FACT SHEET FOR INVASIVE MOTH NPDES PERMIT 

Permit Type: 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Permit Number: WA0039047 

Permit holder: 

Washington State Department of 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 INVASIVE MOTHS.7

THE HISTORY OF INVASIVE MOTH MANAGEMENT................................8

PERMITTED ACTIVITIES........................................................................9

GEOGRAPHICAL AREA COVERED.........................................................9

REGULATORY POLLUTION REDUCTION REQUIREMENT ...................... 10

WATER QUALITY BASED REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 10

BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS KURSTAKI (BTK)........................................ 11

TECHNOLOGY BASED WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 13

SEDIMENT QUALITY .......................................................................... 14

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ........................................................ 15

ENDANGERED SPECIES ...................................................................... 15

SEPA COMPLIANCE ........................................................................... 16

MONITORING.................................................................................... 16

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING.................................................... 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 – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS............................................ 27

 

4 
FACT SHEET FOR INVASIVE MOTH CONTROL NPDES PERMIT 

SUMMARY 

The state of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has tentatively determined to 

issue a permit for the application of insecticides to control invasive species of invasive 

moths in trees and shrubs that may be over or within surface waters of the state of 

Washington. The use of insecticides is subject to the provisions of Best Management 

Practices and an integrated pest management (IPM) plan. Monitoring is required in 

certain situations. Any short-term toxicity to aquatic organisms is allowed under the 

terms of the permit and the water quality modification provisions to perform essential 

activities that protect natural resources of the state. The proposed terms, limitations, and 

conditions contained in the permit are tentative and may be subject to change 

subsequent to public comments received by Ecology. All activities accepted under the 

permit will not be relieved of any responsibility or liability at any time during the life of 

the permit for: (1) violating state water quality standards; or (2) violating any other local, 

state, or federal regulation or standard as may pertain to the individual activity. Any 

application of insecticide over surface waters of the state requiring NPDES permit 

coverage found not covered under the permit may be considered to be operating 

without a discharge permit and subject to potential enforcement action. 

On March 12, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the application of an 

herbicide in compliance with the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not exempt an irrigation district from 

needing to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

(Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District). Ecology, as had many more states, had 

been issuing orders that were not NPDES permits that placed protective conditions on

the use of pesticides in waters of the state. This permit will replace a short-term 

modification where insecticide applications are directed over surface waters of the state 

for the purpose of controlling invasive moth species infecting vegetation over or within 

state waters.

5
INTRODUCTION 

This fact sheet is a companion document that provides the basis for issuance of the

Invasive Moth NPDES Permit. Ecology is proposing to issue this permit, which will 

allow discharge of insecticides to control invasive moths in vegetation over or within 

surface waters of the state of Washington, which are also waters of the United States,

pursuant 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 fact 

sheet explains the nature of the proposed discharges, Ecology’s decisions on limiting 

pollutants in wastewater, and the regulatory and technical basis for these decisions.

The federal Clean Water Act (FWCA, 1972), and later modifications (1977, 1981, and 

1987), established water quality goals for the navigable (surface) waters of the United 

States. One mechanism for achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act is National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, administered by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has delegated responsibility to 

administer the NPDES permit program to the state of Washington on the basis of 

Chapter 90.48 RCW, which defines Ecology’s authority and obligations in administering 

the wastewater discharge permit program. 

The issuance of a permit to Washington State Department of Agriculture for invasive 

moth control is appropriate due to the environmental fate of the permitted insecticide, 

the uniform discharge conditions to which all applications would be subject, and the 

statewide scope of invasive moth control. 

The regulations adopted by the state include procedures for issuing discharge permits 

(Chapter 173-216 WAC), water quality criteria for surface waters (Chapter 173-201A 

WAC), and sediment management standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC). These regulations 

require that a permit be issued before discharge of wastes to waters of the state is 

allowed. The regulations also establish the basis for effluent limitations and other 

requirements which are to be included in the permit. One of the requirements (WAC 

173-216-070) 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 draft permit with a 

public comment period, and public notice of issuance are all required before the permit 

is issued (WAC 173-216-090, 173-216-100). 

The fact sheet and draft permit will be reviewed by the potential permit holder. Errors 

and omissions identified in this review will be corrected before going to public notice. 

After the public comment period has closed, Ecology will summarize 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 Ecology’s response. Comments and the resultant changes to the permit will be 

summarized in Appendix C—Responses to Comments. 

6 
THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, RODENTICIDE ACT 

FIFRA of 1979, as administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), requires that all persons who apply pesticides classified as restricted 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 principles and practices of pest control and safe use of 

pesticides, which will be accomplished by means of a “core” examination. In addition, 

applicators using or supervising the use of any restricted use pesticides purposefully 

applied to standing or running water (excluding applicators engaged in public health 

related activities) are required to pass an additional exam to demonstrate competency as 

described in the code of federal regulations that follows: 

“Aquatic applicators shall demonstrate practical knowledge of the secondary 

effects which can be caused by improper application rates, incorrect 

formulations, 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 potential pesticide effects on plants, fish, birds, beneficial insects and 

other organisms that may be present in aquatic environments. Applicants in this 

category must demonstrate practical knowledge of the principles of limited area 

application” (40CFR 171.4). 

