HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110361.tiff Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division (WQCD)
Public Notice No. CO-02-11
Denver,Colorado January 28,2011
PUBLIC NOTICE OF TENTATIVE DISCHARGE PERMIT ACTION
Purpose.This notice states that the CDPHE intends to issue,deny,modify,revoke and reissue,terminate or reissue,
Colorado Discharge Permit System permits,pursuant to the Clean Water Act,and the Colorado Water Quality
Control Act. All permits are subject to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)review. WQCD has made
tentative determinations in conjunction with EPA that limitations and conditions imposed in these permits
implement all applicable statutes and regulations and water-quality standards.
Public Comment Period.Written comments or written requests for a public meeting on the tentative determination
are to be submitted to WQCD by February 28,2011. Also,written comments must be received by this date from
any person who believes the proposed actions have the potential to cause material injury to a water right.
Additional Information. The following information is available at the County Clerk and Recorder's office of
the county in which the proposed discharge is to occur or at the WQCD's office(contact Loretta Houk,303-
692-3531):the draft permit,the permit application with all accompanying data;the name and address of each
activity regulated by the permit;a brief description of each applicant's activities,which result in a discharge;
the name and description of the waterway to which each discharge is made;name,address,and telephone
number of the appropriate District Engineer for the WQCD;and a description of the comments and hearing
request procedures. The mailing address for written public comments is—CDPHE, WQCD-P-B2,4300
Cherry Creek Drive South,Denver,Colorado 80246-1530. The website to view the public notice and drafts
can be located at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit/index.html
Permit No. Applicant County
COG860000 CDPS General Permit for Discharges Statewide
from Applications of Pesticides
Action—Issuance—New
Drafter—Gary Beers
Discharge—Statewide
��bUc RCUI PLC
a_ - 1- 1 I- I I 2011-0361
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2010 Public Notice of:
Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Pesticides General Permit (PGP) for Discharges from the
Application of Pesticides to or over, including near Waters of the
U.S.
Fact Sheet
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Action: Notice of Draft NPDES General Permit
1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Background
1. Clean Water Act
2. NPDES Permits
3. History of Pesticide Application Regulation
4. Court Decisions Leading to the CWA Regulations Concerning Pesticide Applications
5. 2006 Agency Rulemaking Excluding Pesticides from the NPDES Pesticides Permitting
Program
6. Legal Challenge to the 2006 Rule and Court Decision
II. Structure of this Permit
1. General
2. Conformance to Recent Court Decisions
3. Sharing of Responsibilities
III.Summary of Permit Conditions
1. Coverage under this Permit
1.1. Eligibility
1.1.1. Activities Covered
1.1.2. Limitations on Coverage
1.2. Authorization to Discharge under this Permit
1.2.1. No Requirement to Submit a Notice of Intent(NOI)for Certain Applications
1.2.2. How to Obtain Authorization
1.2.3. Discharge Authorization Date
1.2.4. Continuation of This Permit
1.2.5. Terminating Coverage
1.3. Alternative Permits
1.4. Severability
2. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
2.1. Minimize Pesticide Discharges into Waters of the United States
2.1.1. Use the Lowest Effective Amount of Pesticide Product
2.1.2. Regular Maintenance
2.1.3. Equipment Calibration
2.2. Integrated Pest Management Practices
2.2.1. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control
2.2.2. Aquatic Weed and Algae Control
2.2.3. Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control
2.2.4. Forest Canopy Pest Control
3. Water-Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
4. Site Monitoring
4.1. Monitoring Requirements for All Operators
4.2. Visual Monitoring Requirements
4.3. Additional EPA Monitoring
5. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP)
5.1. Contents of your Pesticide Discharge Management Plan
5.1.1. Pesticide Discharge Management Team
5.1.2. Pest Management Area Description
2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
5.1.3. Control Measure Description
5.1.4. Schedules and Procedures
5.1.5. Documentation to Support Eligibility Considerations Under Other Federal
Laws
5.1.6 Signature Requirements
5.2. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan Modifications
5.3. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan Availability
6. Corrective Actions
6.1. Situations Requiring Revision of Control Measures
6.2. Corrective Action Deadlines
6.3. Effect of Corrective Action
6.4. Adverse Incident Documentation and Reporting
6.5. Reportable Spills and Leaks
6.6. Other Corrective Action Documentation
7. Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping
8. EPA Contact and Mailing Addresses
9. Permit Conditions Applicable to Specific States, Indian Country Lands, or Territories
10. Appendices
A. Definitions and Acronyms
B. Standard Permit Conditions
C. Areas Covered
D. Notice of Intent Form
E. Notice of Termination Form
F. Endangered Species Procedures
Appendices
Appendix A List of Pesticides and degradates which exceeded aquatic-life benchmarks in the
USGS study and the draft CA Central Valley Regional 303(d) impairment list of
pesticides
Appendix B Chemicals and exceedances in USGS study and subsequent mitigation measures
that reduce pesticides residues in waters
Appendix C Summary of Pesticide-Specific Exceedance Data and Risk Mitigation Actions
2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
I. Background
This draft permit is being proposed to authorize point source discharges to waters of the
United States (U.S.) from the application of pesticides for specific pesticide use patterns as
defined in Part 1.1.1 of the permit. EPA is soliciting comment on many aspects of this permit.
Please refer to the Federal Register Notice announcing the availability of this permit for review
and comment for a list of specific questions. Supporting information and materials for this draft
permit and accompanying fact sheet are included in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257
available at www.regulations.gov.
1. Clean Water Act
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that"the discharge of any
pollutant by any person shall be unlawful" unless the discharge is in compliance with certain
other sections of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA defines"discharge of a pollutant" as
"(A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of
any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than
a vessel or other floating craft." 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A "point source" is any "discernible,
confined and discrete conveyance" but does not include "agricultural stormwater discharges and
return flows from irrigated agriculture." 33 U.S.C. 136204).
The term"pollutant" includes, among other things, "garbage... chemical wastes,
biological materials ...and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water."
One way a person may discharge a pollutant without violating the section 301 prohibition
is by obtaining authorization to discharge (referred to herein as "coverage") under a section 402
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit(33 U.S.C. 1342). Under
section 402(a), EPA may "issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of
pollutants, notwithstanding section 131 1(a)" upon certain conditions required by the Act.
2. NPDES Permits
An NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of a pollutant or pollutants into a receiving
water under certain conditions. The NPDES program relies on two types of permits: individual
and general. An individual permit is a permit specifically tailored for an individual discharger.
Upon receiving the appropriate permit application(s), the permitting authority, i.e.,the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state, develops a draft permit for public comment
for that particular discharger based on the information contained in the permit application (e.g.,
type of activity, nature of discharge, receiving water quality). Following consideration of public
comments, a final permit is then issued to the discharger for a specific time period (not to exceed
5 years)with a provision for reapplying for further permit coverage prior to the expiration date.
In contrast, a general permit covers multiple facilities/sites/activities within a specific
category for a specific period of time (not to exceed 5 years). For general permits, EPA or a
state develops and issues the permit in advance, with dischargers then generally obtaining
coverage under the permit through submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI). A general permit is
also subject to public comment prior to issuance. For the case of this general permit, EPA is the
permitting authority for the states that have not been authorized by EPA to issue NPDES permits.
2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Each permitting authority should review their permittees and geographic area and develop
appropriate permits considering technology and water quality. In addition, states may issue a
permit that has different requirements from this permit for similar types of discharges, as long as
it satisfies the regulatory requirements of the NPDES program and state law.
Under 40 CFR 122.28, general permits may be written to cover categories of point
sources having common elements, such as facilities that involve the same or substantially similar
types of operations, that discharge the same types of wastes, or that are more appropriately
regulated by a general permit. Given the vast number of pesticide applicators requiring NPDES
permit coverage and the discharges common to these applicators, EPA believes that it makes
administrative sense to issue the general permit, rather than issuing individual permits to each
applicator. Courts have approved of the use of general permits. See e.g.,Natural Res. Def.
Council v. Castle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977); EDC v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9`' Cir.
2003). The general permit approach allows EPA to allocate resources in a more efficient manner
and to provide more timely coverage and may significantly simplify the permitting process for
the majority of pesticide dischargers. As with any permit, the CWA requires the general permit
to contain technology-based effluent limitations, as well as any more stringent limits when
necessary to meet applicable state water quality standards. State water quality standards apply in
the territorial seas, defined in section 502(8) of the CWA as extending three miles from the
baseline. Pacific Legal Foundation v. Costle, 586 F.2d 650, 655-656 (9`s Cir. 1978); Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9"' Cir. 1988).
3. History of Pesticide Application Regulation
In the more than 30 years that EPA has administered the CWA, the Agency has never
issued an NPDES permit for the application of a pesticide to target a pest that is present in or
over, including near, the water where such application results in a discharge to waters of the U.S.
Instead, EPA has been regulating these types of applications through the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act("FIFRA").
EPA regulates the sale, distribution and use of pesticides in the U.S. under the statutory
framework of FIFRA to ensure that when used in conformance with FIFRA labeling directions,
pesticides will not pose unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. All new
pesticides must undergo a registration procedure under FIFRA during which EPA assesses a
variety of potential human health and environmental effects associated with use of the product.
Under FIFRA, EPA is required to consider the effects of pesticides on the environment by
determining, among other things, whether a pesticide "will perform its intended function without
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment," and whether "when used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice [the pesticide] will not generally cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). In performing this
analysis, EPA examines the ingredients of a pesticide, the intended type of application site and
directions for use, and supporting scientific studies for human health and environmental effects
and exposures. The applicant for registration of the pesticide must provide specific data from
tests done according to EPA guidelines.
When EPA approves a pesticide for a particular use, the Agency imposes restrictions
through labeling requirements governing such use. The restrictions are intended to ensure that
the pesticide serves an intended purpose and avoids unreasonable adverse effects. It is illegal
3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
under Section 12(a)(2)(G) of FIFRA to use a registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with
its labeling. States have primary authority under FIFRA to enforce"use" violations, but both the
States and EPA have ample authority to prosecute pesticide misuse when it occurs.
4. Court Decisions leading to the CWA regulation concerning Pesticide Applications
Over the past ten years, several courts addressed the question of whether the CWA
requires NPDES permits for pesticide applications. These cases resulted in some confusion
among the regulated community and other affected citizens about the applicability of the CWA
to pesticides applied to waters of the U.S. In 2001,the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit held in Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District(Talent)that an applicator of
herbicides was required to obtain an NPDES permit under the circumstances before the court.
243 F.3rd 526 (9th Cir. 2001). The Talent decision caused considerable confusion among public
health authorities, natural resource managers, and others who rely on pesticides regarding their
potential obligation to obtain an NPDES permit when applying a pesticide consistent with
FIFRA.
In 2002, the Ninth Circuit in League of Wilderness Defenders et al. v. Forsgren
(Forsgren) held that the application of pesticides to control Douglas Fir Tussock Moths in
National Forest lands required an NPDES permit. 309 F.3d 1181 (9`h Cir. 2002). The court in
Forsgren did not analyze the question of whether the pesticides applied were pollutants, because
it assumed that the parties agreed that they were. In fact, the U.S. expressly reserved its
arguments on that issue in its brief to the District Court. Id. at 1184, n.2. The court instead
analyzed the question of whether the aerial application of the pesticide constituted a point source
discharge, and concluded that it did. Id. at 1185.
Since Talent and Forsgren, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, all of which are
within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have issued permits for the
application of certain types of pesticides (e.g., products to control aquatic weeds and algae and
products to control mosquito larvae). Other states have continued their longstanding practice of
neither requiring nor issuing permits to people who apply pesticides to waters of the U.S.. These
varying practices reflected the substantial uncertainty among regulators, the regulated
community, and the public regarding how the CWA applies to discharges of pesticides to waters
of the U.S.
Additionally, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the applicability of the
CWA's NPDES permit requirements to pesticide applications. In Altman v. Town of Amherst
(Altman), the court vacated and remanded for further development of the record a District Court
decision holding that the Town of Amherst was not required to obtain an NPDES permit to spray
mosquitocides over waters of the U.S. 47 Fed. Appx. 62, 67 (2"d Cir. 2002). In its opinion,the
Second Circuit stated that"[u]ntil the EPA articulates a clear interpretation of current law—
among other things, whether properly used pesticides released into or over water of the U.S. can
trigger the requirement for NPDES permits * * * —the question of whether properly used
pesticides can become pollutants that violate the CWA will remain open." Id. at 67.
In Fairhurst v. Hagener, the Ninth Circuit again addressed the CWA's applicability to
pesticide applications. The court held that pesticides applied directly to a lake in order to
eliminate non-native fish species, where there are no residues or unintended effects, are not
4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
"pollutants" under the CWA because they are not chemical wastes. 422 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.
2005).
5. 2006 Agency Rulemaking Excluding Pesticides from the NPDES Permitting
Program
On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter called the "2006 NPDES
Pesticides Rule") clarifying two specific circumstances in which an NPDES permit was not
required to apply pesticides to or around water. They were: 1)the application of pesticides
directly to water to control pests; and 2)the application of pesticides to control pests that are
present over, including near, water where a portion of the pesticides will unavoidably be
deposited to the water to target the pests, in both instances provided that the application is
consistent with relevant Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA)
requirements. The rule became effective on January 26, 2007.
