## FACT SHEET FOR INVASIVE MOTH NPDES PERMIT

Permit Type: National P o llutant Discharge Elimination S y stem (NP DES)

Permit Nu mber: WA0039047

Permit holder: Washington State Department o f Agriculture
P.O. Box 42560 1111 Washington Street SE

Olympia, WA 98504-2560

### 2

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

........................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION

.................................................................................. 6

THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, RODENTICIDE ACT

................. 7

ECONOMIC, ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF INVAS I VE MOTHS .7

THE HISTORY OF INVASIVE MOTH MANAGEMENT

................................ 8

PERMITTE D ACTIVITIES

........................................................................ 9

GEOGRAP H ICAL AR EA COVERED

......................................................... 9

REGULATORY POLLUTION REDUCTION REQUIREMENT

...................... 10

WATER Q UALITY BASED REQ U IREMENTS

........................................... 10

BACILLUS THURING I ENSIS KURSTAKI (B TK)

........................................ 11

TECHNOLOGY BASED WATER QUALITY PROTECTI ON REQUIREMENTS 13

SEDIMENT QUALITY

.......................................................................... 14

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

........................................................ 15

ENDANGERED SPECIES

...................................................................... 15

SEPA COMPLIANCE

........................................................................... 16

MONITORING

.................................................................................... 16

REPORTIN G AND RE CORDKEEPING

.................................................... 16

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

............................................. 16

RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS

................ 17

PERMIT MODIFICATIONS

................................................................... 17

3

### GENERAL CONDITIONS

..................................................................... 17

RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE

....................................... 17

APPENDIX A – PUBLIC COMMENT AND INFORMATION

....................... 19

APPENDIX B -- GLOSSARY

................................................................... 21

APPENDIX C – RESP ONSE TO COMMENTS

............................................ 27

4

### FACT SHE E T FOR INVASIVE MO TH CONTROL NPDES PERMIT

SUMMARY

The state of Washington Department of Ecol ogy (Ecology) has tentatively determined to issue a permit for the application of i n secticid es to control in vasive species of invasive
moths in tre e s and shrubs that m a y be over or w i thin surface waters of t h e stat e of Washington . The use of insecticides is subj ect to the provisions of Bes t Managem ent
Practices an d an integra t ed pest m a nageme n t (I PM) plan. Monitoring is req u ired in certain situations. Any s h ort-term toxicity to aq uatic organisms is allowe d under the
terms of the permit and t h e water quality mo difi cation provi s ions to perform essential activities that protect natural resources of th e s t ate. The pro p osed terms

, limitations, and
conditions contained in the permit a r e tentative and may be subject to change subseq uent to public comments rec e ived by Ecology. All activities acce pted under the permit will not be relieved of any responsibilit y or liabi lity at any time during the lif e of the permit for: (1) violat ing st ate wa ter q u ality standards; or (2) violating any other local,
state, or federal regulation or stand a r d as may p e rtain to the individual activity. Any application of insecticid e over surfa c e wa ters of the state requir ing NPDES permit coverage found not covered under the permit may be considered to be operating without a discharge permit and subjec t to potent ial enforcement action.

On March 12, 20 01, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that t h e application of an
herbicide in compliance with the lab e ling re quirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not ex empt an irrigation district from needing to o b tain a Nati onal Pollutant Discharg e Elimination System (N PDES) permit (Headwaters, Inc. v. Tal e nt Irrigation Distri ct). Ecology, as h a d many mo re states , ha d been issuing orders that were not NPDES perm its that placed protective conditions on the use of pesticides in waters of the st ate. This permit will r e place a short-term
modificatio nwhere insecticide app lications ar e directed ove r surface waters of the st ate for the purp ose of controlling invasi ve moth sp ecies infecting vegetation over or wit h in

state waters.



### 5

### INTRODUCTION

This fact she e t is a comp anion document t hat pr ovides the basis for issuance of the
Invasive Moth NPDES Permit. Ecolo gy is pr oposing to issue this permit, which will allow discharge of insecticides to control in vasive moths in ve getation ove r or within
surface waters of the st at e of Washington, wh ich are also wat e rs of the U n ited State s , pursuant the provisions of chapters 90.4 8 , 9 0 .52, and 90.54 Revised Code of Washing t on (RCW) and the Federal Water Pollution Cont rol Act (FWPCA) as amended. This fact
sheet explains the nature of the pro p osed discharges, Ecology’s decisions on limiting pollutants i n wast ewate r , and the regulatory and technical basis for the s e decisions.

The federal Clean Water Act (FWCA, 197 2), a n d later modifications (1 977, 198 1, an d 1987), est a blished water q u ality goals for the n a vigable (surfa ce) waters o f the United
States. O n e mechanism for achievin g the goal s o f the Clean Water Act is National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDE S ) permits, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has deleg a ted responsibility to
administer t h e NPDES permit program to th e st ate of Was h ington on th e basis of Chapter 90. 48 RCW, wh ich defines Ecology’s au thority and obligations in administe r ing the wastewater discharge permit program.

The issuance of a permit to Washin gton Stat e Department of Agri cult ur e for invasive moth control is appropriate due to t h e enviro nmental fate of the permitted insecticide, the uniform discharge conditions to which a ll applications would be subject, and the
statewide scope of invasive moth control.

The regulations adopted by the st ate includ e procedures for is suing discharge permits (Chapter 17 3-216 WAC) , water q u ality criter ia for surface waters (Chapte r 173-20 1A WAC), and sediment m anagem ent s t andards (C hapter 17 3-2 04 WAC). These regulat i ons
requ ire that a permit be issued before disc harge of waste s to waters of the stat e is allowed. The regulations also establish th e basis for effluent limitations a n d other requirements which are to be included in the per m it. One of t h e requirements (WAC
173-2 16-0 70) for issuing a permit under the NPD E S permit program is the preparation of a draft permit and an accompanying fact sheet . P u blic notice of the draft permit with a public comment period, and public notice of issuance are all required be fore the permit is issued (WAC 173-21 6- 090, 173- 216 -100).

