Comments on "Determination of Nonsignificance" Filed by WSDA, February 2000

Dear Ms. Crerar:

The following are comments on the Determination of Nonsignificance on the 2000 Gypsy Moth Eradication Project for King County, WA signed 11 February 2000 and the SEPA Environmental Checklist signed on 7 February 2000.

General Comments

I attended the 16 February WSDA "open house" at the Ballard High School Library in Seattle. The various agency staff present, including WSDA, refused to wear name tags making it difficult for the public to have even basic questions answered. This is an unacceptable way for the WSDA to interact with the public at information "open houses". I picked up a green four page WSDA brochure dated 29 January, 2000. Buried on page 2 was the statement that WSDA would be conducting an environmental review and analysis of the proposed eradication project. "The draft Environmental Assessment (EA), the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist and related documentation will be available for review and comment."

After locating a WSDA representative, I specifically pointed out this section and asked when the SEPA documents would be available for review and asked why WSDA had not put up any sign up sheets for people to request these documents to review. I was told by the WSDA representative that these documents had not yet been prepared. I again asked when they would be available for review and was told by WSDA sometime in the future, at least thirty days before the spraying was to start since there was a thirty day public comment period. I asked how was the public suppose to know when the SEPA environmental checklist was released and I was told to watch the legal notices of the paper.

This was all a lie. I wrote to WSDA and asked to be put on the mailing list for the SEPA documents. Imagine my surprise to receive both the SEPA checklist and Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). The SEPA checklist had been signed by WSDA on 2 February and the DNS had been signed by WSDA on 11 February, ALL BEFORE THE 16TH FEBRUARY WSDA OPEN HOUSE. Even as I was being told by WSDA that there was no environmental checklist to comment on, the environmental checklist had already been signed and the comment period had already begun. The public at the 16 February WSDA "open house" was not made aware of this fact. On the contrary, everything possible was done (i.e. no signup sheets, no copies of the environmental checklist signed 2 February, no announcements of its availability) to conceal the existence of the SEPA environmental checklist and Determination of Nonsignificance from the public who attended the 16 February WSDA "open house." This is unacceptable. It raises serious doubt that WSDA is capable of protecting the public interest.

The following are specific comments on the Environmental Checklist:

A. Background

• 1. The name of the proposed project is incorrect. Based on the information given, this should state (as should all the references in the checklist) that this is a 2000 Asian Gypsy Moth Eradication Project.
• 8. What portion of the FEIS on "Gypsy Moth Management in the United States" is relevant to the Asian Gypsy Moth? It is unacceptable to keep a single copy of the EA to be prepared by WSDA as well as the FEIS in a library in Olympia, WA when the proposed spraying area is in north Seattle. Please place a copy in the Ballard public library as well as on WSDA's website.
• 10. Has WSDA applied for a Substantial Development Permit from the City of Seattle under the State Shoreline Management Act? If not, why not. If yes, please send me a copy of the application. Has WSDA applied for an Ecology "Short Term Modification of Water Quality Permit"? If not, why not. If yes, please send me a copy.
• 11. The environmental checklist fails to provide a complete description of the proposal. For example, there is no quantification of the total amount of product that will be applied. Please provide such a quantification. There is no specific explanation of the actual product, its composition, including inerts and the formulation of the spreader/sticker that would be used. Please provide this information. There is also no mention of what threshold of "infestation" has triggered the proposal. At a second "public meeting" held by WSDA on 8 March, also at the Ballard High School Library, state agency representatives stated that in southern Vancouver Island, an infestation had been knocked back from 500 to 4 moths the next year and that this was deemed a success. Why are 4 moths in Victoria considered a success and 1 (one) moth in Ballard considered a disaster?

• This section states that applications will be followed by an extensive moth trapping program. At both WSDA "information meetings" at the Ballard High School library, WSDA refused to provide any information about this phase of the project. Furthermore, WSDA actively dismissed trapping as having any utility as an alternative to spraying, yet here WSDA states that it intends to carry out an extensive (but undocumented) trapping program. As part of this checklist, please provide a detailed description of the proposed trapping program.