6. Legal Challenges to the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule and Court Decision
On January 19, 2007, EPA received petitions for review of the 2006 NPDES Pesticides
Rule from environmental and industry groups. Petitions were filed in eleven circuit courts with
the case, National Cotton Council, et al, v. EPA, assigned to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On January 9, 2009, the Sixth Circuit vacated EPA's 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule under
a plain language reading of the CWA. National Cotton Council of America v. EPA, 553 F.3d
927 (6th Cir., 2009). The Court held that the CWA unambiguously includes"biological
pesticides" and "chemical pesticides" with residuals within its definition of"pollutant."
Specifically, an application of chemical pesticides that leaves no excess portion is not a
discharge of a pollutant, and the applicator need not obtain an NPDES permit. However,
chemical pesticide residuals are pollutants as applied if they are discharged from a point source
for which NPDES permits are required. Biological pesticides on the other hand are always
considered a pollutant under the CWA regardless of whether the application results in residuals
or not and require a NPDES permit for all discharges from a point source.
In response to this decision, on April 9, 2009, EPA requested a two-year stay of the
mandate to provide the Agency time to develop general permits, to assist NPDES-authorized
states to develop their NPDES permits, and to provide outreach and education to the regulated
community. On June 8, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted EPA the two-year stay of the mandate.
As a result of the Court's decision to vacate the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule, at the end
of the two-year stay,NPDES permits will be required for discharges to waters of the U.S. of
biological pesticides, and of chemical pesticides that leave a residue. In response to the Court's
decision, EPA decided to propose this general permit to cover certain discharges resulting from
pesticide applications. EPA Regional offices may issue additional general permits or individual
permits if needed.
Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater runoff do not require NPDES permits,
even when they contain pesticides or pesticide residues, as the CWA specifically exempts these
categories of discharges from requiring NPDES permit coverage. Additionally, other stormwater
5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
runoff is either: (a) already required to obtain NPDES permit coverage as established in section
402(p) of the CWA or(b) classified as a non-point source discharge for which NPDES permit
coverage is not required. Thus, neither the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule,the Sixth Circuit Court
vacatur of that rule, nor this PGP have changed in any way the determination of whether certain
types of stormwater runoff are required to obtain permit coverage or under which permit
coverage is required. This is true whether the runoff contains pesticides or pesticide residues
resulting from the application of pesticides. In particular, stormwater runoff that may contain
pesticides would not be eligible for coverage under this permit, and is not required to obtain
NPDES permit coverage unless it was already required to do so prior to the Sixth Circuit
decision or EPA designates a source for future stormwater permitting. Existing stormwater
permits for construction, industry, and municipalities already address pesticides in stormwater.
EPA determined that the four use patterns included in the PGP would encompass the
majority of pesticide applications that would result in point source discharges to waters of the
U.S. and generally represent the use patterns intended to be addressed by the 2006 rule that is
now vacated. This permit does not cover terrestrial applications for the purpose of controlling
pests on agricultural crops or forest floors. This fact sheet does not address whether these
activities would need an NPDES permit nor does this fact sheet identify every activity which
may involve a point source discharge to waters of the U.S. that would require a permit. While
other use patterns are not covered by this general permit, the existence of this general permit
does not, by definition, obviate the possibility that an individual permit would be necessary if
other types of pesticide applications result in point source discharges to waters of the U.S.
On November 2, 2009, industry petitioners of the Sixth Circuit Case petitioned the
Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit's decision. On February 22, 2010,the Supreme Court
denied the request to hear industry's petition, leaving the April 2011 effective date unchanged.
II. Structure of this Permit
1. General
This permit is written for the many specific areas of the country for which EPA remains
the NPDES permitting authority. This permit is constructed in such a way as to cover all of
these areas in one document and is identified as either the "permit" or"general permit" or
"pesticide general permit" (PGP) even though legally,this single document consists of many
permits. Specifically,this permit provides coverage for certain point source discharges that
occur in areas not covered by an authorized State NPDES permit program and includes specific
areas (e.g., States, Tribal lands, territories, or federal facilities) in all ten EPA Regions. As such,
the permit will be signed by each of the ten EPA Regions but will remain as one permit
document. The complete list of areas of geographic coverage of this permit, along with the
NPDES permit numbers are listed in Appendix C of the permit.
Note that this permit covers the State of Alaska even though Alaska has recently been
authorized to administer the NPDES program as the State is not obligated to assume permitting
responsibilities for discharges from pesticide applications until late 2011. Thus, this permit will
cover discharges in the State of Alaska until such time as any State permits take effect. Also, the
authority of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to administer the
6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
NPDES program is uncertain. It may be that, pursuant to Oklahoma state law, Oklahoma's
Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (ODAFF) is the only state agency with
jurisdiction to regulate pesticide applications within the state. ODAFF is not currently authorized
to administer the NPDES program, and therefore does not have the authority to issue permits for
discharges from the application of biological pesticides or chemical pesticides. Before issuance
of this permit, EPA anticipates receipt of a state attorney general opinion addressing that issue in
connection with a partial program authorization request by ODAFF to administer the NPDES
program for discharges within its jurisdiction. For this draft permit, EPA assumes that
Oklahoma will not have authority to permit the types of discharges covered under this permit.
The final permit will cover discharges in the State of Oklahoma unless and until the authority of
a state agency to issue such permits is clarified.
States that are authorized to issue NPDES permits for the control of discharges to waters
of the U.S. from the application of pesticides will be developing their own NPDES permits to
cover such discharges. Nothing in the federal regulations precludes a state from adopting or
enforcing requirements that are appropriate to address discharges in their state or are more
stringent or more extensive than those required under the NPDES regulations. In fact,the Clean
Water Act is meant to serve as a baseline for state environmental protection. The Clean Water
Act and corresponding NPDES regulations require that permits, at a minimum, include the
requirements detailed in Part 122.44. States are free to incorporate additional requirements that
they feel are necessary to adequately protect water quality. Similarly, how EPA and states
interpret information from which permit requirements are developed may differ. For example,
the regulations, as written at 122.44(i) specify that monitoring requirements be included to assure
compliance with permit limitations. One permit writer may make a best professional judgment
(BPJ) determination that monitoring of discharges reasonably should occur during pesticide
application while a second permit writer may make a BPJ determination that monitoring of
discharges should reasonably be performed after pesticide application. It is reasonable that the
two different permit writers may come to different conclusions about how best to incorporate this
requirement into the permit.
EPA is aware that a number of states have laws that prohibit the state from adopting a
rule or requirement that is more stringent than the comparable federal regulations that address the
same issue. Although it is up to states to interpret state law, EPA does not believe these laws
necessarily prohibit states from including requirements in a state-issued general permit that are
different(and potentially more costly) than the "comparable" requirements in this EPA-issued
permit. This permit applies only to the areas in which EPA is the permitting authority and
represents EPA's best professional judgment about what is required to meet the requirements of
the Clean Water Act in those areas. Permit writers are to evaluate available information specific
to the activities and areas covered under their own permits and in many instances, a state may
determine based on that information that different requirements are necessary to meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act for those activities and areas. States should incorporate
requirements that address public or environmental dangers specific to their state. Contact your
state environmental protection agency for information on any state-issued NPDES permit.
Throughout this fact sheet(and permit), EPA uses consistent terms when referring to
what activity or discharge will be eligible for coverage and who will be responsible to comply
with the terms of the permit. Specifically, the permit holder is referred to as the "operator." This
term has a similar meaning to the term "permittee" which is also used in the fact sheet; generally,
7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
the term permittee is specific to the period of time that an operator or contractor is actually
covered under the permit. Additionally,the terms "you" and"your" as used in the permit are
intended to refer to the operator and their responsibilities under the permit. The use of"you" and
"your" refer to a specific activity covered under the permit but not necessarily all activities
operated by a particular entity. For example, "you must submit" means the operator must submit
something for the specific activities identified. Likewise, "all your discharges" would only apply
to those discharges covered under the permit. More details on how an operator is to obtain
permit coverage and the applicable permit requirements are provided in Part III of the fact sheet.
The permit is divided into nine parts: (1) coverage under this permit, (2) technology-
based effluent limitations, (3) water quality-based effluent limitations, (4) site monitoring, (5)
pesticide discharge management plan, (6) corrective action, (7) annual reporting and
recordkeeping, (8) EPA contact information and mailing addresses, and (9) permit conditions
applicable to specific states, Indian country lands, or territorial, and tribal requirements.
Additionally, the permit includes six appendices with additional conditions and guidance for
permittees: (A) definitions and acronyms, (B) standard permit conditions, (C) areas covered, (D)
notice of intent form, (E) notice of termination form, and (F) Endangered Species Procedures.
Readers should be aware that this version of the permit does not include draft language
on certain aspects that may be included in the final permit. Those include incorporation of any
additional requirements consistent with: (1) obtaining certification from States/Tribes under
Section 401 of the CWA that the permit will adequately protect state water quality; and (2)
obtaining state certification of consistency with approved state coastal zone management
planning.
Operators should carefully read each part of the permit to assess whether or what portion
of the requirements in each part may apply to their activities. As will be discussed in more detail
in Part III of this fact sheet, the permit establishes different requirements for different types of
pesticide use patterns, different types of operators, and different sizes of areas treated and
managed for the control of pests. The organization of the permit is intended to clarify the
applicable requirements for permittees to the greatest extent possible.
2. Conformance to Recent Court Decisions
EPA has structured this permit to conform to recent relevant court decisions.
One of these cases held that because the terms of the Nutrient Management Plan (NMP)
employed by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) imposed restrictions on
discharges, those restrictions amounted to effluent limitations that needed to be made part of the
permit and to be subject to public and permit writer review. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA,
399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005). In this respect, this permit is different from the CAFO
requirements. In this permit, EPA explicitly establishes effluent limitations in Parts 2 and 3 that
are independent of any documentation and recordkeeping requirements regarding
implementation of the limitations. In a separate part of the permit (Part 5) there is a requirement
to develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP). The PDMP is not a limitation and
does not itself impose requirements on discharges. These are already imposed by the limitations
in parts 2 and 3. The PDMP is rather a tool for operators to document, among other things, how
control measures will be implemented to comply with the permit's effluent limitations.
8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Effluent Limitations in the Permit
Part 2 of the permit contains the technology-based effluent limitations. Part 3 of the
permit contains the water quality-based effluent limitations. These Parts of the permit contain
effluent limitations, defined in the CWA as restrictions on quantities, rates, and concentrations of
constituents that are discharged. CWA section 502(11). Violation of any of these effluent
limitations constitutes a violation of the permit. As is described in more detail in Part 111.2 of the
fact sheet, under the CWA these effluent limitations can be narrative rather than numeric.
The technology-based effluent limitations set forth in Part 2 require the operator to
minimize discharge of pesticides to waters of the U.S. Consistent with the control level
requirements of the CWA, the term "minimize" means to reduce and/or eliminate pesticide
discharges to waters of the U.S. through the use of control measures to the extent technologically
available and economically achievable and practicable for the category or class of point sources
covered under this permit taking into account any unique factors relating to the operators to be
covered under the permit. The technology-based effluent limitations section is divided into two
parts. The first part applies to all operators and addresses the general requirement to minimize
discharges. In this part, all operators must minimize discharges of pesticides by using the lowest
effective amount of pesticide product per application and optimum frequency of pesticide
applications necessary to control the target pest taking into account pest resistance concerns,
perform regular maintenance activities, calibrate and clean/repair application equipment, and
comply with all conditions and/or prerequisites resulting from any consultation under Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act(ESA) or a permit issued under Section 10 of that Act. (see Part
2.1 of PGP.) The second part requires certain operators to implement additional Integrated Pest
Management(IPM) Practices which involve the following: (1) identifying and assessing the pest
problem; (2) assessing effective pest management; and (3) following specified procedures for
pesticide application (see Part 2.2 of PGP).
In addition to the technology-based effluent limitations, Part 3 of the PGP contains the
water-quality-based effluent limitations. The operator must control its discharge as necessary to
meet applicable water quality standards. Any discharge that results in an excursion of any
applicable numeric or narrative EPA-approved state, territory, or tribal or EPA-promulgated
water quality standard is prohibited. In general, based on the data included in the record and the
additional requirements in this permit in addition to FIFRA, EPA expects that compliance with
the technology-based effluent limitations and other terms and conditions in this permit will meet
applicable water quality-based effluent limitations. However, if at any time the operator, or
EPA, determines that the discharge causes or contributes to an excursion of applicable water
quality standards, the operator must take corrective actions as required in Part 6, and document
and report the excursion(s) to EPA as required in Part 7. Furthermore, consistent with Parts 3.0
and 6.3, EPA may impose additional water quality-based limitations on a site-specific basis, or
require the operator to obtain coverage under an individual permit, if information in an NOI,
required reports, or from other sources indicates that, after meeting the technology-based
limitations in this Permit, the discharges are not controlled as necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards. EPA also notes that among the eligibility requirements for coverage under
this permit are that it does not cover discharges of any pesticide into a water impaired for that
pesticide, or into a Tier 3 water. While not specifically framed as effluent limitations, these
eligibility conditions further help to protect water quality on a water-body-specific basis.
9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP)
Distinct from the technology-based or water quality-based effluent limitation provisions
in the permit, Part 5.0 of the permit requires operators that exceed any annual treatment area
threshold to prepare a PDMP to document the implementation (including inspection,
maintenance, monitoring, and corrective action) of control measures being used to comply with
the effluent limitations set forth in Parts 2.0 and 3.0.