The fact sheet and draft permit will be review ed by the potential permit holder. Erro rs and omissions identified in this review will be co rrected befo re going to pub lic notic e

. After the public comment period has clos ed, Ecology will summarize the substantive

comments a n d the respo n se to e a ch c o mment. Th e summary and respons e to comme nts will become part of the file on the permit and parties submitting comments will recei v e a copy of Ecol ogy’s response. Comments and th e resultant changes to the permit will be summarized in Appendix C—Responses to Com m ents.



### 6

### THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICI DE, RODENTICIDE ACT

FIFRA of 1979, a s admin i stered by th e United Sta t es Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA), requires that all persons who apply pe sticides classified as restricted use be
certified acc o rding to the provisions of the act or that they w o rk under the supervision of a certified applicator. Commercial and public applicators must demo nstrate a practical kn owledge of the principle s and pr acti ces of pest c o ntrol and s a fe use of pesticides, which will b e accomplis hed by mean s of a “core” examinati o n. In addition, applicators using or sup e rvising the use of any r e stricted use pesticides purposefully applied to standing or running wat e r (ex c ludi ng applicators engaged in public health related activities) are required to pass an addi tional ex am to demonstrate competency as described in the code of fede ral regulations that follows:

“Aq u atic applicators shall demonstrate practical knowledge of the secondary effects which can be caused by impr oper applica t ion rates, incorrect formulation s , and f a ulty application of rest ricted pesticides used in this c a tegory. They shall d e monstrate practical kn owledge of various water use situations and the potential of downstre am effects. F u rther, they must have p r actical knowledge concerning potential pesticide effects on pl ants
, fish, birds, beneficial insects and other organisms th at m a y be present in aq uatic environments. Applicants in this category must demon s trate practical knowle dge of the principles of limit ed area application” (40CFR 17 1. 4).



### ECONOM IC, ECOLOGICAL AND SOC I AL IMPACTS OF INVASIVE
MOTHS

As evidence d by past isolated infestations of gypsy moths

, in vasive moth species survive and reproduce in Washingt on State. If left unchecked, infestations of invasive species will spread across extensive areas. Tr ees in forests and orchards, residential and municipal s hade trees and l andscape plantings would be damaged or killed dur i ng an outbreak of an invasive moth specie s. Recrea tional and aest hetic values associated with
trees and for e sted land would be diminished . Species comp osition of the vegetation on
forested land could cha n ge, affecting the q u ality and variety of food available for
wildlife.

Water qualit y could be a d versely affected with : 1) increased siltation from rapid run o ff
of rainfall fr om defoliated areas; 2) increase s in water tempe r ature as it flows through
areas mad e shadeles s; a n d 3) nutrient ov erloading from the deposition of large quantities of caterpillar droppings. The pest icide load in the environment would lik ely increase in q u antity, variety, and net detr imental environmental impact as home and
business owners take action in response to ever-increasing numbers of c a terpillars, the damage t h e y cause, and the nuisanc e they repre s ent.



### 7Reports of human healtheffects as so ciated with t h e presence of large numbers of caterpillars, such as would be seen during an invasive species outbreak, have includ ed
rashes and welts typical of allergic r e action s, a n d respiratory complaints. These effe cts have been attrib uted to the irri tating nature of the bristles found on caterpillars. In some
instances the reactions have been se vere enough to require medical atte ntion.



### THE HISTORY OF INVASI V E MOTH MANAGEM E NT

Washington State Depar t ment of Ag riculture (WSDA) has successfully detected and
eradicated n e w introductions of gypsy mo ths for more than 2 5 years. Sinc e the
accidental introduction to the Unite d States in 1 869, gyp sy moths h a ve spread throughout 19 st ates , th e District of Columbia , and parts of Canada

. Peo p le visiting or relocating from infested areas of east er n North America have many time s introduced gypsy moth s to Washin gton State

.
The history of gypsy mo th control programs dem o nstrates th e importance of ex cluding invasive moth species from Washin gton St ate. The first gypsy moth control prog ram was initiated in 1889 in Massachusetts, twenty y e ars after t h e first introduction, when populations finally reached epidemic leve ls. Eradication was not realized, as th e pesticide and application eq uipment used were not designe d for a forested environment. The control program was expand ed to include the use of sprays, egg mass removal, trapping and st icky bands. The popu lat i on was reduced to minor threat levels before funding was cut i n the mid 18 90’s.

The federal government became involved in 190 5 when a s e cond outbreak spread across
several state s . A biological control progra m was i n troduced without much success. By
1908 , the ma in treatment method w a s again a ch emical approach. During the 1 920’ s, a silvicultural approach was recomme nded th atw o uld replace preferred hosts, such a s oak species, with less de sirable food plants, such as maple. T h is method was rejected because of high costs.

In the 19 40's

, scientists d i scovered that DDT wa s very effective agains t gy psy moths. Despite concern about the pesticide's effects on t h e environment, t h e go vernment proceeded with its plan to eradicate gypsy moths with DDT and treated 3 million acr e s in 1957 . The federal government wa s forced to abandon its pl an for gypsy moth
eradication when t h e environmental effects of D D T were discovered.

The use of biologi c al con t rols increased in th e 1960’s. Biological controls, inherently, will
not eradicat e invasive species, but enter a cyclic hunter/prey relationship with the
invader. As the invasive moth s enter a boom in population the control po pulation also rises until the prey population drops off and the control populations also drop off. Such a strategy m a kes perfect sense from a nIP M perspective when treating an area with
established i n vasive moth populations.

In areas such as Wa shin gton State

, withou t established pop u lations, eradication is an attainable g o al. The WSDA control program has been successful in eradicating such isolated populations for many ye ars. Control methods h a ve evolved over time such that



### 8the use of a relatively ho st-specific in sectic ide, such as Btk, can continue this success with minimal damage t o non-target species. Furthermore, Btk does not appear to impair parasitoid performance. A major factor in choosing an IPM prescription i s its ability to be successful while not disrupting n a tural controls such as parasites.

The current WSDA gyps y moth control pr og ram is typical of invasive moth

manage m en t, where gyp sy moths are mana ged on an as ne e d ed basis. T h e need for

manage m en t is based on the det e ction of gypsy moth presen ce through the use of pheromone traps. The WSDA Gypsy Moth Era d ication program annua lly employs a

season al crew to place a n d check tra p s th roughout the state. Areas with positive identifications may be slated for treatment t h e fo llowing season. The pest icides used in treating infe sted areas ar e biologic al i norigin, highly specific t o Lepidoptera species, an d
have little or no effect on other organ i sms.