• a. This section states that "there will be spray droplets suspended in the air" during treatment. "Spray droplets is in inadequate description. Please describe precisely the chemical composition of these spray droplets.
• c. This section states that "treatments will be limited to times when winds are <10mph. How does WSDA plan to measure wind speed during the proposed treatment time period? Will a Dwyer Wind Meter be used to measure and record wind speed continuously throughout a pesticide application? If not, why not? At 9.9 mph, what would be the expected wind drift that would occur off the target site?

• a. 2) Please explain why WSDA intends to treat in a manner that is certain to result in direct application to surface water when the Foray 48B label clearly states, "Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters," and "Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal of waste."
• c. 1) Please revise this section. Rainwater does not flow into Salmon Bay where it is captured by city waste water systems.

• a. This checklist is inadequate. Please check __ other types of vegetation and list the typical species of plants found in the proposed spray area.
• d. Please amend this section to specify comments on the Asian Gypsy Moth. WSDA asserts that establishment of the [Asian] Gypsy Moth in Washington State would seriously damage our environment, economy and quality of life. Please detail the natural range of the Asian Gypsy Moth and an explanation of what serious damage has been done in Asia due to this insect.

• a. This checklist is inadequate. For birds, please circle other and list the typical species of birds known to be on or near the site. For mammals, please circle other and list the typical species of mammals, including pets known to be on or near the site. For fish, please circle other and list the typical species of fish known to be on or near the site.
• d. It states that WSDA will coordinate with other agencies to implement appropriate mitigating measures. What are these mitigating measures for Threatened or Endangered species?
• Also, please list all known lepidopteran species that will be eradicated by this treatment.

• a. Why does the Foray 48B Material Safety Data Sheet list under Health Considerations that Signs and Symptoms, Medical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure, Oral Toxicity, Dermal Toxicity, Inhalation Toxicity, Corrosiveness, Dermal Irritation, Ocular Irritation, Dermal Sensitization, Special Target Organ Effects and Carcinogenicity Information are "Not Determined"? Why does the manufacturer, Abbott Laboratories, refuse to guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any of the material on the Material Safety Data Sheet?
• 2) What measures can the public take to protect their themselves and their property and why isn't this listed in the checklist?

• g. This section states that the current shoreline master program designation of the site "Does not Apply". Why this response is given. Isn't aerial spraying of pesticides in a shoreline area covered under Seattle's Shoreline Master Program? If not, what exemption is WSDA claiming?

• c. How does WSDA intent to notify residents in the affected area of the dates and times of eradication activities?

• Neither the DNS or the Environmental Checklist makes any reference to alternatives. Please provide a detailed description of all alternatives considered. Please explain why four moths found in southern Vancouver Island can be controlled with a trapping program, but one moth in Ballard can not.
• How was the treatment area selected? What is the logic in a square treatment area, when a circular treatment area would be more logical and allow less acreage to be sprayed? Has a smaller treatment area been evaluated? If not, why not?
• Will WSDA seek to recover the projected $300,000 costs for this project from the foreign fishing vessel from which Asian Gypsy Moth eggs were taken or from the U.S. Marshall's office which failed to carry out proper inspection and on-board treatment?
• Has the WSDA evaluated an intensive trapping effort as an alternative to spraying? If not, why not?
• In WSDA's fact sheet dated 29 January 2000, WSDA states that Btk "is a very safe and effective insecticide". Please delete any references to pesticides being "very safe" from all WSDA fact sheets, brochures and presentations to the public. Pesticides are not safe. They are designed to kill and in most cases do so to both target and non-target species. WSDA's continued assertions that pesticides are "safe" merely parrot the propaganda of the chemical industry and undermines WSDA's credibility with the public. In fact, there is a term for chemical industry reps who claim that pesticides are "safe" : nozzleheads. Stop being nozzleheads.

Also I am restating my request for a copy of the Draft EA when it becomes available. Sincerely,

David E. Ortman