In general, Part 5.0 requires that the following be documented in the PDMP: (1) pesticide
discharge management team information; (2) pest management area description; (3) control
measure description; (4) schedules and procedures pertaining to control measures used to comply
with the effluent limitations in Part 2 (e.g., application rate and frequency, spill prevention,
pesticide application equipment, pest surveillance, and assessing environmental conditions) and
pertaining to other actions necessary to minimize discharges (e.g., spill response procedures,
adverse incident response procedures, and pesticide monitoring schedules and procedures); and
(5) documentation to support eligibility considerations under other Federal laws. The PDMP
must be kept up-to-date and modified whenever necessary to document any corrective actions as
necessary to meet the effluent limitations in this permit.
The requirement to prepare a PDMP is not an effluent limitation because it does not
restrict quantities, rates, and concentrations of constituents that are discharged. CWA section
502(11). Instead, the requirement to develop a PDMP is a permit"term or condition" authorized
under sections 402(a)(2) and 308 of the Act. Section 402(a)(2) states, "[t]he Administrator shall
prescribe conditions for [NPDES] permits to assure compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (I) of this subsection, including conditions on data and information collection,
reporting, and such other requirements as he deems appropriate." The PDMP requirements set
forth in the permit are terms or conditions under the CWA because the operator is documenting
information on how it is complying with the effluent limitations (and inspection and evaluation
requirements) contained elsewhere in the permit. Thus, the requirement to develop a PDMP and
keep it updated is no different than other information collection conditions, as authorized by
section 402(a)(2), in other permits. Failure to have a PDMP, where required, is a violation of the
permit.1
While Part 2 of the permit requires the operator to select control measures to meet the
effluent limitations in this permit, the control measures themselves described in the PDMP are
not effluent limitations because the permit does not impose on the operator the obligation to
comply with the PDMP; rather, the permit imposes on the operator the obligation to meet the
effluent limitations prescribed in Parts 2.0 and 3.0. Therefore, the operator is free to change as
appropriate the control measures used to meet the effluent limitations contained in the permit.
This flexibility helps ensure that the operator is able to adjust its practices as necessary to ensure
continued compliance with the permit's effluent limitations. However, the permit also contains a
This permit is also consistent with the decision in Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners
Assoc.,et.al.v.EPA,410 F.3d 964(7th Cir.2005),where petitioners challenged EPA's issuance of the construction
general permit(CGP)that covers stormwater discharges. In that case,the Court found that neither the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)nor the Notices of Intent(NOIs)are permits or permit applications because they
do not amount to limits. 410 F.3d at 978. Further,the Court found that the permit requirement to develop a SWPPP
is not an effluent limitation. For the PGP,the PDMP serves a similar purpose as the CGP SWPPP.
10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
recordkeeping condition that requires that the PDMP be updated with any such changes in the
operator's practices. See Part 5.2. Thus, if an operator's on-the-ground practices differ from
what is in the PDMP, this would constitute a violation of the permit's recordkeeping requirement
to keep the PDMP up-to-date, and not per se a violation of the permit's effluent limitations,
which are distinct from the PDMP. EPA recognizes, however, that because the PDMP
documents how the operator is meeting the effluent limitations contained in the permit, not
following through with actions identified by the operator in the PDMP as the method of
complying with the effluent limitations in the permit is relevant to evaluating whether the
operator is complying with the permit's effluent limitations.
Public Notice
Once the EDC and Waterkeeper courts found that the plan or NOI contained effluent
limitations, they stated that the plan or NOI must be available for public comment. The CWA
contains provisions that relate to public participation in the issuance of permits. For instance,
CWA section 402(j) states, in relevant part: "A copy of each permit application and each permit
issued under this section shall be available to the public." EPA is proposing the general permit
for public comment, including the effluent limitations, and providing an opportunity to request a
public hearing on the permit.
Public Availability of Documents
Part 5.3 of the permit requires that the operator retain a copy of the current PDMP at the
address listed on the NOI and it must be immediately available, at the time of an onsite
inspection or upon request to EPA, a State, Tribal or local agency governing wastewater
discharges and/or pesticide applications, and representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). While not required to be
submitted to EPA, interested persons can request a copy of the PDMP through EPA, at which
point EPA will likely request the operator to provide a copy of the PDMP. By requiring
members of the public to request a copy of the PDMP through EPA,the Agency is able to
provide the operators with assurance that any Confidential Business Information that may be
contained within its PDMP is not released to the public. NOIs will be publicly available once
submitted through the eNOI system. The NOIs generally will be available to the public for 10
days before permit coverage begins. During this time period, issues can be raised with EPA,
who has the authority to deny coverage.
3. Sharing of Responsibilities
This general permit was developed with the understanding that there may be more than
one responsible entity implementing it for a given discharge. As structured, the permit provides
for sharing of responsibilities to meet the end goal of discharges being in compliance with permit
requirements. The NPDES regulations state that"operators" are responsible for achieving
permit compliance. Specifically, 40 CFR 122.21(6) clarifies that when an activity is owned by
one person but it is operated by another person (e.g. contractor), it is the operator's duty to meet
terms of the permit. EPA acknowledges, however, that in many instances the owner may still
perform operator duties; as such,they may still be required to obtain permit coverage, even in
situations in which, for example, the owner hires a contractor to apply the pesticides to control
pests. The PGP includes a definition of an "operator" in Appendix A that is intended to clarify
11
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
this point, focusing on the fact that operator control exists both at the decision-making level
about how to control pests, including financial considerations, as well as at a level where
activities are performed to ensure compliance with the specific provisions of the permit(such as
calibration of pesticide application equipment). In these instances, both operators are required to
obtain NPDES permit coverage; however, the permit strives to minimize any potential
duplication of effort. In many instances,the requirements that operators must meet depend on
how their agreements with contractors hired to perform the pest control activities are structured.
Entities such as subcontractors that are hired by an owner or other entity but are under the
supervision of such owner or entity generally are not operators. Similarly, you are likely not an
operator if, for example, you own the land, but the activities are being performed outside of your
control (e.g., a public entity is spraying for mosquitoes over your property).
EPA encourages operators to explore possible cost savings by sharing responsibilities for
implementing aspects of this permit. For example, a mosquito control district could assume the
overall coordination of an integrated pest management program while a hired contractor may be
responsible for minimizing the pesticide discharge and for site monitoring and maintaining and
calibrating pesticide application equipment. EPA is requiring, however, that in instances where
multiple operators are responsible for the discharge from larger pesticide application activities,
some form of written explanation of the division of responsibilities be documented. However,
any and all operators covered under this permit are still responsible,jointly and severally, for any
violation that may occur, though EPA may consider this written division of responsibilities when
determining the appropriate enforcement response to a violation.
III. Summary of Permit Conditions
1. Coverage under this Permit
1.1. Eligibility
Only operators meeting the eligibility requirements outlined in the permit may be covered
under this permit. The activities covered by this permit include the use patterns and types of pest
control activities described in the vacated 2006 rule. Specifically, this permit covers the
discharge of pesticides (biological pesticides and chemical pesticides which leave a residue) to
waters of the U.S. resulting from the following use patterns: (1) Mosquito and Other Flying
Insect Pest Control; (2)Aquatic Weed and Algae Control; (3) Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control;
and (4)Forest Canopy Pest Control. If an operator does not meet the eligibility provisions
described in Part 1.1 of the permit, point source discharges to waters of the U.S. from the
application of pesticides will be in violation of the CWA, unless the operator has obtained
coverage under another permit.
As discussed above, EPA's decision to include specific use patterns generally stems from
the Agency's 2006 rule. That rule provided that NPDES permits are not required for the
application of pesticides when these pesticides are applied consistent with all relevant
requirements under FIFRA (i.e., those relevant to protecting water quality), in the following two
circumstances:
1) The application of pesticides directly to waters of the U.S. in order to control pests.
12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Examples of such applications include applications to control mosquito larvae,
aquatic weeds, or other pests that are present in the waters of the U.S.
2) The application of pesticides to control pests that are present over waters of the U.S.,
including near such waters, where a portion of the pesticides will unavoidably be
deposited into waters of the U.S. in order to target pests effectively; for example,
when insecticides are aerially applied to a forest canopy where waters of the U.S. may
be present below the canopy or when pesticides are applied over or near water for the
control of adult mosquitoes or other pests.
EPA reasoned that such products were not"pollutants" because they served the beneficial
purpose of controlling pests. In promulgating this rule, EPA expressly noted that the rule did not
cover either"spray drift"—the airborne movement of pesticide sprays away from the target
application site into a water of the U.S. —or applications of pesticides to terrestrial agricultural
crops. To address the vacated 2006 Rule, the PGP is designed to cover activities in which it is
unavoidable that some of the pesticides will be deposited into water in order to effectively target
the pests.
Consistent with the 2006 Rule, this PGP does not cover spray drift resulting from
pesticide applications. Instead, to address spray drift, EPA established a multi-stakeholder
workgroup under the Pesticides Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), an advisory committee
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)to explore policy issues relating
spray drift. The goals of the workgroup were: (1) improving the understanding of the
perspectives of all stakeholders regarding pesticide spray drift; (2) finding common ground for
further work toward minimizing both the occurrence and potential adverse effects of pesticide
spray drift; (3) developing options for undertaking work where common ground exists; and (4)
exploring the extent of drift, even with proper usage, and the range and effectiveness of potential
responses to unacceptable levels of off-target drift. On November 4, 2009, EPA issued a draft
Pesticide Registration Notice (PR Notice) for public comment. The actions detailed in the PR
Notice focus on improving the clarity and consistency of pesticide labels in order to reduce spray
drift and prevent harm to human health and the environment. The draft PR Notice and related
documents are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0628 at www.regulations.gov. EPA is
currently reviewing the public comments received.
Scope of Permit
As stated above, the Sixth Circuit found that if a chemical pesticide leaves any excess or
residue after performing its intended purpose, such excess or residue would be considered a
pollutant under the CWA. The Court also found that, unlike chemical pesticides, not only would
the residue and excess quantities of a biological pesticide be considered a pollutant, but so too
would the biological pesticide itself.
Although the court did not define what a residual is, for purposes of this permit, EPA
assumes that all chemical pesticides will leave a residual once the product has performed its
intended purpose.
EPA offers the following guidance with respect to the use patterns of chemical pesticides
covered by this general permit.
13
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
1. If the application of a chemical pesticide is made over a water of the U.S. to control
pests over the water, any amount of the pesticide that falls into the water of the U.S. is
"excess" pesticide and would require coverage by an NPDES permit. Based on field
studies of pesticide applications, the Agency expects that some portion of every
application of a pesticide made over a water of the U.S. will fall directly into the
water of the U.S. and thus assumes that applications will trigger the requirement for
an NPDES permit. Any person who wishes to contest this assumption should submit
scientific data to prove that no quantity of the pesticide falls into a water of the U.S.
A permit may not be necessary if EPA receives scientific information which
convinces the Agency that no portion of a chemical pesticide applied over a water of
the U.S. will fall into the water of the U.S..
2. If the application of a chemical pesticide is made into a water of the U.S. to control a
pest in the water of the U.S., once the pesticide no longer provides any pesticidal
benefit, any amount of the pesticide that remains in the water of the U.S. is a
"residual" and would require coverage by an NPDES permit. Based on field studies
of pesticides applied into water, the Agency expects that some portion of every
application of a pesticide made into a water of the U.S. will leave a residual in the
water of the U.S. and thus assumes every application will trigger the requirement for
an NPDES permit. Any person who wishes to dispute this assumption should submit
scientific data to prove that no quantity of the pesticide will remain as a residual in a
water of the U.S. The data should include data to show what level of the pesticide
can be detected in water, and at what level in water the pesticide provides a pesticidal
benefit. Such data should address the properties of the chemical pesticide under
different water conditions (e.g., different pH, organic content,temperature, depth,
etc.)that might affect the pesticide's properties. A permit may not be necessary if
EPA receives scientific information that convinces the Agency that a chemical
pesticide applied into a water of the U.S. will not remain as a residual in the water of
the U.S.
For purposes of this permit, EPA is relying on existing regulatory definitions in 40 CFR
174.3 and 158.2100(a) developed under FIFRA to define the term"biological pesticides." For
purposes of this permit, EPA identifies biological pesticides (also called "biopesticides" under
FIFRA regulations)to include microbial pesticides [40 CFR 158.2100(a)] and biochemical
pesticides and plant-incorporated protectants. [40 CFR 174.3]
How the Court's Decision Expands the NPDES Program
EPA estimates that nationwide (this includes the EPA-issued permit as well as the states
issuing their own NPDES permits), approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators perform 5.6
million applications a year for the four use patterns covered under the PGP. This permit covers
only six of the fifty states (and many other smaller areas, such as most U.S. territories and Indian
Country lands) for which EPA assumes approximately 10 percent of the applications will occur
in these areas based on the fact that approximately 10 percent of the population lives in these
areas. The remaining 90 percent of pest control activities will occur in areas covered under state-
issued NPDES permits. If each applicator needs NPDES permit coverage, this represents an
approximately 65% increase in the number of NPDES permittees (up from EPA's current
14
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
estimate of 565,000 permittees annually). It should be noted that the four use patterns do not
include the control of agricultural, ornamental or silvicultural terrestrial pests that are routinely
controlled as part of production of agricultural or ornamental plant commodities and in forestry
operations. The fact sheet does not address every activity which may involve a point source
discharge of pollutants to waters of the US that would require a permit. However, any pesticide
application activities that do not fall within the four use patterns covered by this permit will
require coverage under some other NPDES permit if those activities result in point source
discharges to waters of the U.S.
Additionally, the permit does not cover discharges that, by law, are not required to obtain
NPDES permit coverage. Of note,the CWA specifically excludes from the definition of point
source, "agricultural stormwater discharges and return flow from irrigated agriculture." Nothing
in this permit changes the effect of those statutory exemptions. Thus, for example, the
application of a pesticide to an agricultural crop for the control of terrestrial pests that later runs
off the field, either as irrigation return flow or stormwater runoff, is exempt from permit
coverage even if that discharge to a water of the U.S. is known to contain pesticide residuals.