### PERMITTED ACTIVITIES

The permit authorizes discharges of inse cticides over and incidentally, when unavoidable, into surface waters of t h e sta t e of Washington for the purpose of invasive
moth control.

All app licati o ns of insecticides must be made under the supervision of a qual ified, licensed WSDA applicat or, whether the applicat ors are WSDA personnel or the st aff of a contracted company. The WSDA employee supe rvising a co ntrol project will be fami liar with FIFRA and state requirements, monito ring plans, and IPM plans, and will com p ly with applicable regulations.



### GEOGRAPHICAL AREA COVERED

The permit authorizes applications of insect icid es for invasive moth control to surfa c e waters in W a shington State. I n vasive moths are often found n e ar freshwat er aq uatic or semi-aq u atic sites and c o ntrol activities are scatt e red throughout the st at e. Typical sites include ripa rian areas, wetlands, m a rshes, rivers, year round and se aso nal stream s, lakes, ponds

, wet pas t ures and brack i sh estuaries

. It is vital th at new inf e s t ations be
controlled wherever they are found to ensu re t h ey do not s p read and become much larger problems.

Permit cove rage for invasive moth control is not needed in c e rtain situat ions that are derived in part from exclusions to the defi nition of “waters o f the United States” in
33CFR Part 328. 3. These include:

1) On land whi c h is in agricultural us e where the invasive moth control is performed where treat m ent would have no environmental impact except to invasive moths, or 2) In man- mad e retention o r detention ponds for wastewa t er or storm wate r
treatment
, o r 

### 3) W h ere insec tic ide applic a tions are d i rected towards invasiv e moths in a

terr estria l se tting and not into surf ac e waters.

9

### REGULATORY POLLUTION REDUCTION REQUI R 

## EM EN T

Federal and state regulat i ons req u ired that effluent limitations set forth in a “NPDES permit must be either te chnology or water qualit y based. Technology based limitations are set by re gulation or developed on a case-by- case basis (4 0 CFR 125. 3, and Ch apte r 173-2 20 WAC). Water q u ality based limitations are based upon complia nce with the Surface Water Quality Standards (Ch a pter 173- 20 1A WAC), Ground Water Standard s (Chapter 17 3-200WAC), Sediment Q u ality Standards (Chapt e r 173-2 04 WAC) or th e National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 2 46, Tuesday, De cember 22,1 992). Th e more stringent of th es e two limits must be chosen for each of the parameters of concern.



### WATER QUALITY BASED REQUIREMENTS

Invasive moth control activities may affect su rface waters of t h e state. The s e waters are protected by chapter 173 -201A WAC, Water Qua lity Standards for Surfa c e Waters of the State of Washington. The purpose of these stan dards is to establish the hi ghest quality of

state waters, through the reduction or elimination of contami nant disch a rges to th e waters of th e stat e, consi s tent wit h : p u blic health; public enjoyment; t h e p r opagation and protection o f fish, shellfish, and wildlife; and ex isting and fut u re beneficial uses. This purpose is reached, in p a rt, by compliance wi th the limitations, terms and conditions of the permit.

Invasive moth control activities that discharge , directly or indirectly, to surface waters shall be required to meet the stat e water qua lity stand ards for surface waters a s given in chapter 173- 201A WAC. The characte ristic beneficial uses of surface waters include, but are not limited to, the following: domestic, industrial and ag ricu ltural w a ter supply; stock watering; the spa w ning, rearing, migr ation and harvesting of fish; the spa w ni ng, rearing and harvesting of shellfish; wildlife habitat; recreation (primary contact, spo r t fishing, boat ing, and a e s t hetic enjoy m ent of n a t u re); commerce and navigation.

RCW 90.48. 035 authorizes est a blishment of w a t e r q u ality standards for waters of th e
state. The st ate h a s implemented wa ter q u ality standards in c hapter 17 3-2 01A WAC. All
waste disch a rge permits issued purs uant to NP DES or SWD regulations are condi t ioned
in such a ma nner tha t all authorized discharges s hall meet s t a t e water q u ality standar ds.
Standards i n clude an "a ntidegradati on" policy, which state s that ben e ficial uses shal l be protected.

Ecology has deemed th at , when prop erly applied and h andle d in accordance with the
Best Mana g e ment Practi ces and ot he r terms and conditions of the permit, the use of a Bacillus thuringiensis var. kursta k e bas e d insecticide for invasive moth control wil l com p ly with state water quality standards, will mainta in and protec t the existing characteristic
beneficial us es of the surface waters of the state, and will pro t ect human health. New information regarding previo usly unknown e n vironmental and human health risks may cause reopening of the permit. Other insectic ides may be c o nsidered for use after they
are labeled for invasive moth control by EP A’s FIFRA program and t h e S E PA process is complete.



### 10No mix i ng or dilution zone sh all be authoriz ed to the permit holder for any discharge to surface waters under this permit. The short- term water quality modification provisions of the permit will allow the discharges author ized by the permit to cause a temporary diminishment of some b e neficial uses while the water body is altered to protect public
health a n d t o protect other natural resources of the state. The short-term modification
will be short in that the actual impair me nt will be short lived, while the overall availability of authorization ex tends through the term of the permit. The IPM plan to be developed prior to the second year of th e permit term satisfies the regulatory

req u irement for a long-term plan th at allows sh ort-term modifications to extend for five

years.

The activitie s authorized by this permit do not h a ve a reason able potential to cause a
violation of state water q u ality stan dards (W AC 173-2 01A) so long as t h e activities are allowed under the shor t-term water qu ality mo dification. T h e water quality modification provides for an ex ception to m eeti n g certain provisions of the st ate w a ter

q u ality stan dards such as mee t ing a ll benefi cial uses all the t i me. Activities covered under this permit are allocated a te mporary zo ne of impact on beneficial uses, but the impact must be transient , and must a llow for full restoration of water quality and protection of beneficial uses upon project compl e tion. The c o nditions of the permit constitute the requirements of a wa ter qua l ity m o difica tion

. Washington ’s water q u ality standar ds now include 91 num e ric human health-base d
criter ia that must be considered in NPDES permits. These criteria were promulgated for
the st ate by the U.S. EPA in its National To xics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 246, Tuesda y, December 22, 199 2).