ECONOMIC, ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF INVASIVE 

MOTHS 

As evidenced by past isolated infestations of gypsy moths, invasive moth species 

survive and reproduce in Washington State. If left unchecked, infestations of invasive 

species will spread across extensive areas. Trees in forests and orchards, residential and 

municipal shade trees and landscape plantings would be damaged or killed during an 

outbreak of an invasive moth species. Recreational and aesthetic values associated with 

trees and forested land would be diminished. Species composition of the vegetation on 

forested land could change, affecting the quality and variety of food available for 

wildlife. 

Water quality could be adversely affected with: 1) increased siltation from rapid runoff 

of rainfall from defoliated areas; 2) increases in water temperature as it flows through 

areas made shadeless; and 3) nutrient overloading from the deposition of large 

quantities of caterpillar droppings. The pesticide load in the environment would likely 

increase in quantity, variety, and net detrimental environmental impact as home and 

business owners take action in response to ever-increasing numbers of caterpillars, the 

damage they cause, and the nuisance they represent. 

7
Reports of human health effects associated with the presence of large numbers of 

caterpillars, such as would be seen during an invasive species outbreak, have included 

rashes and welts typical of allergic reactions, and respiratory complaints. These effects 

have been attributed to the irritating nature of the bristles found on caterpillars. In some 

instances the reactions have been severe enough to require medical attention. 

THE HISTORY OF INVASIVE MOTH MANAGEMENT 

Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) has successfully detected and

eradicated new introductions of gypsy moths for more than 25 years. Since the 

accidental introduction to the United States in 1869, gypsy moths have spread 

throughout 19 states, the District of Columbia, and parts of Canada. People visiting or 

relocating from infested areas of eastern North America have many times introduced 

gypsy moths to Washington State.

The history of gypsy moth control programs demonstrates the importance of excluding 

invasive moth species from Washington State. The first gypsy moth control program 

was initiated in 1889 in Massachusetts, twenty years after the first introduction, when 

populations finally reached epidemic levels. Eradication was not realized, as the 

pesticide and application equipment used were not designed for a forested 

environment. The control program was expanded to include the use of sprays, egg mass 

removal, trapping and sticky bands. The population was reduced to minor threat levels 

before funding was cut in the mid 1890’s. 

The federal government became involved in 1905 when a second outbreak spread across 

several states. A biological control program was introduced without much success. By 

1908, the main treatment method was again a chemical approach. During the 1920’s, a 

silvicultural approach was recommended that would replace preferred hosts, such as

oak species, with less desirable food plants, such as maple. This method was rejected

because of high costs. 

In the 1940's, scientists discovered that DDT was very effective against gypsy moths.

Despite concern about the pesticide's effects on the environment, the government 

proceeded with its plan to eradicate gypsy moths with DDT and treated 3 million acres 

in 1957. The federal government was forced to abandon its plan for gypsy moth 

eradication when the environmental effects of DDT were discovered. 

The use of biological controls increased in the 1960’s. Biological controls, inherently, will 

not eradicate invasive species, but enter a cyclic hunter/prey relationship with the 

invader. As the invasive moths enter a boom in population the control population also 

rises until the prey population drops off and the control populations also drop off. Such 

a strategy makes perfect sense from an IPM perspective when treating an area with 

established invasive moth populations. 

In areas such as Washington State, without established populations, eradication is an 

attainable goal. The WSDA control program has been successful in eradicating such 

isolated populations for many years. Control methods have evolved over time such that 

8 
the use of a relatively host-specific insecticide, such as Btk, can continue this success 

with minimal damage to non-target species. Furthermore, Btk does not appear to impair 

parasitoid performance. A major factor in choosing an IPM prescription is its ability to 

be successful while not disrupting natural controls such as parasites. 

The current WSDA gypsy moth control program is typical of invasive moth 

management, where gypsy moths are managed on an as needed basis. The need for 

management is based on the detection of gypsy moth presence through the use of 

pheromone traps. The WSDA Gypsy Moth Eradication program annually employs a 

seasonal crew to place and check traps throughout the state. Areas with positive 

identifications may be slated for treatment the following season. The pesticides used in 

treating infested areas are biological in origin, highly specific to Lepidoptera species, and 

have little or no effect on other organisms. 

PERMITTED ACTIVITIES 

The permit authorizes discharges of insecticides over and incidentally, when 

unavoidable, into surface waters of the state of Washington for the purpose of invasive 

moth control. 

All applications of insecticides must be made under the supervision of a qualified, 

licensed WSDA applicator, whether the applicators are WSDA personnel or the staff of a 

contracted company. The WSDA employee supervising a control project will be familiar 

with FIFRA and state requirements, monitoring plans, and IPM plans, and will comply 

with applicable regulations. 