Also, as a result of the court's decision to vacate the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule, discharges
from the application of pesticides to irrigation ditches and canals that are either waters of the
U.S. or convey to waters of the U.S. now require NPDES permit coverage. These discharges,
i.e.,from application of pesticides to "irrigation systems and along canal banks"were
specifically included in the preamble and response to comment on the now vacated 2006 NPDES
Pesticides Rule as not needing NPDES permits because the application was not a discharge of a
pollutant.
More detailed discussion of the types of activities included under each of the four
pesticide use patterns and the permit requirements are provided in Part I11.2 of the fact sheet.
EPA acknowledges that it has been difficult to derive definitive estimates of the number
of activities actually conducted and potentially covered under the PGP and points to two main
limitations of the available data. First,there is not a direct source of information on the number
of applicators and applications made for these pesticide use patterns. As a result, the estimates
were derived from secondary sources of information, and generalizing assumptions were
sometimes made. Second, the CWA does not define the terms "application" or"applicator" as it
relates to discharges from pesticide applications. Thus, available data may not all use similar
definitions of these terms. More detail, by pesticide use pattern, is provided in the Economic
Analysis and the table entitled "NPDES Applicator& Application Estimates"that is included in
the administrative record for this permit.
1.1.2 Limitations on Coverage
1.1.2.1 Discharges to Water Quality Impaired Waters
Coverage under the PGP is only available with this general permit for certain discharges
to impaired waters. For example, discharges to waters which are impaired for pollutants other
than the pesticide or its degradate, are eligible for coverage. Also, discharges to waters impaired
for temperature or some other indicator parameter, or for physical impairments such as "habitat
alteration" are also eligible for PGP coverage. Conversely, the permit is not available for the
discharge of any pesticide to water that is impaired for the specific pesticide or degradates of that
15
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
pesticide. For example, application of the pesticide copper sulfate to a waterbody impaired for
either copper or sulfates would not be eligible for coverage under this permit, because copper
sulfate can degrade into these two substances. In this instance, the operator would have to
choose between obtaining coverage under an individual permit for such a discharge or selecting
some other means of pest management, e.g., using mechanical means or some other pesticide
product.
For this permit, EPA determined that it does not have information warranting a limitation
for all impaired waters regardless of the impairment. In fact, in some instances,the application of
a pesticide to water actually can improve the quality of the water such as when used to control
algae growth that can deplete oxygen levels in water. It is important to note that this permit
allows EPA, based on additional information, to opt not to approve coverage under the PGP, or
at a later date to require an operator covered under the PGP to apply for coverage under an
individual permit.
For purposes of this permit, impaired waters are those which have been identified by a
State, Territory, Tribe, or EPA pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA as not meeting applicable
State, Territorial, and Tribal water quality standards. Impaired waters for purposes of this permit
include both waters with EPA-approved and EPA-established Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) and those for which EPA has not yet approved or established a TMDL. (A list of
impaired waters, along with the pollutants or pollution identified as the cause of the impairment
is available at www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl). It is EPA's opinion that the 303(d) list is not a final
determination of impairments, however, it is the best available information for operators to use
when deciding whether their discharges meet the eligibility requirements regarding water bodies
impaired for specific pesticides. These requirements this will further ensure protection of water
quality.
Also, several states have listed waters as impaired for"pesticides" but have not identified
the specific pesticide for which the waterbody is impaired. Without additional information
suggesting that the waterbody is impaired for a specific pesticide, EPA is proposing to provide
coverage under this permit for discharges of pesticides to waters that are impaired generally for
"pesticides." The Agency expects that as these impaired waters are further assessed, specific
pesticides or classes of pesticides will be identified as the cause of the impairment—at which
point dischargers will no longer be eligible to obtain permit coverage under the PGP for
discharges of those named pesticides or their degradates.
1.1.2.2 Discharges to Waters Designated as Tier 3 for Antidegradation Purposes
Tier 3 waters are identified as outstanding national resource waters and generally include
the highest quality waters of the U.S. Except for certain temporary changes, water quality cannot
be lowered in such waters. In broad terms, EPA's view of"temporary" is weeks and months not
years. The Tier 3 designation also provides special protection for waters of exceptional
ecological significance, i.e.,those which are important, unique, or sensitive ecologically. States
and Tribes make the decision of which waterbodies to designate as Tier 3. A list of Tier 3 waters
in areas where the PGP is available will be available on the Internet, similar to how this list is
currently provided for stormwater discharges: (see
http://cfpuh.cpa.uov/npdes/stornwater/antideg.cfm).
16
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
EPA believes that blanket coverage under the PGP for discharges to Tier 3 waters is
inconsistent with Tier 3 anti-degradation requirements. Additionally, in order to allow such
discharges, the Agency would have to determine for all of these waters that such discharges
would maintain and protect Tier 3 water quality. Instead, operators applying pesticides that could
result in discharges to Tier 3 waters of the U.S. must apply for individual permits.
Note about alternate antidegradation designations used by some States: Some States have
adopted alternative approaches to designating Tier 2 or Tier 3 waters. These are collectively
referred to as "Tier 2.5" waters since they fall between Tiers 2 and 3 in terms of characteristics
and regulations supporting them. Tier 2.5 waters are commonly described as providing
protection more stringent than Tier 2 but allowing some added flexibility that a Tier 3-designated
water(Outstanding National Resource Water) would not. Refer to Memorandum from William
Diamond (Former Director, Standards and Applied Science Division)to Victoria Binetti (Chief,
Region III, Program and Support Branch), June 13, 1991. Examples of Tier 2.5 waters exist in
Massachusetts, which designates "outstanding resource waters" (ORWs). These waters have
exceptional sociologic, recreational, ecological and/or aesthetic values and are subject to more
stringent requirements under both the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards and the
Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards. ORWs include vernal pools certified by the
Natural Heritage Program of the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and
Environmental Law Enforcement, all Class A designated public water supplies with their
bordering vegetated wetlands, and other waters specifically designated. The PGP is available for
use for discharges to Tier 2.5 waters.
1.1.2.3 Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by another Permit
This Part of the PGP describes situations where an operator is ineligible for coverage
under this permit because of coverage under another permit. These include discharges currently
covered under an NPDES permit; discharges covered by a permit within the past five years prior
to the effective date of this permit which established site-specific numeric water quality-based
limitations; and discharges from activities where the associated NPDES permit has been or is in
the process of being denied, terminated, or revoked by EPA (although this last provision does not
apply to the routine reissuance of permits every five years).
EPA is including this last provision to be clear that it is not possible to obtain coverage
by requesting termination of an individual permit and then submitting an NO1 for coverage under
the PGP. To avoid potential conflicts with the anti-backsliding provisions of the CWA, transfer
from an individual permit to the PGP is only allowed under limited conditions, including that the
individual permit did not contain numeric water quality-based effluent limits. In order for a
transfer to be permissible, EPA must find compliance with all the conditions of the PGP are at
least as stringent as meeting the conditions of the individual permit.
1.2 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THIS PERMIT
1.2.1 No Requirement to Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Certain Applications
17
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Under 40 CFR § 122.28 (b)(2)(v), some pesticide application operators may, at the
discretion of the Director2, "be authorized to discharge under a general permit without
submitting a notice of intent where EPA finds that a notice of intent requirement would be
inappropriate." In making such a finding, EPA must consider: "the type of discharge; the
expected nature of the discharge; the potential for toxic and conventional pollutants in the
discharges; the expected volume of the discharges; other means of identifying discharges
covered by the permit; and the estimated number of discharges to be covered by the permit."
EPA's focus is on the largest applications of pesticides to water of the U.S. When EPA
analyzed the regulatory considerations provided in §122.28(b)(2)(v), it gave particular weight to
the expected volume of the discharges and the estimated number of discharges to be covered by
the permit. After considering the universe of entities in light of the regulatory considerations
EPA found a logical break between entities applying pesticides to larger areas versus smaller
areas. EPA's consideration of the regulatory factors is as follows:
All discharges authorized by this general permit involve applications made directly to
waters of the U.S. in order to control pests in or over the water or applications to control pests
near water in which pesticides will make unavoidable contact with the water. The general permit
is structured by pesticide use patterns. These use patterns were developed to include discharges
that are similar in type and nature and therefore represent the type of discharges and expected
nature of the discharges covered under this permit. The general permit covers the following use
patterns:
Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control
This use pattern includes the application, by any means, of chemical and biological
insecticides and larvicides into or over water to control insects that breed or live in, over,
or near water. Applications of this nature usually involve the use of ultra low volume
sprays or granular larvicides discharged over large swaths of mosquito breeding habitat
and may occur several times per year.
Aquatic Weed and Algae Control
This use pattern includes the application, by any means, of contact or systemic herbicides
to control vegetation and algae in water and at water's edge, including irrigation ditches
and/or irrigation canals. Applications of this nature may be single spot treatments of
infestations or staged large scale treatments intended to clear several acres of waterway.
Treatments may be singular or occur several times per year.
Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control
This use pattern includes the application, by any means, of chemicals into waters to
control a range of animals for purposes such as fisheries management, invasive species
eradication or equipment maintenance. Applications of this nature are usually made over
an entire waterbody as the target pests are mobile. Treatments are generally made several
years apart.
Forest Canopy Pest Control
'Defined in 40 CFR § 122.2 for this permit to mean "EPA."
18
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
This use pattern includes aerial pest control projects, in and over forest canopies where
there are waters of the U.S. below the canopy. Applications of this nature usually occur
over large tracts of land, and are typically made in response to specific outbreaks. EPA
understands that for this use pattern pesticides will be unavoidably discharged into waters
in the course of controlling for pests that are present near or over waters as a result of the
aerially spraying (i.e., a point source discharge from a nozzle) over a forest canopy.
These pests are not necessarily aquatic (e.g., airborne non-aquatic insects) but are
detrimental to industry, the environment, and public health. Note: EPA recognizes that
mosquito adulticides may be applied to forest canopies, in which case the application
would be covered under the "Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control" use pattern.
EPA understands that prior to initiating the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule the Agency had
interpreted the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations as not requiring a
NPDES permit for forest pest control activities. The rule stated that pesticides applied
consistently with FIFRA do not require an NPDES permit in certain circumstances,
including the aerial application of insecticides to a forest canopy. 71 Fed. Reg. at 68,482.
Vacating the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
"dischargers of pesticide pollutants are subject to the NPDES permitting program in the
Clean Water Act." National Cotton Council, 553 F.3d 927, 940. EPA therefore now
requires all dischargers of pesticide pollutants, including dischargers in and over forest
canopies where there are waters of the U.S. below the canopy, to obtain NPDES permits.
EPA also considered the expected volume of discharges from each use pattern. It is
difficult to estimate the expected volume of discharges for each use pattern because control
measures used by permittees to meet the permit's technology based effluent limitations may vary
based on site-specific conditions. For example, the volume of the discharge may vary depending
on the specific pesticide being used,the intensity of the pest pressure based on the specific pest
problem, and the pest management strategy deemed to be most effective for the pest problem.
Moreover, the lowest effective amount of pesticide product necessary to manage pests
successfully will vary among operators depending on which control measures the operator uses.
Nonetheless, EPA expects that, in general, the volume of the discharge will vary proportionally
with the number of acres and linear miles treated. Therefore, for all use patterns, EPA expects
that the volume of the discharge for a given pesticide application will be lower when fewer acres
or linear feet are treated over a calendar year. Moreover, while there may be more operators
applying pesticides to small treatments areas when compared to operators applying to large
treatment areas, the volume of discharges from operators applying to small treatment areas is
believed to be substantially less on a per applicator basis and cumulatively less than the volume
of discharges from applications made by operators applying to large treatment areas.
Similarly, EPA does not expect the potential for toxic and conventional pollutants in the
discharges from pesticides to vary among use patterns. EPA would expect, however, that the
potential for high concentrations of toxic or conventional pollutants in the discharge would be
smaller when fewer acres or linear feet are treated.
EPA also considered other means of identifying types of discharges covered by this
permit. EPA may be able to identify pesticide discharges from operator submitted data, ambient
water sampling data reported to EPA and the States, as well as reported information submitted by
pesticide dischargers pursuant to state law. EPA recognizes that the availability, quality, and
19
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
uniformity of these data may be limited.
Lastly, EPA considered the estimated number of discharges to be covered by the permit.
While the exact number of entities and thus the number of categorical discharges which may be
covered by the permit is unknown, EPA estimates that the PGP covers more than 30,000
applicators per year in the states for which EPA is the permitting authority. Of this total, a large
majority represent applicators performing small pesticide treatments that EPA considers to have
very low potential for impact (such as herbicide treatments to short sections of ditch or canal
banks). Thus, requiring an NOI from all dischargers would be a large burden of little value for
permitting authorities and permittees alike.
Based on the analysis outlined above, EPA has determined that it would be inappropriate
to require operators that apply pesticides to relatively small areas to submit NOIs. Therefore,
EPA is exercising its discretion and not requiring these operators to submit NOls. EPA
developed annual treatment area thresholds for each use pattern that it believes will only exclude
those operators making small-area applications from the NOI requirement because their
discharges will be comparatively small.