Ecology has determined that t h e app licant's discharge does not contain chemicals of
concern for human health based on existingdata or knowledge. The discharge will b e re-evaluated for impacts to human h e alth at the nex t permit reissuance.



### BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS KURSTAKI (BTK)

The product known as Btk ( Bacillus thuringiensis, var. kurstaki ) is a na turally occurring
bacterium t hat is available in li quid and granular form. Btk is an endo spore-forming
bacterium t hat is ingested by the ac tive ly feeding caterpillar s . Once ingested, the bacteria produce a protein crystal toxin specific to Lepidoptera species that disrupts the lining of the caterpillar’s intestine.

The bacteria are in the re sting spore phase of t h e i r life cycle when inge st ed, and the spores do not germinat e until they enter th e insect’s gut. Alkaline conditions in the insect gut are req u ired as a sign al for the spor e t o reproduce. Btk ha s no effect on a v a st array of aq uatic organisms.



### 11Commercial strains of Bt k are natura lly occurr in g Btk that have been isolated from t h e environment and ferme n ted in much the same way as yeas t is selected from nature.
Commercial Btk strains are maintain ed by industry laboratori es in a pure, uncontaminated form th at are used t o inoculate large q u antities of growth media for production.

Btk is the pr imary material used for invasive moth control because of its low toxicity t o non-target s p ecies. Timing is important a n d is usually appli e d from one to four times per treatme n t season.

Btk has been extensively studied for effects on non-target o r ganisms an d environmental consequences of use wit h few reported advers e e ffects. It is not toxic to bees, warmblooded mammals, a n d it shows no reported effect on fish a n d amphibians w h en applied at field rates. Labels indicate that direct contact with the product may cause mild to moderate eye or skin irritation.

No complaints were m a de after hu mans ate on e gram of commercial Bt preparation daily for five days, o n al ternate days. Some inhal ed 100 milligrams of powder daily, in addition to the dietary d o sage. Humans who ate one gram pe r day for three consecutive days were not poisoned or infected. No comp laints were made by eight men after t h ey were exposed to ferment a tion broth, moist bacterial cakes, wa ste ma terials, and final powder created during the commercial production of Bt.

On plant su rfaces, Bt products degrade rapidly. While Bt is moderately persistent in soil, its toxins degrade rapidl y. Because of its specifici t y, Btk lacks the ability to recycle readily in insect populations. Factors that in fluence its persistence include UV, agitation, sedimenta t ion, water q u ality, pH, and temperature.

The primary application methods in invasive moth control are:

1. Hand app lication: Hydraulic spray apparatus, rotomist eq uipment, an d backpack
units.

2. Aerial ap plication: Aerial applications are complete d using either a helicopter o r an airplane.

TABLE 1. PERMITTE D PESTICIDES USED F O R INVASI VE MOTH CONTROL 

### Active ingredient Method of action Typical la bel use

rates
Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki ( Bt k ) Biopesticide,
bacteria 21 to 128 ounces

per acre

12

### TECHNOLOGY BASED WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS

Sections 301 , 302 , 30 6, a n d 307 of the FWPCA established discharge stan dards, prohib itions, and limits based on pollution control technologies. These t e chnology-based limits are "best practical control techno logy" (BPT), "best available technology economically achievable" (BAT ), and "best conventional pollutant control technology economically achievable" (B CT). Compliance with BPT/BAT/BCT may be established using a "best professional judgment " (BPJ) deter m ination.

The state has similar technology-based limit s, which are des c ribed as: "a ll known,
available and reasonable methods o f cont rol, prevention, and treatment" (AKART)
methods. A K ART is referred to in state la w un der RCW 9 0

. 48 .0 10 , RCW 9 0

. 48 .5 20 , RCW
90.5 2 .04 0 an d RCW 90.5 4 .02 0 . The fe deral technology-based limits and AKART are
similar but not equivale nt. AKART: (1) may be e s tablished f o r an industrial category or on a case-by

- case basis; ( 2 ) may be m o re stringent than feder a l regulations; and (3) includes not only treatment, but also Be st Man a g e ment Practi ces (BMPs) s u ch as prevention and control methods (i.e. waste minimization, w a ste/source reduction, or
reduction in total conta m inant relea s es to t h e e n vironment). Ecology and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) co ncur that, his t orically, most discharge permits have determine d state AKART as eq ui valent to federal BPJ determinations.

The pesticide applicatio n industry has been regulated by EPA under the terms of FIFRA. Pesticide use is regulated by label use requ irements develo ped by EPA. In developing label use requirements, EPA requires the pe sticide manufacturer to register each pesticide and provide e v idence that the pe sticid e will work as promised and that unacceptabl e environmental harm will be minim i zed.

It is the inte nt of this pe rmit to authorize invasive moth control tr eatments in a manner that also complies with federal and other stat e req u irements . All WWDP s issued by Ecology must incorpora t e requirements to impl ement reaso nable preve n tion, treat m ent and control of pollutants.

The legislature established in the Washingt on Pesticide Control Act, RCW 17.15, that prevention of pollut i on in this case i s reaso nable only in the contex t of an Integra t ed Pest Managemen t plan. IPM plans req u ire the investi g ation of all control options, but do not

req u ire non-chemical pest controls a s the preferred option. The goal of IPM is to
establish the most effecti v e means of control whether chemical, non-che m ical, or a
combination.

The Talent d e cision esta blished that pestic ides become wast e in the w a t e r after the pesticide has performed its intended action and t h e target or ganisms are controlled.
Treatment o f the pollutants addresse d in this permit is diffic u lt due to the diffuse nature
and low con c entrations t hat ex ist aft e r the pesticides have be come waste and treatm e n t of waters w h ere pesticide residues threaten to cause unacceptable environmental ha rm will not likel y be necessary.



### 13SED I M EN T Q U A L I TY

Ecology has promulgated aq uatic sediment st an dards (Chap ter 173-2 04 WAC) to protect

aq uatic biota and huma n health . Th ese st andar d s state that E c ology may require permit
holders to e v aluate the potential for the di schar ge to cause a violation of applicable
standards ( W AC 173-20 4-400).