GEOGRAPHICAL AREA COVERED 

The permit authorizes applications of insecticides for invasive moth control to surface 

waters in Washington State. Invasive moths are often found near freshwater aquatic or 

semi-aquatic sites and control activities are scattered throughout the state. Typical sites 

include riparian areas, wetlands, marshes, rivers, year round and seasonal streams, 

lakes, ponds, wet pastures and brackish estuaries. It is vital that new infestations be 

controlled wherever they are found to ensure they do not spread and become much 

larger problems. 

Permit coverage for invasive moth control is not needed in certain situations that are

derived in part from exclusions to the definition of “waters of the United States” in 

33CFR Part 328.3. These include: 

1) On land which is in agricultural use where the invasive moth control is 

performed where treatment would have no environmental impact except 

to invasive moths, or 

2) In man-made retention or detention ponds for wastewater or storm water 

treatment, or

3) Where insecticide applications are directed towards invasive moths in a 

terrestrial setting and not into surface waters. 

9
REGULATORY POLLUTION REDUCTION REQUIREMENT 

Federal and state regulations required that effluent limitations set forth in a “NPDES 

permit must be either technology or water quality based. Technology 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 173-200WAC), Sediment Quality Standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC) 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. 

WATER QUALITY BASED REQUIREMENTS 

Invasive moth control activities may affect surface waters of the state. These waters are 

protected by chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the 

State of Washington. The purpose of these standards is to establish the highest quality of 

state waters, through the reduction or elimination of contaminant discharges 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 conditions of 

the permit. 

Invasive moth control activities that discharge, directly or indirectly, to surface waters 

shall be required to meet the state water quality standards for surface waters as given in 

chapter 173-201A WAC. The characteristic beneficial uses of surface waters include, but 

are not limited to, the following: domestic, industrial and agricultural water supply; 

stock watering; the spawning, rearing, migration and harvesting of fish; the spawning, 

rearing and harvesting of shellfish; wildlife habitat; recreation (primary contact, sport 

fishing, boating, and aesthetic enjoyment of nature); commerce and navigation. 

RCW 90.48.035 authorizes establishment of water quality standards for 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 SWD regulations are conditioned 

in such a manner that all authorized discharges shall meet state water quality standards. 

Standards include an "antidegradation" policy, which states that beneficial uses shall be 

protected. 

Ecology has deemed that, when properly applied and handled in accordance with the

Best Management Practices and other terms and conditions of the permit, the use of a 

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstake based insecticide for invasive moth control will comply 

with state water quality standards, will maintain and protect the existing characteristic 

beneficial uses of the surface waters of the state, and will protect human health. New 

information regarding previously unknown environmental and human health risks may 

cause reopening of the permit. Other insecticides may be considered for use after they 

are labeled for invasive moth control by EPA’s FIFRA program and the SEPA process is 

complete. 

10 
No mixing or dilution zone shall be authorized 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 authorized by the permit to cause a temporary 

diminishment of some beneficial uses while the water body is altered to protect public 

health and to protect other natural resources of the state. The short-term modification 

will be short in that the actual impairment will be short lived, while the overall 

availability of authorization extends through the term of the permit. The IPM plan to be 

developed prior to the second year of the permit term satisfies the regulatory 

requirement for a long-term plan that allows short-term modifications to extend for five 

years. 

The activities authorized by this permit do not have a reasonable potential to cause a

violation of state water quality standards (WAC 173-201A) so long as the activities are 

allowed under the short-term water quality modification. The water quality 

modification provides for an exception to meeting certain provisions of the state water 

quality standards such as meeting all beneficial uses all the time. Activities covered 

under this permit are allocated a temporary zone of impact on beneficial uses, but the 

impact must be transient, and must allow for full restoration of water quality and 

protection of beneficial uses upon project completion. The conditions of the permit 

constitute the requirements of a water quality modification. 

Washington’s water quality standards now include 91 numeric human health-based

criteria that must be considered in NPDES permits. These criteria were promulgated for 

the state by the U.S. EPA in its National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 

246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992). 

Ecology has determined that the applicant's discharge does not contain chemicals of 

concern for human health based on existing data or knowledge. The discharge will be

re-evaluated for impacts to human health at the next permit reissuance. 

BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS KURSTAKI (BTK) 

The product known as Btk (Bacillus thuringiensis, var. kurstaki) is a naturally occurring 

bacterium that is available in liquid and granular form. Btk is an endospore-forming

bacterium that is ingested by the actively feeding caterpillars. 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 resting spore phase of their life cycle when ingested, and the 

spores do not germinate until they enter the insect’s gut. Alkaline conditions in the 

insect gut are required as a signal for the spore to reproduce. Btk has no effect on a vast 

array of aquatic organisms. 

11
Commercial strains of Btk are naturally occurring Btk that have been isolated from the 

environment and fermented in much the same way as yeast is selected from nature. 