To determine the appropriate annual treatment area thresholds that would trigger the NOI
requirement, EPA's Office of Water, Office of Pesticides, Pollution, and Toxic Substances, and
Regional Offices, engaged in discussions with USDA, states as co-regulators, and representatives
from industry including pesticide registrants, applicators, and land managers. Based on these
discussions and EPA's best professional judgment, EPA developed annual treatment area
thresholds that differentiate between applications to small areas and those treatments to larger
areas which are believed to have a greater potential for impact on waters of the U.S. EPA
recognizes there are many unknowns concerning the size, organization, and activities of the
permitted universe. Considerable variation in the availability of data and in the consistency of
requirements across regions and states resulted in EPA depending on its best professional
judgment in setting the NOI annual treatment area thresholds for each of the use patterns. EPA
will use any additional information received to determine if the annual treatment area thresholds
are appropriate in the finalized permit and the next permit cycle.
EPA established the following annual (calendar year) treatment area thresholds for the
four use patterns under this permit:
PGP Part Pesticide Use Annual Threshold
Part 2.2.1 Mosquitoes and Other Flying Insect Pests 640 acres of treatment area
Part 2.2.2 In Water:Aquatic Weeds and Algae 20 acres of treatment area
At Waters Edge:Aquatic Weeds and Algae 20 linear miles of treatment area
at water's edge''
Part 2.2.3 In Water: Aquatic Nuisance Animals 20 acres of treatment area
At Waters Edge: Aquatic Nuisance Animals 20 linear miles of treatment area
at water's edge`
Part 2.2.4 Forest Canopy 640 acres of forest canopy
1 Calculations should include the area of the applications made to: (I)waters of the U.S. and(2)
conveyances with a hydrologic surface connection to waters of the U.S.at the time of pesticide
application. For calculating annual treatment area totals,count each pesticide application activity
as a separate activity. For example,applying pesticides twice a year to a ten acre site should be
20
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
counted as twenty acres of treatment area.
2 Calculations should include the area of the application made at water's edge adjacent to: (1)
waters of the U.S.and(2)conveyances with a hydrologic surface connection to a water of the U.S.
at the time of pesticide application. For calculating annual treatment totals,count each pesticide
application activity as a separate activity. For example,treating both sides of a ten mile ditch is
equal to twenty miles of water treatment area.
Any operator that has reason to believe it will exceed one or more of the annual treatment
area thresholds in any calendar year of the permit cycle must submit a Notice of Intent to obtain
coverage. To determine whether the pesticide application operators are required to submit an
NOI, the operator must compare the total area in which the pesticide is intended to be effective
multiplied by the number of times that area is treated per year.
EPA's rationale for the annual treatment area threshold for each use pattern is as follows:
Mosquito Control and Other Flying Insect Pest Control
For Mosquitoes and Other Flying Insect Pest, the annual treatment area threshold has
been set at 640 acres. EPA believes that the vast majority of mosquito control and
abatement districts in the U.S. manage areas significantly larger than this threshold and
may reasonably expect to exceed it during any given year. For instance, information
from the state of Florida on 49 independent mosquito control districts shows that 48 of
the 49 districts annually apply to more than 640 acres, which indicates that applications
exceeding this area are quite typical. Similarly, data provided in EPA's draft Economic
Achievability Analysis of the Pesticide General Permit(PGP)for Point Source
Discharges from the Application of Pesticides and included in the administrative record
for this permit show similar findings as for Florida. Furthermore, the effective control of
other aquatic breeding, flying insects, such as the blackfly, necessitates an application
approaching or exceeding this threshold. Therefore, EPA believes the threshold
appropriately captures most operators engaging in this use pattern.
Aquatic Weed and Algae Control
For Aquatic Weeds and Algae, the annual treatment area threshold has been set at 20
acres or 20 linear miles of treatment on canals and irrigation system conveyances. This
threshold has been set to capture operators treating relatively large portions of surface
waters and watersheds, such as water management districts, wildlife and game
departments, and some homeowner and lake associations. For example, Florida's South
Florida Water Management District usually performs treatments of generally 60 acres at a
time hundreds of times per year for various invasive plants on Florida's Lake
Okeechobee. After reviewing the operations of major irrigation and flood control
systems, EPA expects that generally, relatively large entities such as South Florida Water
Management District or California Department of Water Resources or organizations with
comparable resources are the types of entities that manage 20 or more miles of
engineered irrigation system conveyances and that this is a reasonable limit to trigger the
NOI requirement. The same rationale is applied to managers of ditch and canal banks.
Therefore, EPA believes the threshold appropriately captures the relatively large
applications but excludes a significant number of small applications.
Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control
Invasive and Nuisance Aquatic Animals are most commonly treated by public agencies
21
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
such as departments of fish and game or utilities such as water management districts that
manage areas of surface water in excess of 20 acres. The high mobility and prolific
breeding ability that necessitate control of aquatic animals usually means that their
treatment most often occurs in the entirety or large portions of the water bodies they
inhabit. For example, fishery management treatments using rotenone must occur in the
entire lake and, thus any treatment to a lake of more than 20 acres in area will trigger the
annual treatment area threshold. EPA expects that for this reason, only spot treatments to
eradicate small emergent populations of sessile animals or treatments to very small water
bodies might be excluded from an NO1 requirement. Therefore, EPA believes the
threshold appropriately captures the relatively large operators engaging in this use
pattern.
Forest Canopy Pest Control
Forest canopy pest suppression programs are designed to aerially blanket large tracts of
terrain, throughout which operators may not be able to see waters of the U.S. beneath the
canopy. EPA has set the annual treatment area threshold at 640 acres for this use pattern
with the understanding that this will exclude only the smallest applications from the NOI
requirement. These smaller applications generally occur on private lands. Therefore,
EPA believes the threshold appropriately captures most operators engaging in this use
pattern, particularly public agencies managing large tracts of land.
1.2.2 How to Obtain Authorization
To obtain authorization under the permit, operators must meet the Part 1.1 eligibility
requirements and, if required by Part L2.2 of the permit, submit a complete and accurate NOI
according to the requirements in Appendix D no later than the appropriate deadline described in
Part 1.2.3.
Part 1.2.2 describes which operators are required to submit an NOI, and Table 2 sets out
the timeframes within which an NOI must be submitted. An operator is required to submit an
NOI if his application area exceeds any applicable annual treatment area threshold during any
calendar year of the permit cycle.
1.2.2.1 Operators Required to Submit NOIs
An operator is required to submit a Notice of Intent to obtain coverage under this general
permit for discharges resulting from the application of pesticides if it has reason to believe it will
exceed one or more of the annual (i.e., calendar year) treatment area thresholds.
Operators hiring another party to apply pesticides are responsible for submitting an NOT
if:
The application exceeds any applicable annual treatment area threshold, or
The application, in addition to any other treatments made under the hiring
operator's authority in the same calendar year, will exceed any applicable annual
treatment area threshold.
For-hire applicators applying pesticides under contract from another party will include the
acreage treated on behalf of the client in their annual total unless that client has submitted or has
22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
responsibility for submitting an NOI reflecting that treatment per the NOI requirements. If the
client has already submitted an NOI for the area to be treated, the applicator does not need to
include it in her NOI threshold calculation.
Operators required to submit an NOI for their application must submit an NOI in
accordance with Table 2 of the permit. When completing the NOI form, the operator is asked to
define the general area in which the discharge is expected to occur and the use pattern with
which the discharge is associated. The form will allow EPA to better understand where certain
discharges typically occur. Table 2 specifies applicable deadlines for different categories of
operators to submit NOIs.
Based on a review of the NOI or other information, EPA may in certain, limited
circumstances delay the authorization of the operator's discharge or may deny coverage under
the permit and require submission of an application for an individual NPDES permit, as detailed
in Part 1.3. EPA will notify the operator in writing of any such delay or the request for
submission of an individual NPDES permit application.
1.2.2.2 Operators Not Required to Submit NOIs
An operator is not required to submit an NOI pursuant to Part 1.2.1 of the permit if no
application is made in excess of any applicable annual treatment area threshold during any
calendar year of the permit cycle (typically 5 years). Operators whose discharges are authorized
by this permit but are not required to submit an NOI would automatically be covered under the
permit for their application and would be authorized to discharge in accordance with the permit
requirements as soon as the permit becomes effective. Nonetheless, EPA emphasizes that these
operators would still be subject to all applicable requirements contained within the permit. If an
operator, otherwise not required to submit an NOI, anticipates that he or she will exceed an
applicable annual treatment area threshold during any time in a given calendar year of the permit
cycle, he or she must submit an NO1 at least 10 days prior to exceeding the threshold to continue
to be authorized to discharge. EPA is requiring NOIs be submitted at least 10 days in advance of
permit authorization to provide EPA with time necessary to ensure that permit coverage is
appropriate for those activities identified in the NOI. If an operator that is not required to submit
an NOI wants EPA to consider alternative permit requirements for the application, the operator
must apply to EPA for a substitute individual permit applicable to his or her application as
required by Part 1.3 of the permit (Alternative Permits).
1.2.3 Discharge Authorization Date
Table 2 specifies applicable deadlines for different categories of operators to submit
NOIs. Timing for NOI submittal is based on an operator determination that they will exceed a
treatment area threshold during the calendar year, not on the time when the threshold is actually
exceeded. For operators making such a determination prior to commencement of discharge, an
NOI is due at least 10 days prior to commencement of discharge and the operator shall be
authorized to discharge 10 days after EPA receipt and posting of a complete and accurate NOI.
For operators making a determination after commencement of discharge (it was unexpected or
unforeseen that a treatment area threshold would be exceeded for that year) an NOI is due at
least 10 days prior to exceeding an annual threshold during any calendar year. In this situation,
the operator's original authorization to discharge without having submitted an NOI expires when
23
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
the threshold is exceeded. The operator is reauthorized 10 days after EPA receipt of a complete
and accurate NOI unless EPA denies authorization. For this reason, it is important that operators
in this situation submit their NOI at least 10 days before the threshold will be exceeded. For
operators commencing discharge in response to a declared emergency situation (as defined in
Appendix A of the permit), discharge authorization is granted immediately, but a complete and
accurate NOI is due no later than 30 days after commencement of discharge if that discharge has
exceeded a threshold. This is so that emergency response operations may be conducted without
interruption. The deadlines are displayed in the following table:
Discharge Authorization Date
NOI Submittal
Category Deadline Discharge Authorization Date
Operators not required to submit an Not applicable. Immediately.
NOI.
Operators who are aware or should be At least 10 days No earlier than 10 days after EPA
aware,prior to commencement of prior to posts on the Internet receipt of your
discharge,that they will exceed an commencement of complete and accurate NOI.
annual treatment area threshold discharge.
identified in Part 1,2.2 for that year.
Operators who cannot determine until At least 10 days Original authorization terminates
after commencement of discharge,that prior to exceeding when annual treatment area threshold
they will exceed an annual treatment an annual treatment is exceeded. Operator is
area threshold identified in Part 1.2.2 area threshold. reauthorized no earlier than 10 days
for that year. after EPA posts on the Internet
receipt of your complete and accurate
NOI.
Operators commencing discharge in No later than 30 Immediately, for activities conducted
response to a declared pest emergency days after in response to declared pest
situation as defined in Appendix A. commencement of emergency situation.
discharge.3
NOls submitted electronically are instantaneously posted on the NPDES website and the
operator will normally be authorized to discharge 10 days after the posting, and will receive
automatic confirmation of authorization.
1.2.4 Continuation of this Permit.
If this permit is not reissued or replaced (or revoked or terminated) prior to its expiration
date, existing dischargers are covered under an administrative continuance, in accordance with
40 CFR § 122.6. If coverage is provided to a permittee prior to the expiration date of this permit,
the permittee is authorized to discharge under this permit until the earliest of:
(a) Your authorization for coverage under a reissued permit or a replacement of this permit
following your timely and appropriate submittal of a complete NOI (if required) requesting
authorization to discharge under the new permit and compliance with the requirements of the
NOI (if you are below the NOI threshold, your authorization is automatically extended until you
are covered under a revised or replacement permit);
3 In the event that a discharge occurs prior to your submitting an N0I,you must comply with all other requirements of
this permit immediately.
24
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
(b) The processing and posting of your Notice of Termination consistent with Part 1.2.5.1;
(c) The issuance or denial of an individual permit for a discharge resulting from application of a
pesticide that would otherwise be covered under this permit;
(d) A formal permit decision by EPA not to reissue this general permit, at which time EPA will
identify a reasonable time period for covered dischargers to seek coverage under an alternative
general permit or an individual permit. Coverage under this permit will cease when coverage
under another permit is granted/authorized; or
(e) EPA has informed you that you are no longer covered under this permit.
Where EPA fails to issue a final general permit prior to the expiration of a previous general
permit, EPA has the authority to administratively extend the permit for permittees authorized to
discharge under the prior general permit. However, EPA does not have the authority to provide
coverage to facilities not authorized to discharge under that prior general permit.
1.2.5 Terminating Coverage
1.2.5.1 Submitting a Notice of Termination.
The permit requires permittees to use the eNOI system to file Notices of Termination. To
terminate coverage under this permit,the permittee is required under the permit to submit a
Notice of Termination in accordance with information identified in Appendix E. The permittee's
authorization to discharge under the permit terminates at midnight of the day that a complete
Notice of Termination is processed and posted on EPA's website
(www.epa.gov/npdes/noisearch). The requirement to submit a Notice of Termination applies
only to those operators that were required to submit a Notice of Intent to obtain permit coverage.
Dischargers automatically covered under this permit as identified in Part 1.2.3 are likewise
automatically terminated upon permanent cessation of discharge consistent with any of the
criteria identified in Part 1.2.5.2.