Ecology has determined through a review of the discharger characteristics and efflue nt characteristics that this discharge h a s no re asonable potential to violate the Sediment Managemen t Standards.



### INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

WSDA’s in vasive moth control program currently utilizes integrated pest management (IPM) strategies. IPM program s include preventing pest problems, monitoring for the presence of pests, setting a populatio ndensity a t which treatment occurs, and evaluating effica cy of t r eatments. WSDA programs have worked to prevent introductions through the creation of education materials, yearly monitoring for i n vasive moths, and fol l ow-up treatments with extensiv e trapping fo r the follo wing two s e asons. The populatio n threshol d for treatment has been set at zero, as the goal of the program is eradication before a population
can become established.

The treatment strategy of an IP M program is chosen after giving equal weight to all control strategies. The chosen control op tion will best fit the par a meters of an individual situation after the ecologic an d economic consequence o feach option
is considered. The treatment alternatives considered for invasive moths are no action, exclusion, pesticides applicat ions, virus introduction, mass trapping, mating disruption, and sterile releases.

The treatment that has been preferred in the past is a biological pe sticide, Bacillus thuringiensis, var. kurstaki (Btk ) . Bt k is a naturally occurring bacterial component of soils worldwide and specifically infect Lepidoptera s p ecies. This strategy is felt to give the best chance of eradicat ing the infestations while minimizing r i sks
to human health and risks of environmenta l c o sts. The success of the treatments is confirmed by surveying the area the following two s e asons with pheromonebaited traps.

WSDA will be required to submit a formal, written IP M plan prior to the se cond year of the permit term to satisfy the re gulatory requirement that allows shortterm modifications to extend for five years.

14

### BEST MA NAGEMENT PRACTICES

WSDA wil l continue to examine the possibilit y of alternatives to reduce the need for pesticides. Such methods include:

1) Using the least intrusive method of pesticide application. 2) All er rors in application and spills are reported to the proper authority. 3) Informing t h e public of planned spray activities. 4) Applying a decision matrix con c ept to the choice of the most appropriate formulation. 5) Staff training in the proper applicatio n of pesticides and handling of spil ls.

Labels specify some add i tional BMPs.

An important goal of the first permit cycle is to reinforce the concept of r e duction in pesticide residuals. A re duction in the dischar g e of polluta nts to w a ter s of the stat e can be achieved by using proper BMPs, which include integrate d pest ma na gement and alternative pest control procedures.

All app licati o ns to waters within forested ar e a s of the st ate of Washingt on shall be made in accordance with provisions in RCW 79.09 .06 0 ( 8), as amen ded.



### ENDANGERED SPECIES

As required by the Washington State Envi ronmental Policy Act, the Washi n gton Stat e Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and t h e Washingt on State D e partment of
Natural Res o urces (DN R ) will be co nsulted. These agencies provide maps and other
data inte nde d to aide in t h e identificationof habitats of concern and t h e pr esence of listed, prop osed, candi d ate, threatened or endangered species. The agencies also will advise WSDA on the implementatio nof miti gation measures that would eliminate an y adverse impacts to a n y s p ecies or habitats located within a p r oject area



### .

PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF PRODUCTS NOT SPECIFI E D IN THE
CURRENT PERMIT

Due to the p o ssibility of losing th e us e of som e pestic ides in th e curr ent EP A reregistration process and concern about the le ngth of tim e nec e ssary to complete a perm it
modification to allow the use of a new produc t, a procedure will be dev e loped to allo w conditional use of a new product until the ne xt perm it renewal. This procedure will require W S DA to submit a risk assessm ent fo r Ecology’s approval. The risk assessm ent must contain: 1) verificati on that the new product will m eet the specified general conditions and prohibitions, and 2) contain certain specified infor m ation about the product and its environm ental fate. Based upon the inform ation in the risk assessm ent Ecology will either g r ant of deny condition a l app r oval for the use of the new product.

15

### SEPA COMPLIANCE

Invasive moth control activities have un dergone numerous environmental impact
evaluations. The use of pesticides is condit ioned to mitigate environmental impacts of concern noted in these evaluations. This pe rmit will underg o SEPA. The conditions of this permit should satisfy any wa ter q u ality related SEPA concerns.



### MONITORING

Monitoring of residual pesticides ma y be req u ired to confirm assumption s of safet y when applications are p e rformed in compliance with the F I F R A label an d state requirements. The permit holder may propos e and gain app r oval for a monitoring plan
in lieu of m o nitoring each application.



### REPORTI NG AND RECORD KEEPING

The conditions of S3 are based on th e author ity to specify any appropriate reporting and recordkeeping req u irements to prevent an d cont rol waste discharges (WAC 173-22 6- 090).



### PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

A media announcement will go out after the survey season within one month of the receipt of genetic testing results.

Initial contact will be m a de with residents of any proposed treatment area by sending a letter to all occupants within treatme n t boun daries and all ad jacent properties. This
letter will be sent within three months of the for m al proposal to treat the area.

The letter sent to area residents will contain:

1. A map of the proposed treatment area,
2. An ex planation of the fo rmal propos al concerning treatmen t of the area

, 3. Information that a publi c meeting will be held loc a lly and the location of said meeting,

4. An invasive moth fact sheet and the aforementioned press re lease, and

5. An ex planation of the op portunity to comment o nthe environmental review of the proposal.



### 16

### RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Ecology has established, and will enforce, lim its and conditions expressed in the per m it for the discharge of wast es containin gvariou s pe sticides registered for use by the EPA and the Washington State Department of Ag ric u lture. These agencies will enforce the use, storage, and disposal requirem ents expr essed on pesticide labels. The permit holder must comply with both the pesticide label requirements and the permit conditions. The permit does not supersede or preempt federa l or state label req u irements or any othe r applicab le l a ws and regulations.



### PERMIT MODIFIC A TIONS

Ecology may modify this permit to impose new or modified numerical limitations, if necessary to meet Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters, Sediment Quality Standards, o r Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters, based on ne w information obtained from sources such as inspe c tions, effluent monitoring, or Ecology approved engineering reports. Ecology may also modify this permit as a result of new or amended state or federal regulatio n s.



