Effluent Limit --A permit limit that is based on the ability of a treatment method to reduce the pollutant. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) --Total suspended solids is the particulate materi al in an effluent. Large quantities of TSS discharged to a receiv ing water may result in solids accumulation. Apart from any toxic effects attr ibutable to substances leached out by water, suspended solids may kill fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms by causing abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and respiratory passages of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended solids can screen out light and can promote and maintain the development of noxious conditions through oxygen depletion.

SEPA – State Environmental Policy ActFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 27 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology State Waters --Lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland wate rs, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.

Stormwater --That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features of a storm water drainage system into a defined surface wate r body, or a constructed infiltration facility. Upset --An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitati ons because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment f acilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation.

USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality-based Effluent Limit --A limit on the concentration of an effluent parameter that is intended to prevent the concentration of th at parameter from exceeding its water quality criterion after it is discharged into a receiving water.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 28 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology APPENDIX C—WDFW POLICY C-3010

FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION POLICY DECISION

POLICY TITLE: Lake and Stream POLICY NUMBER: POL-C3010 Rehabilitations

Cancels: Effective Date: February 8, 2002

Termination Date (if applicable):

See Also: Approved by:
Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair

GENERAL POLICIES:

The control of undesirable fish populations using chemical piscic ides is a valuable and cost effective management tool for providing qual ity fishing opportunities and protecting native species in many waters of the state.

Specific policies:

1. All lake and stream rehabilitations will follow state and federal laws. All proposed rehabilitations will adhere to state water quality requirements (WAC 173- 201A), the Washington Pesticid e Control Act (RCW 15.58), Stat e Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and federal Clean Water Act.

a. All applicable environmental, health and safety regulations will be followed. All proposed rehabilitations will follow and adhere to chemical piscicides labeling restrictions and chemical materials safety da ta sheet requirements to ensure protection of the public, Department personnel and envir onment during rehabilitation treatments.

2. Waters will not be treated in ways which wo uld cause significant negative impacts to fish or wildlife which are state or federa lly listed as Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive or Candidate Species. An exception may be granted in th e case of a biological emergency.

3. The public will be part of the decision-making process. A public meeting will be held in the vicinity of the proposed re habilitation(s) before a final decision is made.

4. An appropriate assessment of existing fish populations and associated risks will be undertaken for all natural bodies of water propos ed for treatment if they have not been previously treated.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 29 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology APPENDIX D—SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES



### Schedule of Activities Lake Rehabilitation Program

April Regions develop list of waters for rehabilita tion in the fall of 2000 and spring of 2001 submit list of waters w ith amount of rotenone to Resident Native Fish Program Manager by May 1.

May 1-10 Resident Native Fish Program Manager places rotenone order based on rehabilitation plans and budget.

May Regional approval of waters proposed for rehabilitation through Chemical Rehabilitation Approval Forms signed by Regional Direct or and Regional Program Managers (fish, wildlif e, habitat and enforcement).

May 31 Regional Fish Program Managers and Resident Na tive Fish Program Manager prioritize rehabilitation li st based on rotenone available.

June 1 Anadromous/Inland Statewide Ma nager approves rehabilitation list for public meetings.

June-July Regions conduct public meetings.

July 15 Regional Fish Program staff comp lete public meetings, submit to Resident Native Fish Program Manager:

• Final List of Lakes for Rehabilita tion, with amounts of rotenone.

• Chemical Rehabilitation Approval Forms.

• Pre-Rehabilitation Plan, updated to include Results of Public Meetings.

• Waters Management Plans.

• Waters General Information Summaries. July 15-31 Resident Native Fish Program Manager completes addendum to FSEIS for approval by Anadromous/Indland Stat ewide Manager and forward to Habitat Program for review and sign off.

July 31 Public distribution of signed addendum to FSEIS from Habitat Program for 14 day review period. Copies to all Regional Fish Program Managers.

August 15-31 Anadromous/Inland Statewide Manager briefs Program AD for approval of rehabilitation package after co mpletion of public FSEIS review.

September 1-5 List of waters approved by Program AD submitted to Director for agency approval. Resident Native Fish Program Manager requests emergencyFACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 30 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology regulations changes for season extens ions, removal of minimum sizes and daily limits on waters approved for treatment.

September 5 Approved rehabilitation pack age provided to Fish and Wildlife Commission – FYI only – unless they have some problems.

September 5 Regional Fish Program Manager requests short term water quality variance permit from the Department of Ecology for waters approved by the Director.

September-March Regions treat the approved waters.