EPA requires permittees to file a Notice of Termination to notify EPA that its obligation
to manage pesticide discharges is no longer necessary for one of the EPA-approved reasons (as
described in Part 1.2.5.2). If EPA determines that the permittee has not satisfied one of the
conditions in Part 1.2.5.2 for being able to submit a Notice of Termination (e.g., the permittee
continues to have a discharge), then the notice is not valid and the permittee must continue to
comply with the conditions of the permit. Likewise, if EPA determines that the Notice of
Termination is incomplete, the permittee may be found to be in violation of reporting
requirements under Section 308 of the CWA.
1.2.5.2 When to Submit a Notice of Termination.
Once all point source discharges associated with pesticide application have ceased, the
permittee must submit a Notice of Termination, as described in Part 1.2.5.1, within 30 days after
one or more of the following conditions have been met: (1) a new operator has taken over
responsibility for the pest treatment; (2) operations have ceased for which permit coverage had
been obtained or there will no longer be discharges from such activities, or(3) permit coverage
25
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
has been obtained under an individual or alternative general permit for all discharges requiring
NPDES permit coverage (unless you obtained coverage under an alternative permit based on an
EPA request consistent with Part 1.3, in which case coverage under this permit will terminate
automatically once coverage under that alternative permit is obtained and a Notice of
Termination is not required).
EPA is requiring a Notice of Termination from operators identified in (3) above— i.e.,
operators that on their own switch to a different permit—to provide the Agency with clear notice
that the operator's discharge is not covered under two NPDES permits. Operators that terminate
coverage based on an EPA request consistent with Part 1.3 are not required to submit a Notice of
Termination.
1.3. Alternative Permits
EPA Requiring Coverage under an Alternative Permit
EPA may require an individual permit (in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(ii)) or
coverage under an alternative NPDES general permit instead of the PGP. The regulations also
provide that any interested party may petition EPA to take such an action. The issuance of the
individual permit or alternative NPDES general permit is in accordance with 40 CFR Part 124
and provides for public comment and appeal of any final permit decision. The circumstances in
which such an action would be taken are set forth at 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3). EPA notes that
discharges of pesticides from some vessels are already covered under the Vessel General Permit
and do not require coverage under this general permit(see EPA NPDES Vessels General Permit
at http://www.epa.gov/NPDES/vessels).
Permittee Requesting Coverage under an Alternative Permit
After being covered by this permit, the permittee may request to be excluded from such
coverage by applying for an individual permit. In this case, the permittee must submit an
individual permit application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(iii), along with a
statement of reasons supporting the request,to EPA at the applicable EPA Regional Office listed
in Part 9.2 of the PGP. The request may be granted by issuance of an individual permit or
authorization of coverage under an alternative general permit if the reasons are adequate to
support the request. Under this scenario, if an individual permit is issued, or authorization to
discharge under an alternative general permit is granted, coverage under this permit is
automatically terminated under 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(iv) on the effective date of the individual
permit or the date of authorization of coverage under the alternative general permit.
Part 1.3.2 reminds permittees of their ability to apply for coverage under an individual
permit in lieu of coverage under this general permit and describes the steps they must take to
exclude themselves from this permit after being authorized under this permit. Cases where an
individual NPDES permit may be required, are described fully in 122.28(b)(3)(iii). The
following are the pertinent situations for this permit where an individual permit may be
necessary:
(A)A Water Quality Management plan containing requirements applicable to such point sources
is approved;
26
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
(B) Circumstances have changed since the time of the request to be covered so that the
discharger is no longer appropriately controlled under the general permit, or either a
temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge is necessary;
(C) The discharge(s) is a significant contributor of pollutants. In making this determination, EPA
may consider the following factors:
(1) The location of the discharge with respect to waters of the U.S.;
(2) The size of the discharge;
(3) The quantity and nature of the pollutants discharged to waters of the U.S.; and
(4) Other relevant factors.
EPA may require a permittee to apply for an individual permit only if EPA notifies the
operator in writing that a permit application is required. This notice must include a brief
statement of the reasons for this decision, an application form, a statement setting a time for the
operator to file the application, and a statement that on the effective date of the individual
NPDES permit the general permit as it applies to the individual permittee shall automatically
terminate. EPA may grant additional time upon request of the applicant.
When an individual NPDES permit is issued to an operator otherwise subject to a general
NPDES permit, the applicability of the general permit to the individual NPDES permittee is
automatically terminated on the effective date of the individual permit.
Note that an individual permit is required for applications of pesticides to waters impaired for
that pesticide, and for applications of pesticides to Tier 3 waters and as such, in these cases,
authorization under this general permit would not have been available in the first place.
1.4. Severability
Invalidation of a portion of this permit does not necessarily render the whole permit
invalid. EPA's intent is that the permit remains in effect to the extent possible; in the event any
part of this permit is invalidated, EPA will advise the regulated community as to the effect of
such invalidation.
1.5 Other Federal and State Laws
Part 1.5 of this permit includes the following language: "You must comply with all other
applicable federal and state laws and regulations that pertain to your application of pesticides.
For example, this permit does not negate the requirements under FIFRA and its implementing
regulations to use registered pesticides consistent with the product's labeling. Additionally, there
are other laws and regulations that may only apply to federal agencies covered under this permit
(e.g., U.S. Coast Guard regulations)."
This part of the permit is intended to clarify that pesticide applicators are still required to
comply with other applicable laws and that merely complying with the conditions of this permit
may not meet all regulations applicable to the types of activities covered under this permit.
1.6 Federally-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Designated Critical
27
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Habitat.
Part 1.6 of the draft permit includes certain requirements specific to the protection of
federally-listed endangered and threatened species and its designated critical habitat. Procedures
to assist in protecting listed species and critical habitat are currently being considered by EPA in
consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) under section 7 of the ESA. A more detailed discussion of permit conditions
being considered is provided in Part BI.I0.F of this fact sheet. Based on consultation to date, the
PGP includes language that would incorporate as enforceable permit conditions any pre-existing
requirements resulting from ESA Section 7 consultation and/or an ESA Section 10 permit that is
issued to the operator by FWS and/or NMFS. Operators seeking coverage under this permit do
not have a separate obligation to consult with the FWS or NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA
prior to submitting an NOI. As the Federal entity issuing this permit, EPA is the entity with an
obligation to consult with FWS and NMFS. However, if any pre-existing consultation has been
conducted between an operator and the Services and the results of that consultation are relevant
to an operator's expected discharge(s), then this permit obliges the operator to comply with any
additional conditions or limits on the discharge of pesticide residuals resulting from such
consultation. (Such additional consultation might come up in the context of a separate Federal
agency action, and the operator might be involved directly if, for example, it was designated as a
non-Federal representative to conduct consultation under 50 CFR § 402.08 for a related action.)
2. TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Background
The Clean Water Act(CWA) requires that all point source discharges from existing
facilities, or in this case, pesticide applications, meet technology-based effluent limitations4
representing the applicable levels of necessary control. Additionally, water quality-based
effluent limitations (WQBELs) are required by CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C) as necessary where
the technology-based effluent limitations are not sufficient to protect applicable water quality
standards. See P.U D. No. 1 of Jefferson County et. al. v. Washington Department of Ecology,
511 U.S. 700 (704) 1994._Water quality-based requirements will be discussed in greater depth in
Section 111.3 of the fact sheet. The technology-based effluent limitations contained in the PGP
are non-numeric and constitute the levels of control that reduce the area and duration of impacts
caused by the discharge of pesticides to waters of the U.S. in a treatment area. In addition, these
effluent limitations provide for protection of water quality standards, including protection of
beneficial uses of the receiving waters inside the treatment area following completion of pest
management activities.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400, 403 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (noting that"section 502(11)
defines'effluent limitation'as'any restriction'on the amounts of pollutants discharged,not just a numerical
restriction";holding that section of CWA authorizing courts of appeals to review promulgation of"any effluent
limitation or other limitation"did not confine the court's review to the EPA's establishment of numerical limitations
on pollutant discharges,but instead authorized review of other limitations under the definition)(emphasis added).
In Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369(D.C Cir. 7977),the D.C.Circuit stressed that when
numerical effluent limitations are infeasible,EPA may issue permits with conditions designed to reduce the level of
effluent discharges to acceptable levels.
28
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Types of Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
Technology-based effluent limitations are in many cases established by EPA in
regulations known as effluent limitations guidelines, or"ELGs." EPA establishes these
regulations for specific industry categories or subcategories after conducting an in-depth analysis
of that industry. The Act sets forth different standards for the ELGs based upon the type of
pollutant or the type of permittee involved. Where EPA has not issued effluent guidelines for an
industry, EPA and State permitting authorities establish effluent limitations for NPDES permits
on a case-by-case basis based on their best professional judgment. See 33 U.S.C. & 1342(a)(1);
40 C.F.R. & 125.3(c)(2).
EPA's Authority to Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Limitations in this Permit
All NPDES permits are required to contain technology-based limitations. 40 CFR §§
122.44(a)(l) and 125.3. When EPA has not promulgated effluent limitation guidelines for an
industry, or if an operator is discharging a pollutant not covered by the effluent guideline, permit
limitations may be based on the best professional judgment (BPJ, sometimes also referred to as
"best engineering judgment") of the permit writer. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1); 40 CFR 125.3(c).
See Student Public Interest Group v. Fritzsche, Dodge& Olcott, 759 F.2d 1131, 1134 (3rd Cir.
1985); American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 787 F.2d 965, 971 (5th Cir. 1986). For this permit, the
technology-based limitations are based on BPJ decision-making because no ELG applies.
Under EPA's regulations, non-numeric effluent limitations are authorized in lieu of
numeric limitations, where "[n]umeric effluent limitations are infeasible." 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3).
As far back as 1977, courts have recognized that there are circumstances when numeric effluent
limitations are infeasible and have held that EPA may issue permits with conditions (e.g., best
management practices) designed to reduce the level of effluent discharges to acceptable levels.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C.Cir.1977).
Through the Agency's NPDES permit regulations, EPA interpreted the CWA to allow
best management practices (BMPs)to take the place of numeric effluent limitations under certain
circumstances. Federal Regulations at 40 CFR §122.44(k), entitled "Establishing limitations,
standards, and other permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs ...),"provides that
permits may include BMPs to control or abate the discharge of pollutants when: (I)
"[a]uthorized under section 402(p) of the CWA for the control of stormwater discharges"; or (2)
"[n]umeric effluent limitations are infeasible." 40 CFR § 122.44(k).
Courts have held that the CWA does not require the EPA to set numeric limitations
where such limits are infeasible. Citizens Coal Council v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 447 F3d 879, 895-96 (6th Cir. 2006). The Sixth Circuit cited to Waterkeeper
Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 502 (2nd Cir. 2005), stating "site-specific BMPs are effluent
limitations under the CWA." Additionally, the Sixth Circuit cited to Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc. v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400, 403 (D.C.Cir.1982) noting that"section 502(11) [of the CWA]
defines `effluent limitation' as 'any restriction' on the amounts of pollutants discharged, not just
a numerical restriction."
29
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
EPA's Decision to Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limitations in This
Permit
As described above, numeric effluent limitations are not always feasible because the
discharges pose challenges not presented by other types of NPDES-regulated discharges. The
technology-based effluent limitations in this permit are non-numeric based on the following
facts:
• The point in time for which a numeric effluent limitation would apply is not easily
determinable. For discharges from the application of pesticides,the discharges can be
highly intermittent with those discharges not practically separable from the pesticide
application itself. For example, the discharge from the application of a chemical
pesticide to a water of the U.S. is represented by the residual remaining in the ambient
water after the pesticide is no longer serving its intended purpose (i.e., acting as a
pesticide against targeted pests in the applied medium). Chemical pesticides applied
directly to water are not considered pollutants until some time after actual discharge at
which point the pesticides will have performed their intended function for pest control,
dissipated in the waterbody, and broken down into other compounds to some extent, etc.
This discharge also will have combined with any other discharges to that waterbody (be it
from other point sources, non-point source runoff, air deposition, etc). Given this
situation, it is not clear what would be measured for a numeric limit or when.
• For discharges from the application of pesticides, there are often many short duration,
highly variable, pesticide discharges to surface waters from many different locations for
which it would be difficult to establish a numeric limitation at each location. This
variability makes setting numeric effluent limitations for pesticide applications extremely
difficult. In this situation, requiring the use of standard control practices (i.e., narrative
non-numeric effluent limitations), provides a reasonable approach to control pesticides
discharges.
• The precise location for which a numeric effluent limitation would apply is not clear.
Discharges from the application of pesticide are different from discharges of process
wastewater from a particular industrial or commercial facility where the effluent is more
predictable and easily identified as an effluent from a conveyance (e.g., pipe or ditch),
can be precisely measured for compliance prior to discharge, and can be more effectively
analyzed to develop numeric effluent limitations.
• Information needed to develop numeric effluent limitations is not available at this time.
To develop numeric technology-based effluent limitations, EPA must fully evaluate
factors outlined in 40 CFR 125.3, such as the age of equipment and facilities involved,
the process employed, the potential process changes, and non-water quality
environmental impacts. In addition, EPA estimates that more than 400 pesticide active
ingredients contained in over 3,500 pesticide products may be covered under this permit.
Technology-based effluent limitations in this permit are presented specific to each
pesticide use pattern to reflect the variations in procedures and expectations for the use and
application of pesticides. These non-numeric effluent limitations are expected to minimize
environmental impacts by reducing the discharge of pesticides to waters of the U.S., thereby
30
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
protecting the receiving waters, including meeting of all applicable water quality standards.