### GENERAL CONDITI ONS

General conditions are based directly on st ate and federal law and regulations and are
included in all aquatic p e sticide permits.



### RECOMM ENDATION FOR PERMIT ISS UANCE

The permit meets all statutory requirements for authorizing a wast ewate r discharge,
includ ing those limitations and conditions be lieved necess ary to control tox i cs, protect human he alth, aq uatic life, and the b e neficial uses of water of the state of Washington. Ecology proposes that the permit be issued for five (5) years.



### 17

### 18

## APPENDIX A – PUBLIC COMMENT AND
INFORMATIO N

A Publ ic No tice of Appl i c ation (PNOA) was publ ished by Ecology in the Seattle Times

, the Spokane Review

, The Columbian (Vancouver) and th e Yakima Heraldon March 17 and again on Ma rch 24, 20 04. The draft p e rmit and fa ct sheet w e re available for public comment from April 15, 200 4 until May 17, 200 4.

Interested persons were invited to submit comments regardin g the proposed issuance of the permit. Comments on the permit were wr itten and submitted to the Ecology Office
at the addre ss below:

Washington State Depar t ment of Eco l ogy Headquarte rs Build ing, Lacey
Attention: K a thleen E m mett P.O. Box 760 0 Olympia, WA 98504- 76 00

Email: kem m 461@ecy. wa.gov

All comments were submitted by 5 p.m. on Ma y 17 a n d con s idered in th e final permit determination. A responsiveness su mmary in Appendix C was prepared and available for publi c re view. It will be sent to all parties who submitted comments.

The proposed permit, fact sheet an d other relat e d documen ts are on the Internet at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/program s/wq/pesticides/index.html



### 19

### 20

## APPENDIX B -- GLOSSARY

DEFINITIONS

"Administrator" mean s the administ rator of the EPA.

“Antidegradation Policy” is as sta t e d in WAC 173-20 1A-070

.

"Authorized representative" me an s:

1. If the e n tity is a corporation, the pr esident, secret ary, treasurer, or a vicepresident of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy o r decision-making functions for the

corpo r ation, or the manager of one o r more manufacturing, production, or operation facilit ies, if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the m anage r in accorda n ce with corporate procedures;

2. If the e n tity is a partners hip or sole proprietorship, a general partner or

pr opri etor , respec ti v e l y ; and

3. If the entity is a federal, state or lo cal governmental facility, a director or t h e highest official appointed or design ated to oversee the operation and performanc e of the activities of the go vernment facility, or his/her designee.

The individ u als described in paragraphs 1 through 3, above, may design ate a n other authorized representative if the authorization is in writin g, th e authorizat ion specifies the individual or position re sponsible, and the w r itten autho r ization is s u bmitted to Ecology.

"Best management practices (BMP s)" means schedules of activit i es, prohibitions of practices, maintena nce procedures, and ot her m anagem ent practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the stat e and t h eir sediments. BMPs also include, but are not limited to, treat m ent requirements , ope r ating procedures, and p r actices to control plan t site runoff, spillage or l e aks, sludge or waste dispos al, or drainage from raw material storage.

“ Broadcast” means to sc atter about over a wide area.

“Certified Applicator” "Certified applicator" m e ans any individ u al who is licensed as a
commercial pesticide applicator, co mmercia l pesticide operator, public operator, private-commercial applicator, demonstratio n and research applicator, o r certified private applicator, or any othe r individual who is certified b y the director to use or supervise the use of any pesticide which is cl assified by the E P A or the director as a
restricted us e pesticide. [ RCW 17.21. 020 (5)]



### 21"Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" mean s a c o dification of the ge neral and permanent r u les pub lish e d in the Federal Re gister by the Executive departments and agencies of t h e Federal Government. Envi ronmental regulations are in Title 40.

"Composite sample" me ans t h e com b ined mix t ure of not less than four (4 ) "discrete samples" ta ken at select ed intervals based on an increment of either flow or time. Volatile pollutant discrete samples m u st be combined in the l a boratory immediately prior to analysis. Each di screte sampl e shall be of not less t han 200 ml and shall be collected and stored in accordance with proced ures prescribe d in the mo st recent edition
of Standard Methods for Ex amination of Water a n d Wastew a t er 27

.

"Conveyance" me ans a mechanism for transporting water o r wastewa t e r from one
location to another location includin g, but not limited to, pipes, ditches, and cha nne ls.

"Daily maxi mum" mean s the grea tes t allowable value for an y calendar day.

"Daily minimum" means the smallest allowable value for an y calendar day.

"Dangerous waste" mea n s the full universe of wastes regulat e d by Chapt e r 173-3 03 WAC, including hazard o us waste.

"D egrees C" means temperature measured in degrees Celsius.

"D egrees F" means temp erature measured in degrees Fahren heit.

"D epartment" mean s th e Washingto nState D e partment of E c ology.

"D etention" means the c o llection of water into a temporary storage device with the subseq uent release of w a ter either at a rate slowe r than t h e collection rate, or after a specified ti me period has passed si nce the time of collectio n.

"Director" means the d i rector of th e Washingto nState D e partment of E c ology or his/her authorized representative.

"Discharger " means an owner or operator of an y "facility", "operation", or activity subject to regulation un der Chapter 90.48 RCW.

"D iscrete sample" mea n s an individual sample that is collected from a w a stes tream o na one-time basis without consideration to flow or time, except that aliquot collection time
should not e x ceed fifteen (15) minut e s in duration.

"Effluent limitation" m e ans any res t riction established by the local government, Ecology, and EPA on q u antities, rat e s, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and/or other effluent constituen ts wh ich are discharged from point sources to any site including, but not limited to, waters of the st ate.



### 22"Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)" means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or, where appropriate, the term may al so be used a s a design ati o n for a duly authorized official of said agency.

"Erosion" means t h e we aring away of the land s u rface by m o vements of water, win d

, ice, or other agents including, but not limited to, such geological processes as gravitational creep.

"Existing operation" me ans a n operation tha t commenced ac tivities resulting in a discharge, or potential discharge, to waters of the stat e prior to the effecti v e date of the permit for which a request for coverage is made.

"Facility" m e ans t h e act u al individual premises owned or operated by a "discharger" where process or industrial wastewater is discharged.