Commercial Btk strains are maintained by industry laboratories in a pure, 

uncontaminated form that are used to inoculate large quantities of growth media for 

production. 

Btk is the primary material used for invasive moth control because of its low toxicity to

non-target species. Timing is important and is usually applied from one to four times 

per treatment season. 

Btk has been extensively studied for effects on non-target organisms and environmental 

consequences of use with few reported adverse effects. It is not toxic to bees, warmblooded mammals, and it shows no reported effect on fish and amphibians when 

applied at field rates. Labels indicate that direct contact with the product may cause 

mild to moderate eye or skin irritation. 

No complaints were made after humans ate one gram of commercial Bt preparation 

daily for five days, on alternate days. Some inhaled 100 milligrams of powder daily, in 

addition to the dietary dosage. Humans who ate one gram per day for three consecutive 

days were not poisoned or infected. No complaints were made by eight men after they 

were exposed to fermentation broth, moist bacterial cakes, waste materials, and final 

powder created during the commercial production of Bt. 

On plant surfaces, Bt products degrade rapidly. While Bt is moderately persistent in soil, 

its toxins degrade rapidly. Because of its specificity, Btk lacks the ability to recycle 

readily in insect populations. Factors that influence its persistence include UV, agitation, 

sedimentation, water quality, pH, and temperature. 

The primary application methods in invasive moth control are: 

1. Hand application: Hydraulic spray apparatus, rotomist equipment, and backpack 

units. 

2. Aerial application: Aerial applications are completed using either a helicopter or an 

airplane. 

TABLE 1. PERMITTED PESTICIDES USED FOR INVASIVE MOTH CONTROL

Active ingredient Method of action Typical label use 

rates 

Bacillus 

thuringiensis 

kurstaki (Btk) 

Biopesticide, 

bacteria 

21 to 128 ounces 

per acre 

12 
TECHNOLOGY BASED WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 

Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the FWPCA established discharge standards, 

prohibitions, and limits based on pollution control technologies. These technology-based 

limits are "best practical control technology" (BPT), "best available technology 

economically achievable" (BAT), and "best conventional pollutant control technology 

economically achievable" (BCT). Compliance with BPT/BAT/BCT may be established 

using a "best professional judgment" (BPJ) determination. 

The state has similar technology-based limits, which are described as: "all known, 

available and reasonable methods of control, prevention, and treatment" (AKART) 

methods. AKART is referred to in state law under RCW 90.48.010, RCW 90.48.520, RCW 

90.52.040 and RCW 90.54.020. The federal technology-based limits and AKART are 

similar but not equivalent. AKART: (1) may be established for an industrial category or 

on a case-by-case basis; (2) may be more stringent than federal regulations; and (3) 

includes not only treatment, but also Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as 

prevention and control methods (i.e. waste minimization, waste/source reduction, or 

reduction in total contaminant releases to the environment). Ecology and the federal 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concur that, historically, most discharge 

permits have determined state AKART as equivalent to federal BPJ determinations. 

The pesticide application industry has been regulated by EPA under the terms of FIFRA. 

Pesticide use is regulated by label use requirements developed by EPA. In developing 

label use requirements, EPA requires the pesticide manufacturer to register each 

pesticide and provide evidence that the pesticide will work as promised and that 

unacceptable environmental harm will be minimized. 

It is the intent of this permit to authorize invasive moth control treatments in a manner 

that also complies with federal and other state requirements. All WWDPs issued by 

Ecology must incorporate requirements to implement reasonable prevention, treatment 

and control of pollutants. 

The legislature established in the Washington Pesticide Control Act, RCW 17.15, that 

prevention of pollution in this case is reasonable only in the context of an Integrated Pest 

Management plan. IPM plans require the investigation of all control options, but do not 

require non-chemical pest controls as the preferred option. The goal of IPM is to 

establish the most effective means of control whether chemical, non-chemical, or a 

combination. 

The Talent decision established that pesticides become waste in the water after the 

pesticide has performed its intended action and the target organisms are controlled. 

Treatment of the pollutants addressed in this permit is difficult due to the diffuse nature 

and low concentrations that exist after the pesticides have become waste and treatment 

of waters where pesticide residues threaten to cause unacceptable environmental harm 

will not likely be necessary. 

13
SEDIMENT QUALITY 

Ecology has promulgated aquatic sediment standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC) to protect 

aquatic biota and human health. These standards state that Ecology may require permit 

holders to evaluate the potential for the discharge to cause a violation of applicable 

standards (WAC 173-204-400). 