The effluent limitations in this permit are expressed as specific pollution prevention
requirements for minimizing the pollutant levels in the discharge. EPA has determined that the
combination of pollution prevention approaches and structural management practices required by
these limits are the most environmentally sound way to control the discharge of pesticide
pollutants to meet the effluent limitations. Pollution prevention continues to be the cornerstone
of the NPDES program.
EPA continues to study the efficacy of various types of pollution prevention measures
and BMPs; however, for this permit numeric limitations are not feasible.
Control Measures Used to Meet the Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
Just as there is variability in the pesticide applications as described above, there is
variability in the control measures that can be used to meet the effluent limitations. Therefore,
EPA is not mandating the specific control measures operators must implement to meet the
limitations. This is analogous to an industrial situation where discharges to waters of the U.S.
are via pipes and a numeric effluent limitation may be specified as a given quantity of pollutant
that may be discharged, but EPA would not specify what technology should be employed to meet
that limitation. For pesticides, namely mosquitocides, for example,Part 2.2.1.2 of the PGP
requires mosquito control operators to consider mechanical/physical methods of control to
eliminate or reduce mosquito habitat. How this is achieved will vary by operator: For some, this
many be achieved through regular mowing while for others mowing will not be feasible. Thus, a
given control measure may be acceptable and appropriate in some circumstances but not in
others. In this respect, the non-numeric effluent limitations in this permit are similar to numeric
effluent limitations, which also do not require specific control technologies as long as the
limitations are met.
Control measures can be actions (including processes, procedures, schedules of activities,
prohibitions on practices and other management practices), or structural or installed devices to
prevent or reduce water pollution. The key is determining what measure is appropriate for your
situation in order to meet the effluent limitation. In this permit, operators are required to
implement site-specific control measures to meet these limitations. The permit along with this
fact sheet provides examples of control measures, but operators must tailor these to their
situations as well as improve upon them as necessary to meet permit limits. The examples
emphasize minimization over treatment.
EPA notes that this permit uses both the term "control measures" and "best management
practices" or"BMPs". Use of the term control measure is intended to better describe the range
of pollutant reduction practices that may be employed, whether they are structural, non-structural
or procedural and includes BMPs as one of the components. The greater breadth of meaning for
control measures vis-a-vis BMPs is why EPA uses this term in many parts of the permit.
The approach to control measures in this permit is consistent with the CWA as well as its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k)(4). Section 402(a)(2) of the CWA states: "The
administrator shall prescribe conditions for such permits to assure compliance with the
requirements in paragraph (I) . . . including conditions on data and information collection,
reporting and such other requirements as he deems appropriate." (Section 402(a)(1) includes
31
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
effluent limitation requirements.) This statutory provision is reflected in the CWA implementing
regulations, which state that control measures can be included in permits when, "[t]he practices
are reasonably necessary to achieve effluent limitations and standards or to carry out the
purposes and intent of the CWA." 40 CFR 122.44(k)(4).
Implementation of Control Measures
Part 2.0 of this permit requires operators to implement control measures to meet the
technology-based effluent limitations listed in that Part. It also provides operators with
important considerations for the implementation of their specific control measures. Some
operators will have to document how such factors were taken into account in the implementation
of their control measures (See Part 5). EPA recognizes that not all of these considerations will
be applicable to every site nor will they always affect the choice of control measures. If
operators find their control measures are not minimizing discharges of pesticide adequately, the
control measures must be modified as expeditiously as practicable. See Part 6, Corrective
Action.
Control Measures and Technology-Based Effluent Limitations—Definition of"Minimize"
The non-numeric effluent limitations require operators to "minimize" discharges of
pesticide. Consistent with the control level requirements of the CWA, the term"minimize"
means to reduce and/or eliminate pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. through the use of
control measures to the extent technologically available and economically achievable and
practicable.
EPA believes that for many pesticide applications minimization of the discharge of
pesticides to waters of the U.S. can be achieved without using highly engineered, complex
treatment systems. The specific limits included in Part 2.0 emphasize effective "low-tech"
approaches, including using the lowest effective amount of pesticide product, performing regular
equipment maintenance and calibration, accurately identifying the pest problem, efficiently and
effectively managing the pest problem, and properly using pesticides.
Statutes, Regulations, and Other Requirements
Operators must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations and other requirements
including, but not limited to requirements contained in the labeling of pesticide products
approved under FIFRA ("FIFRA labeling"). Although the FIFRA label and labeling
requirements are not effluent limitations, it is illegal to use a registered pesticide inconsistent
with its labeling. If operators are found to have applied a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with
any relevant water-quality related FIFRA labeling requirements, EPA will presume that the
effluent limitation to minimize pesticides entering the waters of the U.S. has been violated under
the NPDES permit. EPA considers many provisions of FIFRA labeling -- such as those relating
to application sites, rates, frequency, and methods, as well as provisions concerning proper
storage and disposal of pesticide wastes and containers -- to be requirements that affect water
quality. For example, an operator, who is a pesticide applicator, decides to use a mosquito
adulticide pesticide product with a FIFRA label that contains the following language, "Apply this
product at a rate not to exceed one pound per acre." The applicator applies this product at higher
than the allowable rate, which results in excess product being discharged into waters of the U.S.
32
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
EPA would find that this application was a misuse of the pesticide under the FIFRA label and
because of the misuse; the Agency would determine that the effluent limitation that requires the
operator to minimize discharges of pesticide products to waters of the U.S. was also violated.
Therefore, pesticide use inconsistent with certain FIFRA labeling requirements could result in
the operator being held liable for a CWA violation as well as a FIFRA violation.
Technology-Based Effluent Limitations in the PGP
The permit requires the operator to achieve all of the non-numeric effluent limitations
delineated in Parts 2.1 and 2.2 as described below.
All operators under Part 2.1 must"minimize"pesticide applications. Under Part 2.2,
only those operations required to submit an NOI (i.e., applying pesticides above the annual
treatment area threshold) are required to implement 1PM and other permit conditions. EPA is not
requiring these additional technology-based effluent limitation requirements from permittees
who treat areas below the annual treatment area thresholds at this time, because of concerns
about potential unintended consequences of such a requirement.
2.1 General Effluent Limitations
Part 2.1 of this permit contains the general effluent limitations that apply to all operators,
regardless of use pattern. These effluent limitations are generally preventative in nature, and are
designed to minimize pesticide discharges into waters of the U.S. All operators, regardless of
whether you are required to submit an NOI, are required to minimize the discharge of pesticides
to waters of the U.S. by doing the following:
2.1.1 Use the lowest effective amount of pesticide product per application and optimum
frequency of pesticide applications necessary to control the target pest,consistent with
reducing the potential for development of pest resistance.
• As noted earlier, it is illegal to use a pesticide in any way prohibited by the FIFRA
labeling. Also, use of pesticides must be consistent with any other applicable state or
federal laws. To minimize the total amount of pesticide discharged, operators must
consider lower application rates, frequencies, or both to accomplish effective control
keeping in mind pesticide resistance. Using the lowest possible effective rate ensures
maximum efficiency in pest control with the minimum quantity of pesticide. The
lowest effective application rate also reduces the amount of pesticide available that is
not performing a specific pest-control function. Using the lowest possible effective
rate and frequency of applications can result in cost and time savings to the user. To
minimize discharges of pesticide, operators should base the rate and frequency of
application on what is known to be effective against the target pest or necessary for
resistance management.
Operators must also consider pest resistance to pesticides when reducing discharges from
application of pesticide. Resistance management is an important part of pest control. Some
pests can develop resistance to pesticides unless resistance management techniques are adopted
33
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
by pesticide users. Resistance can result in the loss of effectiveness of pesticides with relatively
favorable environmental and human health risks and increase reliance on riskier pesticides.
When resistance occurs, users may increase rates and frequency of application in an attempt to
maintain pesticide effectiveness. This can lead to the loss of efficacy and increased exposure to
the pesticide. Pesticide applicators should be aware of the potential for pest resistance to develop
by considering the pest, the pesticide and its mode of action, the number of applications and
intervals, and application rates.
Pest resistance develops because intensive pesticide use kills the susceptible individuals
in a population, leaving only the resistant ones to reproduce. Several pest management tactics
help prevent or delay the occurrence of pesticide resistance. One tactic is to reduce dosages in
order to avoid establishing a population of resistant organisms and instead allowing some
survivors to pass on genes for susceptibility. Another is to apply pesticides over limited areas to
reduce the proportion of the total pest population exposed to the pesticide, thereby maintaining a
large pool of individuals still susceptible to the pesticide. A third tactic to prevent development
of resistant pest populations is to rotate pesticides with different modes of actions against the
pests rather than depend on a single mode of action. See National Pesticide Applicator
Certification Core Manual, Chapter 1 —Pest Management for additional information on pesticide
resistance.
2.1.2 Perform regular maintenance activities to minimize potential for leaks,spills, or
other unintended discharges of pesticides associated with the application of pesticides
covered under this permit.
Common-sense and good housekeeping practices enable pesticide users to save time and
money and reduce potential for unintended discharges of pesticides to waters of the U.S.
Regular maintenance activities should be practiced and improper pesticide mixing and
equipment loading should be avoided. When preparing the pesticides for application be certain
that you are mixing them correctly and preparing only the amount of material that you need.
Carefully choose the pesticide mixing and loading area and avoid places where a spill will
discharge into waters of the U.S. Some basic factors operators should consider are:
• Inspect pesticide containers at purchase to ensure proper containment;
• Maintain clean storage facilities for pesticides;
• Regularly monitor containers for leaks;
• Rotate pesticide supplies to prevent leaks that may result from long term storage;
and
• Promptly deal with spills following manufacturer recommendations.
2.1.3. Maintain application equipment in proper operating condition by adhering to any
manufacturer's conditions and industry practices, and by calibrating, cleaning, and
repairing such equipment on a regular basis to ensure effective pesticide application and
pest control. You must ensure that the equipment's rate of pesticide application is
calibrated to deliver the precise quantity of pesticide needed to achieve greatest efficacy
against the target pest.
To minimize discharges of pesticide, operators must ensure that the rate of application is
calibrated (i.e. nozzle choice, droplet size, etc.) to deliver the appropriate quantity of pesticide
34
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
needed to achieve greatest efficacy against the target pest. Improperly calibrated pesticide
equipment may cause either too little or too much pesticide to be applied. This lack of precision
can result in excess pesticide being available or result in ineffective pest control. When done
properly, equipment calibration can assure uniform application to the desired target and result in
higher efficiency in terms of pest control and cost. It is important for applicators to know that
pesticide application efficiency and precision can be adversely affected by a variety of
mechanical problems that can be addressed through regular calibration. Sound calibration
practices to consider are:
• Choosing the right spray equipment for the application
• Ensuring proper regulation of pressure and choice of nozzle to ensure desired
application rate
• Calibrating spray equipment prior to use to ensure the rate applied is that required
for effective control of the target pest
• Cleaning all equipment after each use and/or prior to using another pesticide
unless a tank mix is the desired objective and cross contamination is not an issue
• Checking all equipment regularly (e.g., sprayers, hoses, nozzles, etc.) for signs of
uneven wear(e.g., metal fatigue/shavings, cracked hoses, etc.)to prevent
equipment failure that may result in inadvertent discharge into the environment
• Replacing all worn components of pesticide application equipment prior to
application.
2.2. Integrated Pest Management Practices
As noted above, NPDES permits must contain technology-based effluent limitations. In
addition to the technology-based effluent limitations described immediately above that apply to
all permittees, EPA is requiring certain permittees to also comply with additional technology-
based effluent limitation because we have found that IPM is economically achievable for these
large applications. Permittees subject to these additional limits are those permittees who exceed
the annual treatment area thresholds described in section 1.2.2.1 of the permit. These entities are
those who manage large treatment areas as explained in Part III, section 1.2.1. EPA expects that
many of these permittees are already performing some of the IPM practices required in these
additional technology-based effluent limitations. EPA is not requiring these additional
technology-based effluent limitation requirements from permittees who treat areas below the
threshold at this time because we are still unclear whether it is economically achievable for small
applications to implement IPM and because of concerns about potential unintended
consequences of such a requirement, such as an inability to conduct essential public health and
safety operations due to a reduction of available funds or manpower. Additionally, operators
whose discharges of pesticides to waters of the U.S. are solely from pesticide research and
development activities do not have to comply with these additional technology-based effluent
limitations to the extent the limits may compromise the research design. EPA is soliciting
comment on the applicability of these additional technology-based effluent limitations for all or
some of the applicators that fall below the thresholds (e.g., states, governmental agencies, small
public entities, and private entities). EPA is also soliciting comment about the impacts such a
requirement would have on those entities
The additional technology-based effluent limitations in Part 2.2 are based on integrated
pest management(1PM) practices. 1PM, as defined in FIFRA, is a sustainable approach to
35
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that
minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks. (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136r-1) IPM is not a
single pest control method but, rather, a series of pest management evaluations, decisions and
controls. In evaluating available and relevant information, EPA found that some commercial
(for-hired applicators) and non-commercial (e.g., state governments, federal governments, local
governments, utilities) entities are currently implementing IPM practices or components of IPM
to minimize pesticide use. For example, federal agencies are required to implement 1PM under 7
USC 136r-1, "Federal agencies shall use Integrated Pest Management techniques in carrying out
pest management through procurement and regulatory policies, and other activities." EPA has
found that mosquito control operations are performed by local government entities and that they
are generally performing IPM.