December-June Regions submit Post Rehabilita tion Reports. December 1 deadline for fall rehabs and June 1 deadline for spring rehabs.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 31 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology APPENDIX E—RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Written comments were received by the following individuals:

1. Allen Moore, Department of Ecology 2. Nancy Weller, Department of Ecology 3. Janet Boyd and Tricia S hoblom, Department of Ecology

Written Comments

Commentor #1: [Ecology] should place a requirement in the permit for a spill prevention and response plan. The spill plan should cover a plan for the prevention, containment, and control of spills or unplanned discharges from the applicati on, storage and transportation of the pesticides. It should also include spills of oil and gasolin e from application equipment including boats. According to the severity of the spill, it shoul d tell when to report cert ain magnitudes of spills along with a list of names and telephone numbers of spill respondent teams at both Fish & Wildlife and Ecology.

Submittal date of the spill plan could be later th is summer, after the permit is effective but well before rotenone treatments are scheduled.

Response: Special Condition S.7. has been added to the permit that requires the submittal of a spill prevention and response plan prior to the first treatment.

Commentor #2: At the request of the regional Spills Response Program Manager and myself, would you please include the follo wing statements (or similar st atements) in the permit. Although all spills of pesticides are to be reporte d, putting the requirement into the permit would provide the when and how for reporting. This language was developed for the STM permits following spill incidents that were no t properly reported or dealt with. A. SPILLS: Spills into state waters, spills ont o land with a potential for entry into state waters, or other significant spills, shall be reported immediately to the Department of Ecology, ? Regional Office at (phone number).

B. In the event of a spill, containment and clean -up efforts shall begin immediately and be completed as soon as possible, taking precedence over normal work. Clean-up shall include proper disposal of any spilled material and used clean-up material.

Response: The suggested language has been adde d to the permit in Special Condition S.7.

Commentor #3:

1. A spill plan should be included in the permit. It must address how they handle accidental over-use of permitted chemicals as well as petroleum spills from boat use or vehicular use.

Response: Special Condition S.7. has been added to th e permit that requires the submittal of a spill prevention and response plan prior to the first treatment.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 32 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 2. Before a treatment is considered, Fish and Wildlife should identify target and non-target species per individual waterbody.

Response: WDFW pre-treatment procedures are summa rized on page 7 of the fact sheet. A Pre-Rehabilitation Plan is completed by the Ar ea Fish Biologist which includes information about each individual lake or st ream considered for treatment. The outline for preparing PreTreatment Plans is included in the Final S upplemental Environmental Impact Statement – Lake and Stream Rehabilitations 1992-1993 as Appendix A. Required information includes target species and potential imp acts to non-targeted resources us ing survey data of individual
waters.

3. Why does permit not allow for violations? The applicators coul d possibly spill or misuse the chemicals and in effect have a wate r quality violation imposed upon them.

Response: It is incorrect to state that the permit does not allow for violations. Special Condition S1.A. Water Quality Standards states that “All discharg es and activities authorized by this permit shall be consistent with the terms and condi tions of this permit”. General Condition G18. Duty to Comply states that “The Permittee sh all comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constit utes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit renewal applica tion.” It is agreed that a spill or misuse of the authorized pesticides could re sult in a water quality violation.

4. The permit should include an annual operations plan which would include the proposed lakes for treatment, the target species for eradication, the location of the lake, the size of the lake, whether there are any species of concern (plants, animals, amphibians, macroinvertebrates, etc.), anticipates date of treatment, whether alternatives to the chemical treatment have been examined.

Response: It was determined that WDFW has ade quate internal and public processes in place to address site-specific concerns; this permit does not require Ecology approval for each treatment. As such, the submittal of Annual Operations Reports is not necessary. The permit covers all waters of the state as long as WDFW completes the SEPA process for each waterbody prior to treatment and follows all la bel restrictions and permit conditions.

5. What is the purpose of the monitoring? W ill Ecology be notified if detrimental impacts are identified/discovered during monitoring? Is th e purpose for determining success rate of kill of target species? Whether the lake has returned to pre-spray water quality conditions? Is there a specific time limit for the chemical to remain above standards in each water body ? Is this part of the monitoring plan?

Response: A. The purpose of the monitoring is to determin e the extent and duration of the short-term water quality reduction resulting from rotenone applications. B. Yes, the permit requires the submittal of Post Treatment Discha rge Monitoring Report forms which includes information on impacts to non-targeted organisms.FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 33 DRAFT 6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology C. No, the purpose of the monitoring is not to determine the success rate of kill of target species. D. No, the purpose of the monitoring is not to de termine if the lake has returned to pre-spray water quality conditions. E. No, there is not a specific time limit for the chemical to remain toxic to aquatic life. F. The monitoring plan does require the appli cant to report the period of rotenone toxicity, i.e. the duration of wa ter quality reduction.