Ecology has determined through a review of the discharger characteristics and effluent 

characteristics that this discharge has no reasonable potential to violate the Sediment 

Management Standards.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 

WSDA’s invasive moth control program currently utilizes integrated pest 

management (IPM) strategies. IPM programs include preventing pest problems, 

monitoring for the presence of pests, setting a population density at which 

treatment occurs, and evaluating efficacy of treatments. WSDA programs have 

worked to prevent introductions through the creation of education materials, 

yearly monitoring for invasive moths, and follow-up treatments with extensive 

trapping for the following two seasons. The population threshold 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 IPM program is chosen after giving equal weight to 

all control strategies. The chosen control option will best fit the parameters of an 

individual situation after the ecologic and economic consequence of each option 

is considered. The treatment alternatives considered for invasive moths are no 

action, exclusion, pesticides applications, virus introduction, mass trapping, 

mating disruption, and sterile releases. 

The treatment that has been preferred in the past is a biological pesticide, Bacillus 

thuringiensis, var. kurstaki (Btk). Btk is a naturally occurring bacterial component 

of soils worldwide and specifically infect Lepidoptera species. This strategy is 

felt to give the best chance of eradicating the infestations while minimizing risks 

to human health and risks of environmental costs. The success of the treatments 

is confirmed by surveying the area the following two seasons with pheromonebaited traps. 

WSDA will be required to submit a formal, written IPM plan prior to the second 

year of the permit term to satisfy the regulatory requirement that allows shortterm modifications to extend for five years. 

14 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

WSDA will continue to examine the possibility of alternatives to reduce the need for 

pesticides. Such methods include: 

1) Using the least intrusive method of pesticide application. 

2) All errors in application and spills are reported to the proper authority. 

3) Informing the public of planned spray activities. 

4) Applying a decision matrix concept to the choice of the most appropriate 

formulation. 

5) Staff training in the proper application of pesticides and handling of spills. 

Labels specify some additional BMPs. 

An important goal of the first permit cycle is to reinforce the concept of reduction in 

pesticide residuals. A reduction in the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state can 

be achieved by using proper BMPs, which include integrated pest management and 

alternative pest control procedures. 

All applications to waters within forested areas of the state of Washington shall be made 

in accordance with provisions in RCW 79.09.060(8), as amended. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

As required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, the Washington State 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Washington State Department of 

Natural Resources (DNR) will be consulted. These agencies provide maps and other 

data intended to aide in the identification of habitats of concern and the presence of 

listed, proposed, candidate, threatened or endangered species. The agencies also will 

advise WSDA on the implementation of mitigation measures that would eliminate any 

adverse impacts to any species or habitats located within a project area. 

PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF PRODUCTS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE 

CURRENT PERMIT 

Due to the possibility of losing the use of some pesticides in the current EPA reregistration process and concern about the length of time necessary to complete a permit 

modification to allow the use of a new product, a procedure will be developed to allow 

conditional use of a new product until the next permit renewal. This procedure will 

require WSDA to submit a risk assessment for Ecology’s approval. The risk assessment 

must contain: 1) verification that the new product will meet the specified general 

conditions and prohibitions, and 2) contain certain specified information about the 

product and its environmental fate. Based upon the information in the risk assessment 

Ecology will either grant of deny conditional approval for the use of the new product.

15
SEPA COMPLIANCE 

Invasive moth control activities have undergone numerous environmental impact 

evaluations. The use of pesticides is conditioned to mitigate environmental impacts of 

concern noted in these evaluations. This permit will undergo SEPA. The conditions of 

this permit should satisfy any water quality related SEPA concerns. 

MONITORING 

Monitoring of residual pesticides may be required to confirm assumptions of safety

when applications are performed in compliance with the FIFRA label and state

requirements. The permit holder may propose and gain approval for a monitoring plan 

in lieu of monitoring each application. 

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING 

The conditions of S3 are based on the authority to specify any appropriate reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements to prevent and control waste discharges (WAC 173-226-

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 made with residents of any proposed treatment area by sending a 

letter to all occupants within treatment boundaries and all adjacent properties. This 

letter will be sent within three months of the formal proposal to treat the area. 

The letter sent to area residents will contain: 

1. A map of the proposed treatment area, 

2. An explanation of the formal proposal concerning treatment of the area, 

3. Information that a public meeting will be held locally and the location of said 

meeting, 

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

5. An explanation of the opportunity to comment on the environmental review 

of the proposal. 

16 
RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS 

Ecology has established, and will enforce, limits and conditions expressed in the permit 

for the discharge of wastes containing various pesticides registered for use by the EPA 

and the Washington State Department of Agriculture. These agencies will enforce the 

use, storage, and disposal requirements expressed 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 federal or state label requirements or any other 

applicable laws and regulations. 

PERMIT MODIFICATIONS 

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, or Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters, based on new information 

obtained from sources such as inspections, effluent monitoring, or Ecology approved 

engineering reports. Ecology may also modify this permit as a result of new or amended 

state or federal regulations. 

GENERAL CONDITIONS 

General conditions are based directly on state and federal law and regulations and are 

included in all aquatic pesticide permits. 

RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE 

The permit meets all statutory requirements for authorizing a wastewater discharge, 

including those limitations and conditions believed necessary to control toxics, protect 

human health, aquatic life, and the beneficial 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 

INFORMATION 

A Public Notice of Application (PNOA) was published by Ecology in the Seattle Times, 

the Spokane Review, The Columbian (Vancouver) and the Yakima Herald on March 17 and 

again on March 24, 2004. The draft permit and fact sheet were available for public 

comment from April 15, 2004 until May 17, 2004. 

Interested persons were invited to submit comments regarding the proposed issuance of 

the permit. Comments on the permit were written and submitted to the Ecology Office 

at the address below: 

Washington State Department of Ecology 

Headquarters Building, Lacey 

Attention: Kathleen Emmett 

P.O. Box 7600 

Olympia, WA 98504-7600 

Email: kemm461@ecy.wa.gov 

All comments were submitted by 5 p.m. on May 17 and considered in the final permit 

determination. A responsiveness summary in Appendix C was prepared and available 

for public review. It will be sent to all parties who submitted comments. 

The proposed permit, fact sheet and other related documents are on the Internet at 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/index.html 

19
20 
APPENDIX B -- GLOSSARY 

DEFINITIONS 

"Administrator" means the administrator of the EPA. 

“Antidegradation Policy” is as stated in WAC 173-201A-070. 

"Authorized representative" means: 

1. If the entity is a corporation, the president, secretary, treasurer, or a vicepresident of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any 

other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the 

corporation, or the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or 

operation facilities, if authority to sign documents has been assigned or 

delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures; 

2. If the entity is a partnership or sole proprietorship, a general partner or 

proprietor, respectively; and 

3. If the entity is a federal, state or local governmental facility, a director or the 

highest official appointed or designated to oversee the operation and 

performance of the activities of the government facility, or his/her designee. 

The individuals described in paragraphs 1 through 3, above, may designate another 

authorized representative if the authorization is in writing, the authorization specifies 

the individual or position responsible, and the written authorization is submitted to 

Ecology. 

"Best management practices (BMPs)" means schedules of activities, prohibitions of 

practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or 

reduce the pollution of waters of the state and their sediments. BMPs also include, but 

are not limited to, treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to 

control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from 

raw material storage. 

“Broadcast” means to scatter about over a wide area. 

“Certified Applicator” "Certified applicator" means any individual who is licensed as a 

commercial pesticide applicator, commercial pesticide operator, public operator, 

private-commercial applicator, demonstration and research applicator, or certified 

private applicator, or any other individual who is certified by the director to use or 

supervise the use of any pesticide which is classified by the EPA or the director as a 

restricted use pesticide. [RCW 17.21.020 (5)] 

21
"Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" means a codification of the general and 

permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government. Environmental regulations are in Title 40. 

"Composite sample" means the combined mixture of not less than four (4) "discrete 

samples" taken at selected intervals based on an increment of either flow or time. 

Volatile pollutant discrete samples must be combined in the laboratory immediately 

prior to analysis. Each discrete sample shall be of not less than 200 ml and shall be 

collected and stored in accordance with procedures prescribed in the most recent edition 

of Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater27. 

"Conveyance" means a mechanism for transporting water or wastewater from one 

location to another location including, but not limited to, pipes, ditches, and channels. 

"Daily maximum" means the greatest allowable value for any calendar day. 

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

"Dangerous waste" means the full universe of wastes regulated by Chapter 173-303 

WAC, including hazardous waste. 

"Degrees C" means temperature measured in degrees Celsius. 

"Degrees F" means temperature measured in degrees Fahrenheit. 

"Department" means the Washington State Department of Ecology. 

"Detention" means the collection of water into a temporary storage device with the

subsequent release of water either at a rate slower than the collection rate, or after a 

specified time period has passed since the time of collection. 

"Director" means the director of the Washington State Department of Ecology or his/her 

authorized representative. 

"Discharger" means an owner or operator of any "facility", "operation", or activity 

subject to regulation under Chapter 90.48 RCW. 

"Discrete sample" means an individual sample that is collected from a wastestream on a 

one-time basis without consideration to flow or time, except that aliquot collection time 

should not exceed fifteen (15) minutes in duration. 

"Effluent limitation" means any restriction established by the local government, 

Ecology, and EPA on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, 

biological, and/or other effluent constituents which are discharged from point sources 

to any site including, but not limited to, waters of the state.

22 
"Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)" means the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency or, where appropriate, the term may also be used as a designation for a duly 

authorized official of said agency. 

"Erosion" means the wearing away of the land surface by movements of water, wind, 

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

gravitational creep. 

"Existing operation" means an operation that commenced activities resulting in a 

discharge, or potential discharge, to waters of the state prior to the effective date of the 

permit for which a request for coverage is made. 

"Facility" means the actual individual premises owned or operated by a "discharger" 

where process or industrial wastewater is discharged. 

"FWPCA" means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as 

now or as it may be amended. 

"General permit" means a permit that covers multiple dischargers of a point source 

category within a designated geographical area, in lieu of individual permits being 

issued to each discharger. 

"Gpd" means gallons per day. 