"FWPCA" means the F e deral Wate r Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 e t seq.), as now or as it may be ame n ded.

"G eneral pe rmit" means a permit th at covers multiple dischargers of a p o int source category within a designated geographical area, in lieu of in divid u al per m its being
issued to ea ch discharger.

"Gpd" means gallons per day.

"Grab sample" is sy non y mous with "discrete sa mple".

"Ground water" mea n s any na tural occurring water in a s a t u rated zone or stratum beneath t h e surface or la nd or a surface water body.

Hazardous waste" mea n s thos e wa stes de signa t ed by 40 CF R Part 261, a n d regulated by
the EPA.

"Individual permit" mea n s a disch a rge permit for a single point source or a single facility. "Mg/L" means milligra ms per liter and is equi valent to parts per million (ppm).

"Monthly average" means that value determine d by the su mmation of the inst antaneous

measureme n ts during a n y single m o nth di vided by the nu mber of instantan eous

measureme n ts collected during that same single month.

"New operation" mean s an operatio n tha t comm enced activities tha t res u lt in a discharge, or a potential discharge, t o waters of t h e state on o r after the ef fective date of an applicable permit.

"NPDES" means t h e Nat i onal Pollutant Dischar ge Elimination System u n der section 402
of FWPCA.



### 23"Operation" is synonymous with "facility".

"Party" me a n s an individual, firm, corporation, association, partnership, co-partnership, consortium, company, jo int venture, commercia l entity, industry, private corpo r ation, port district, special pur p ose district, irriga tion district, trust, estate , unit of local government, stat e government agen cy, federal government agency, Indi an tribe, or any other legal e n tity whatso ever, or their le gal repre s entatives, agents, or assignee.

"Permit" me ans a nauth orization, license, or eq uivalent control document issued by Ecology to implement C hapter 17 3-2 00 WAC, Ch apter 173- 21 6 WAC and/or Chapter
173-2 26 WAC.

"Person" is s y nonymous with "party".

"pH" means the logarithm of the reciprocal of the mass of hy drogen ions in grams pe r liter of solut i on. Neutral water, for exampl e, has a pH value of 7 and a h ydrogen-ion
concentration of 10 -7 . pH is a mea s ure of a substa nce's corrosivity (acidity or alkalinity).

"Point source" me ans an y discernible, confined and discrete conveyance including, but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, chann el, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container,
roll ing stock, concentrated animal feeding oper ation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants a r e or may be dischar ged. This term d o es not include return flows from irrigated agri cult ure.

"Pollutant" means any s u bstance discharged, if discharged directly, would alter the chemical, physical, ther mal, biol ogical, or radiological integrit y of the waters of the st ate, or would be likely to create a nuisan ce or render such waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to the public h e alth, sa fety or welfare, or to any legi timate benef i cial use, or to any anim a l life, either te rrestrial or a q uatic. Pollutants include, but are not limited to, the following: dredged spoil, solid waste, inci nerator residue, fil t er backwash, sewage, garbage, se wage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, h e at, wrecke d or discard e d equipme n t, rock, sand, cellar dirt , pH, temperature, TSS, turb id ity, color, B O D 5 , TDS, toxicity, odor, and indust rial, municipal, and agricultural waste.

"Priority pollutant" mea n s thos e substances liste d in the fede ral 40 CFR P a rt 423, Appendix A, or as may be amended

.

"Reasonabl e times" me ans a t any ti me during norm al busin e ss hours; h o urs during which production, treatment, or discharge occurs; or ti mes when Ecology suspects

occurrence of a violation.

"Regional administrato r" means the regional administrator of Region X of the EPA o r his/her authorized represent a tive.

"Retention" means the c o llection of water into a permanent s t orage device, with no subseq uent release of w a ter.



### 24"Severe pro p erty dama ge" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the pretreatment facilities or treatment/disposal facilities that causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and perm anent los s of natural resources which can reasona b ly
be ex pected to occur in the absence o f a bypass. S e vere property damage does not m e an economic lo ss caused by delays or losses in production.

"Shall" is m andatory.

"Significant" is synon y mous with "substantial".

"Site" means the land or water area where any "facility", "op e ration", or "activity" is physically l o cated or conducted, including any adjacent land used in connection with such facility

, operation, or activity. " S ite" also means the land or water area receivin g any effluent discharged from any fa cility, operation, or activit y

.

"Small business" has t h e meaning g i ven in RCW 43.31 .02 5 ( 4).

"Standard I ndustrial Classification (SIC) Code" means a cla ssification pursuant to the
Standard In dustrial Cl a ssification Manual issued by the U. S. Office of Managemen t and Budget.

"State" mea n s the sta t e of Washingt on.

"Substantial" mean s a n y difference in any para mete r including, but not limited to, the following: monitoring result, process characteristic, permit term or condition; which Ecology con s iders to be of significant impo rtance, value, degree, amount, or extent.

"Surface waters of the state" me ans all waters d e fined as "w aters of th e United State s " in
40 CFR 12 2. 2 within th e geographic boundaries of the state of Washington. This includes lakes, rivers, ponds, stre ams, inland waters, s a lt waters a n d all other surface waters and

watercourse s within the jurisdicti on of the state of Washington.

"Total suspended solids (TSS)" means tot a l suspended mat t er that either floats on t h e surface of, or is in suspension in wa t e r or waste w ater, expressed in mg/ L

.

"Toxic amo unts" means any a m ount, i.e., concen tratio n or volume, of a pollutant which causes, or could potentially cause, the death of , o r injury to, fish, animals, vegetation o r other desirable resources of the stat e , or ot herwise causes, or could poten t ially cause, a
reduction in the q u ality of the st ate's waters below the s t and ards set by Ecology or, if no
standards h a ve been set

, causes sign ificant degradation of wa ter q u ality, thereby damaging the same.

"Toxics" means t h ose su bstances list e d in the fed e ral priority pollutant list and any ot her pollutant or combination of pollutants listed as to xic in regula tions promulgated by the
EPA under section 307 of the FWPCA (33 U.S .C. 1317 et seq.), or Ecology under Chapter
173-2 00 WAC, Chapter 1 73-20 1A WAC, or Chapter 173-2 04 WAC.



### 25"Unirrigated" mean s a n y lands h a ving not been ir rigated within 10 d a ys prior to, or within 60 d a ys after th e application of any wa ste s tream.