"Grab sample" is synonymous with "discrete sample". 

"Ground water" means any natural occurring water in a saturated zone or stratum 

beneath the surface or land or a surface water body. 

Hazardous waste" means those wastes designated by 40 CFR Part 261, and regulated by 

the EPA. 

"Individual permit" means a discharge permit for a single point source or a single 

facility. 

"Mg/L" means milligrams per liter and is equivalent to parts per million (ppm). 

"Monthly average" means that value determined by the summation of the instantaneous 

measurements during any single month divided by the number of instantaneous 

measurements collected during that same single month. 

"New operation" means an operation that commenced activities that result in a 

discharge, or a potential discharge, to waters of the state on or after the effective date of 

an applicable permit. 

"NPDES" means the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System under section 402 

of FWPCA. 

23
"Operation" is synonymous with "facility". 

"Party" means an individual, firm, corporation, association, partnership, co-partnership, 

consortium, company, joint venture, commercial entity, industry, private corporation, 

port district, special purpose district, irrigation district, trust, estate, unit of local 

government, state government agency, federal government agency, Indian tribe, or any 

other legal entity whatsoever, or their legal representatives, agents, or assignee. 

"Permit" means an authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by 

Ecology to implement Chapter 173-200 WAC, Chapter 173-216 WAC and/or Chapter 

173-226 WAC. 

"Person" is synonymous with "party". 

"pH" means the logarithm of the reciprocal of the mass of hydrogen ions in grams per 

liter of solution. Neutral water, for example, has a pH value of 7 and a hydrogen-ion 

concentration of 10-7. pH is a measure of a substance's corrosivity (acidity or alkalinity). 

"Point source" means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance including, but 

not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, 

rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, 

from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include return 

flows from irrigated agriculture. 

"Pollutant" means any substance discharged, if discharged directly, would alter the 

chemical, physical, thermal, biological, or radiological integrity of the waters of the state, 

or would be likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental or 

injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or to any legitimate beneficial use, or to 

any animal life, either terrestrial or aquatic. Pollutants include, but are not limited to, the 

following: dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, 

garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive 

materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, pH, 

temperature, TSS, turbidity, color, BOD5, TDS, toxicity, odor, and industrial, municipal, 

and agricultural waste. 

"Priority pollutant" means those substances listed in the federal 40 CFR Part 423,

Appendix A, or as may be amended.

"Reasonable times" means at any time during normal business hours; hours during 

which production, treatment, or discharge occurs; or times when Ecology suspects 

occurrence of a violation. 

"Regional administrator" means the regional administrator of Region X of the EPA or

his/her authorized representative. 

"Retention" means the collection of water into a permanent storage device, with no 

subsequent release of water. 

24 
"Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to 

the pretreatment facilities or treatment/disposal facilities that causes them to become 

inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably 

be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean 

economic loss caused by delays or losses in production. 

"Shall" is mandatory. 

"Significant" is synonymous with "substantial". 

"Site" means the land or water area where any "facility", "operation", or "activity" is 

physically located or conducted, including any adjacent land used in connection with

such facility, operation, or activity. "Site" also means the land or water area receiving 

any effluent discharged from any facility, operation, or activity. 

"Small business" has the meaning given in RCW 43.31.025(4). 

"Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code" means a classification pursuant to the 

Standard Industrial Classification Manual issued by the U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget. 

"State" means the state of Washington. 

"Substantial" means any difference in any parameter including, but not limited to, the 

following: monitoring result, process characteristic, permit term or condition; which 

Ecology considers to be of significant importance, value, degree, amount, or extent. 

"Surface waters of the state" means all waters defined as "waters of the United States" in 

40 CFR 122.2 within the geographic boundaries of the state of Washington. This includes 

lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and 

watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. 

"Total suspended solids (TSS)" means total suspended matter that either floats on the 

surface of, or is in suspension in water or wastewater, expressed in mg/L. 

"Toxic amounts" means any amount, i.e., concentration or volume, of a pollutant which 

causes, or could potentially cause, the death of, or injury to, fish, animals, vegetation or

other desirable resources of the state, or otherwise causes, or could potentially cause, a 

reduction in the quality of the state's waters below the standards set by Ecology or, if no 

standards have been set, causes significant degradation of water quality, thereby 

damaging the same. 

"Toxics" means those substances listed in the federal priority pollutant list and any other 

pollutant or combination of pollutants listed as toxic in regulations promulgated by the 

EPA under section 307 of the FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1317 et seq.), or Ecology under Chapter 

173-200 WAC, Chapter 173-201A WAC, or Chapter 173-204 WAC. 

25
"Unirrigated" means any lands having not been irrigated within 10 days prior to, or 

within 60 days after the application of any wastestream. 

"Upset" means an exceptional incident in which a discharger unintentionally and 

temporarily is in a state of noncompliance with permit effluent limitations due to factors 

beyond the reasonable control of the discharger. An upset does not include 

noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed 

treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or 

careless or improper operation thereof. 

"Waters of the state" means all waters defined as "surface waters of the state" and all 

waters defined as "waters of the state" in RCW 90.40.020. 

"Water quality" means the chemical, physical, biological characteristics of water, usually 

in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose. 

“Water Quality Preservation Area (WQPA)” means waters that have been designated

as high quality waters based upon one or more of the following criteria: 

1. Waters in designated federal and state parks, monuments, preserves, wildlife 

refuges, wilderness areas, marine sanctuaries, estuarine research reserves, and wild 

and scenic rivers; 

2. Aquatic habitat having exceptional importance to one or more life stage of a 

candidate of listed priority species, established by the state Department of Fish & 

Wildlife, or a federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species; 

3. Rare aquatic habitat, ecological reference sites, or other waters having unique and 

exceptional ecological or recreational significance. 

"Water quality standards" means the state of Washington's water quality standards for 

ground waters of the state (Chapter 173-200 WAC) and the state of Washington's water 

quality standards for surface waters of the state (Chapter 173-201A 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 wastes. 

26 
APPENDIX C – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

A public comment period was open from April 15 to May 17, 2004. The notice was

posted on Ecology’s Aquatic Pesticides website as well as in the King County Journal, 

the Spokane Spokesman-Review, The Columbian, and the Yakima Herald-Republic once 

each week for two consecutive weeks. 

 

Comments were received from Claude Ginsberg, president of the group No Spray Zone. 

General Permit Comments 

Comment 1. The commenter states that “a blanket permit must not be issued for 

spraying, but permits should be issued on an as needed basis.” 

Response to Comment 1. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit for invasive moth control being proposed by the Department of Ecology 

will be an individual permit, issued only to the Department of Agriculture for control.

Although most of our NPDES permits are general permits, we felt that this permit would 

not need that type of coverage. Under this permit, the Department of Agriculture is 

required to submit records of where they wish to apply pesticides prior to the application. 

Comment 2. The commenter states that shortly after the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

decision in 2001, the Attorney General’s office stated that the area around Vader, 

Washington, did not need to obtain an NPDES permit for invasive moth control. 

Response to Comment 2. As a result of the 2001 court decision, the Department of 

Ecology, which manages the health and vitality of the surface waters of the state, began 

the process of implementing NPDES permits for applications of pesticides to state 

surface waters. At the time that pesticides were being used in the Vader area for 

invasive moth control, the state did not have a permit in place for those applications. For 

that specific situation, we instructed the Department of Agriculture to take measures to 

prevent the pesticides used from entering surface waters. (letter dated 3/19/02 to Clinton 

Campbell, Pest Program Manager, WSDA from Megan White, Water Quality Program 

Manager, Ecology) 

Comment 3. The commenter states that there has been cooperation between the 

manufacturer of Foray 48BTM and the Washington State Department of Agriculture, and 

that this relationship could be used by the state to request that Valent Biosciences 

reformulate Foray 48BTM to remove BIT and the ethoxylated phenoxy alcohol 

surfactants.

Response to Comment 3. The Department of Ecology works with the Department of 

Agriculture (WSDA) to look constantly at new, safer products available for aquatic use.

This includes investigation of safer adjuvants. 

27
Comment 4. The commenter states that when ground spraying, adjuvant surfactants 

such as PlyacTM or similar products containing ethoxylated phenoxy alcohols must not 

be used, and less toxic substitutes should be sought. 

Response to Comment 4. The spray adjuvant PlyacTM is not currently registered for 

distribution in Washington by the WSDA. The WSDA Final Environmental Assessment

for the Cooperative Gypsy Moth Eradication Project does not allow the use of PlyacTM. 

The adjuvant expected to be used during the 2004 application season is BondTM, which 

is registered for aquatic use by EPA. According to page 12 of the WSDA Final 

Environmental Assessment for the Cooperative Gypsy Moth Eradication Project (April 

12, 2004), the spray adjuvant BondTM (spreader - sticker) may be used at a rate of up to 

16 ounces per 100 gallons 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 ingredients in BondTM are exempt from tolerance, and BondTM 

has been approved for use on terrestrial and aquatic sites by WSDA (practically nontoxic to freshwater fish and aquatic invertebrates). BondTM does not contain any 

alkylphenol ethoxylates (Erik Johansen, Pest Management Program, WSDA pers. 

communication, June 1, 2004). 

Comment 5. The commenter states that WSDA must redouble its efforts to test and use 

safer alternative methods that have been shown to have some utility, such as mass 

trapping (this has proved somewhat effective in eradicating at least one infestation in 

Canada recently) and using mating disruption (pheromone flakes). The objections to 

pheromone flakes should be explored with the manufacturer. 

Response to Comment 5. Ecology works closely with the Department of Agriculture to 

investigate new and safer alternatives to the products currently being used. Any change 

in method must be supported by sound scientific findings, and can take time to approve. 

All new methods will continue to be evaluated as they become available. 

28