"Upset" mea n s an ex ceptional incident in which a discharger unintention a lly and temporarily is in a st ate of noncompliance with permit effluent limitations due to factors beyond the reasonable control of the discharger. An upset does not include noncompliance to the ex tent caused by operational error, im properly de signed
treatment facilit ies, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation ther eof.

"Waters of the state" m e ans all wa te rs defined a s "surface waters of th e s t ate" a n d all
waters defin e d as "w ater s of the stat e " in RCW 90.40.0 20.

"Water qual ity" mean s t h e chemical, physical, biologic al cha r acteristics o f water, usually in respect to its suitabilit y for a particular p u r p o s e.

“Water Quality Preservation Area (WQP A)” means w a ters that have been designa t e d as high quality waters b a sed upon o n e or more of the following criteria:

1. Waters in d e signated f e deral and st ate parks, m o numents, p r eserves, wildlife refuges, wilderness area s, ma rine s a nctuaries, estuarine research reserve s , and wild and scenic rivers;

2. Aquatic habitat having e x ceptional importance to one or more life stage of a candidate of listed priori ty species, estab lished by the s t ate D e partment o f Fish &
Wildl i fe, or a federally proposed or l i st ed threat e n ed or endangered species;

3. Rare aq uatic habitat, eco l ogical reference sites, o r other wate rs having unique and

ex ceptional ecological or re creational significance.

"Water qual ity standards" means th e stat e of Washington' s water q u ality stand ards for ground waters of the s t a t e (Chapter 173-2 00 WAC) and th e s t ate of Was h ington's wat e r
q u ality stan dards for surface waters of the s t ate (Chapter 17 3-201A WAC).

In the absence of other definitions as set forth herein, the definitions as set forth in 40 CFR Part 403.3 shall be used for circumstances concerning the discharge of w a stes.



### 26

## APPENDIX C – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

A public comment period was ope nfrom April 15 to May 17, 2 004 . Th e notice was posted on E c ology’s Aquatic Pesticides webs ite as well as in the King Co unty Journal, the Spokane Spokesman-Review, Th e Columbia n, and the Yakima Herald-Repub li c once each week f o r two consecutive wee k s.

Comments were receive d from Claude Ginsbe rg, president o f the group No Spray Zone.

General Per m it Comme nts

Comment 1. The comme nter stat es t hat “ a blank et permit must not be is sued for spraying, but permits sh ould be issued on an as needed basi s.”

Response to Comment 1. The National Pollutio n Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pe rmit for inva sive moth control being proposed by the Department of Ecology will be an in dividual permit, issued only to the Department of Agricultur e for control. Although most of our NPDES permi ts are gener al permits, we felt that t h is permit would not need tha t type of coverage. Under this permit, the Department of Agriculture is required to submit records of where they wish to apply pesticides prior to t he applicat ion.

Comment 2. The comme nter stat es t hat s h ortly a f te r the nint h Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2001, the Att o rney Gener a l’s office stated th at t h e area around Vader, Washington, did not need to obtain an NP DES permit for invasive moth control.

Response to Comment 2. As a result of the 20 01 court decision, the De partment of Ecology, which manages the health and vitality of the surface waters of the state, beg an the process of implemen ting NPDES permits for application s of pesticides to state surface wat e rs. At the time that pesticides were being used in the Vader area for invasive mot h control, th e state did n o t have a permit in place for those ap plication s . F o r that specif ic situation, we instructed t he Department of Agriculture to take measures to prevent the pesticide s u s ed from entering surface waters. (le tter dated 3/ 19/02 to Clinton Campbell, Pest Program Manager, WSDA fr o m Megan White, Water Quality Program Manager, Ecology)

Comment 3. The comme nter stat es t hat t h ere has been cooperation between the manufacturer of Foray 48BTM and th e Washingt o nState D e partment of Agriculture, and
that t h is rela tionship could be used by the s t ate t o req u est that Valent Bi osciences reformulate Foray 48BTM to remove BIT and th e e t hox y lated phenox y alcohol
surfactants.

Response to Comment 3. The Department of Ecology works with the Department of Agriculture ( W SDA) to look constant ly at new, safer products available for aquatic use

. This include s investigation of safer a d juvants

.



### 27Comment 4. The comme nter stat es t hat when gr ou nd spraying, adjuvant surfactants such as Plya cTM or similar products contai ning et hox y lated phenox y alcohols must n o t be used, an d less toxic substitutes should be sought.

Response to Comment 4. The spra y adjuvant PlyacTM is not currently registered for distribution in Washingto n by the WSDA. The WSDA Final Environmental Assessment for the Cooperative Gyp s y Moth Era d ication Project does not allow the use of PlyacTM. The adjuvant expected to be used d u ring the 20 04 applicat ion season is BondTM, which is registered for aquatic use by EPA. According t o page 12 of the WSDA Final Environmen tal Assessment for the Cooperative Gyps y Moth Eradication Project (April 12, 2004), t he spray adjuvant Bond TM (spreader - sticker) m a y be used at a rate of up to 16 ounces p e r 100 gallo ns of tank mix. BondTM is registered for distribution in Washington by the WSDA. Based on data reviewed by WSDA the signal word for BondTM is "Caution", the ingredient s in BondTM are exempt f r om tolerance, and BondTM has been ap proved for use on terrest rial and aqu atic site s by WSDA (prac t ically nontoxic to freshwater fish and aquatic invertebrates). BondTM does not cont ain any alkylphenol ethoxylates (Erik Johansen, Pest Management Program, WSDA pers. communication, June 1, 2004).

Comment 5. The comme nter stat es t hat WSDA must redouble its efforts to tes t and use safer alternative methods that have been sh own to have some utility, suc h as mass trapping (this has proved somewha t effective in eradicating at least one i n festation in
Canada recently) and us ing mating disruption (pheromone flakes). The objections to pheromone flakes should be expl ore d with the manufacturer.

Response to Comment 5. Ecology works close l y with the Department of Agriculture to investigate new and safer alternatives to the pro ducts curren t ly being used. Any change in method must be supp orted by sound scient ific findings, an d can take time to approve. All new methods will co ntinue to be ev aluated as they become available.



### 28