EPA believes requiring IPM practices in this permit will reduce discharges of pesticide to
waters of the U.S. For example, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MWDSC) at Lake Matthews managed the underlying causes of recurring taste and odor
problems in the reservoir using IPM. Between 1982 and 1991, the MWDSC was inefficiently
escalating the amounts of copper sulfate applied to treat an algae problem, to the point where it
was releasing hundreds of tons of the chemical via helicopter each year, increasing the risk of
using lake water due to the toxins produced by the dying algae. Introducing the concept of sector
monitoring and at-need copper sulfate application allowed for more controlled released of algae-
related toxins and avoided overuse of pesticides. After several years of this type of treatment,
the benthic algal population diversified and the algal population was manageable such that in
some years, pesticides are no longer used.5
Part 2.2 of this permit requires operators above the annual treatment area threshold to
identify the pest problem; to evaluate and implement efficiently and effectively pest
management; and to properly use pesticides. Operators are required to perform each of these
permit conditions prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit and at least
once each calendar year thereafter. Below is a general discussion describing the limitations for
all use patterns. Following the general discussion are more detailed descriptions of each specific
requirement under each use pattern. Requirements for documentation of the specific measures
implemented are contained in Part 7, Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting.
Operators required to perform 1PM practices will be required to do the following
regardless of use pattern:
Identify the Problem
Operators are required to identify the pest problem, identify the target pest, and establish
an action threshold. Understanding the pest biology and ecology will provide insight into
selecting the most effective and efficient pest management strategies (pesticidal or non-pesticidal
methods), and in developing an action threshold. An action threshold is a point at which pest
populations or environmental conditions indicate that pest control action must be taken. Action
thresholds help determine both the need for control actions and the proper timing of such actions.
5 Taylor,W., R.Losee,M.Torobin,G.Izaguirre, D. Sass,D.Khiari,and K.Atasi.2006. Early Warning
and Management of Surface Water Taste-and-Odor Events. AwwaRF Report 91102F.AWWA Research
Foundation,American Water Works Association,and IWA Publishing.
36
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
It is a predetermined pest level that is deemed to be unacceptable. In some situations, the action
threshold for a pest may be zero (i.e., no presence of the pest is tolerated). This is especially true
when the pest is capable of transmitting a human pathogen (e.g., mosquitoes and the West Nile
virus). In areas where aquatic weeds are problematic, it may be preferable to use an aquatic
herbicide as a preventive measure rather than after weeds become established. In some
situations, even a slight amount of pest damage may be unacceptable for ecological or aesthetic
reasons. Sometime pre-emergent pesticide application is needed, as preventive measure to keep
aquatic weeds at bay. Action thresholds can vary by pest, by site, and by season. Often the
action threshold is expressed as the number of pests per unit area. Action thresholds may be
difficult to establish. In a new IPM program, a practical approach is to establish an action
threshold for the major pests. As operators gain insight and experience into specific pest
management settings, the action levels can be revised up or down.
To identify the problem at a treatment area, operators may use existing data to meet the
conditions of the permit. For example, a mosquito district may use surveillance data from an
adjacent district to identify mosquito species at their pest management area. Operators may also
use relevant historic site data.
Pest Management
Operators are required to implement efficient and effective means of pest management
that most successfully minimizes discharges to waters of the U.S. resulting from the application
of pesticides. Operators must evaluate both pesticide and non-pesticide methods. Operators
must consider and evaluate the following options: no action,prevention, mechanical/physical
methods, cultural methods, biological control agents, and pesticides. In the evaluation of these
options, operators must consider impacts to water quality, impacts to non-target organisms, pest
resistance, feasibility, and cost effectiveness. Combinations of various management methods are
frequently the most effective pest management strategies over the long term. The goal should be
to emphasize long-term control rather than a temporary fix. For additional information, see
discussion under each use pattern.
Pesticide Use
Operators are required to conduct pest surveillance and reduce the impact on the
environment. Pest surveillance is important to properly time the need for pest control. To
reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms, operators are required to apply
pesticide when the action threshold has been met. As noted earlier, action thresholds help
determine both the need for control actions and the proper timing of such actions. There are
additional requirements designed for each use pattern in Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.4 of the
permit. For additional information and other limits on pesticide use, see specific discussion
under each use pattern.
2.2.1 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pests Control
a. Mosquitoes
Background
37
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
There are over 2500 different species of mosquitoes throughout the world with
approximately 200 species occurring in the U.S. The total budgets for mosquito control in the
U.S. exceed $200,000,000 annually (AMCA 2009). Mosquitoes can be a source of annoyance
(e.g., work and leisure activities), a limiting factor in economic development (e.g., residential
development and property value), a causal factor in decreased agricultural productivity (e.g.,
animal weight loss/death and decreased milk production) from irritation and blood loss, and a
source of disease transmission (e.g., malaria, encephalitis, yellow fever, dengue, and West Nile
Virus). Most of these diseases have been prominent as endemic or epidemic diseases in the U.S.
in the past, although today, only the insect-borne(arboviral) encephalitides and West Nile virus
fever occur annually and dengue occurs periodically in this country. Thus, control of mosquitoes
is an important public health issue. Numerous strategies are used to reduce the impact of
mosquitoes but a comprehensive approach using a variety of complementary control methods is
necessary for any mosquito control program.
Of major concern is the transmission of microorganisms that cause diseases such as
western equine encephalitis and St. Louis encephalitis. Both of these diseases can cause serious,
sometimes fatal neurological ailments in people. (Western equine encephalitis virus also causes
disease in horses.) Western equine encephalitis infections tend to be more serious in infants
while St. Louis encephalitis can be a problem for older people. These viruses normally infect
birds or small mammals. During such infections, the level of the virus may increase in these
infected animals facilitating transmission to humans by mosquitoes. The West Nile virus, which
can also cause encephalitis, was found in the northeastern U.S. for the first time in 1999, and is a
good example of this mode of transmission. Over 20,000 human cases of West Nile virus have
been reported in the U.S. Symptoms of human illness can range from mild flu-like symptoms to
severe encephalitis, meningitis, or acute flaccid paralysis. Over 800 people have died from West
Nile virus since its emergence in North America in 1999 (CDC).
Other pathogens transmitted by mosquitoes include a protozoan parasite which causes
malaria, and Dirofilaria immitis, a parasitic roundworm and the causative agent of dog
heartworm. Disease carrying mosquito species are found throughout the U.S., especially in
urban areas and coastal or inland areas where flooding of low lands frequently occurs. Even
when no infectious diseases are transmitted by mosquitoes, they can be a health problem to
people and livestock. Mosquito bites can result in secondary infections, allergic reactions, pain,
irritation, redness, and itching.
Mosquito Control 1PM Practices
Identify the Problem
Part 2.2.1.1: Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit
that will result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., and at least once each calendar year
thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year,you must do the
following for each pest management area, as defined in Appendix A. Operators must
identify the pest problem in their pest management area prior to the first application covered
under this permit. Knowledge of the pest problem is an important step to developing pest
management strategies. Re-evaluation of the pest problem is also important to ensure pest
management strategies are still applicable. Operators must identify the pest problem at least
once each calendar year prior to the first application for that calendar year.
38
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Establish densities for larval and adult mosquito or flying insect pest populations to
serve as action threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies. Operators must
develop action thresholds for larval and adult mosquito prior to the first pesticide application
covered under this permit. The action thresholds must be re-evaluated at least once each
calendar year. As noted in the general discussion above, an action threshold is a point at which
pest populations or environmental conditions indicate that pest control action must be taken.
Action thresholds help determine both the need for control actions and the proper timing of such
actions. It is a predetermined pest level that is deemed to be unacceptable. For example in
Maryland, "A collection of more than 10 anthropophagous (human biting) female mosquitoes
per night of trap operation is considered to be the level which causes discomfort and/or
complaints from the majority of people. The light trap action threshold for ground spraying of
adult mosquitoes is 10-20 per trap-night. The action threshold to suppress pest populations of
adult mosquitoes by aerial spraying (application of insecticide by an aircraft) is a light trap
collection of 100 female mosquitoes. The action threshold for landing rate counts to justify
ground spraying for the control of adult mosquitoes is Ito 3 in 1 minute. The action threshold
for aerial spraying is 12 mosquitoes per minute."6 For larvae control, action thresholds are
determined by standard mosquito dipping techniques. For example, in Canyon County Mosquito
Abatement District, Idaho,they established larvae density action levels for Culex species
(primary disease vectors) as Low: 1-5 larvae per dip; Medium: 6-10 larvae per dip; High: > than
10 larvae per dip. The larvae density action threshold can be used to determine how much larval
control products are to be used or even if any action is to be taken. In some situations, the action
threshold for a pest may be zero (i.e., no presence of the pest is tolerated). This is especially true
when the pest is capable of transmitting a human pathogen (e.g., mosquitoes and the West Nile
virus).
Identify the target mosquito or flying insect pest species to develop a species-specific
pest management strategy based on developmental and behavioral considerations for each
species. Knowledge of the developmental biology of mosquitoes is essential to developing pest
management strategies for mosquito control. The mosquito undergoes complete metamorphosis
and has four distinct stages in its life cycle: egg, larva, pupa, and adult. Depending on the
species, eggs are deposited either in permanent water habitats or in temporary/floodwater
habitats. Egg deposition in permanent water habitats occurs as individual eggs or as multiple egg
rafts deposited directly to the water surface in natural or artificial water-holding containers found
in the domestic environment or in naturally occurring pools. Egg rafts may contain 100-200
eggs. A batch laid of single eggs may range from 60-100 eggs. Egg deposition in
temporary/floodwater habitats occurs as individual eggs on moist soil (e.g., roadside ditches,
depressions, farmland irrigation ditches, etc.) or in other objects (e.g., flower pots, cans, tires,
tree holes, etc.) in which periodic flooding will occur. Eggs deposited in permanent habitats will
hatch in a few days whereas eggs deposited in temporary/floodwater habitats are resistant to
desiccation in the absence of flooding and can withstand drying for extended periods of time
(weeks to months) before hatching.
Following egg hatching, typically 2-3 days after laying, mosquitoes go through four
larval developmental stages (instars) commonly known as wrigglers. Larval development
6 http://www.m da.state.md.us/plants-pests/mosquito control/mosquito controlj1roarain description.phi)
7 http://www.canvoncountymosquito.corn/CCMADMosquitoPesticideUsePIan.ndf
39
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
generally is completed in a week or less, depending upon the species and environmental
conditions (e.g., crowding, food availability, and water temperature). The first three larval
instars continually feed on detritus, algae, bacteria, and fungi. However, some mosquito species
are predacious with larva feeding on other mosquitoes and/or small aquatic invertebrates. Late
in the fourth larval instar the larvae ceases to feed in preparation for pupation. The pupal stage,
commonly referred to as a tumbler, is a non-feeding developmental stage in which the adult form
is developed. Following a few hours to several days, dependent upon species and water
temperature, the adult emerges from the pupae.
The adult mosquito is the pestiferous stage. Adults emerge from the water surface and
after a short period of rest seek out a food source. Both males and females feed on nectar of
flowers and other sugar sources as a source of energy. Only female mosquitoes seek out a blood
meal as a source of protein and lipids for egg development. However, females of some species
are autogenous (i.e., able to use energy reserves carried over from the immature stage to develop
the first egg batch). In addition, most mosquitoes have preferred hosts which may include warm
and cold blooded animals and birds. Human blood meals are seldom first or second choices with
livestock, smaller mammals and/or birds generally preferred. Host seeking and blood feeding
activities by mosquitoes are initiated by a complex variety of host and environmental cues (e.g.,
carbon dioxide, temperature, moisture, smell, color, movement and host preference). Adult
feeding activity is generally either crepuscular(early morning, dusk and into the evening) or
diurnal (daytime, particularly in relation to cloudy days and shaded areas). Although highly
variable by species and environmental conditions, a complete development cycle can occur every
one to three weeks. An understanding of the developmental biology of species in a given area
provides the basis for developing a pest management strategy aimed at reducing pesticide
discharge into waters of the U.S.
Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit, operators must ensure
proper identification of mosquito species to better understand the biology of the target species
and develop a detailed pest management strategy. Due to the great variability in developmental
habitats and adult feeding behaviors as discussed previously, proper identification is imperative
in designing an effective and efficient pest management strategy. Identification of the target
species will aid in development of strategies aimed at both the immature and adult
developmental stages. Identification of the target species for a specific area allows 1)
identification of potential breeding sites, 2) evaluation of alternative control measures aimed at
controlling the immature stages (habitat modification, source reduction, larvicides, biological
larvicides, and oils), and 3) assessment of potential for disease transmission.
Identify known breeding sites for source reduction, larval control program,and
habitat management. Once species have been identified, mapping is a valuable tool in assessing
mosquito habitats and designing control programs for a specific area to minimize pesticide
discharge into waters of the U.S. Maps may simply be township/city/county maps but may also
include aerial photo assessments,topographic maps, and satellite imagery where available.
Mapping is essential to identify mosquito producing areas which can and cannot be controlled
using non-chemical preventative measures (e.g., source reduction). Maps should include all
potential sites for mosquito development including agricultural areas in the specific area(e.g.,
hay, pasture, circle irrigation, orchards, rill irrigated field crops, and flood irrigated pastures and
farmland). Mapping should also be a priority in a surveillance program utilizing mosquito traps,
biting counts, complaints, and reports from the public. Planning in coordination with mapping
40
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
ensures the best pest management strategy (whether source reduction, biological, or chemical)
for each particular species is chosen. Operators must identify known breeding sites prior to the
first pesticide application covered under this permit.
Analyze existing surveillance data to identify new or unidentified sources of
mosquito or flying insect pest problems as well as sites that have recurring pest problems.
As discussed above, mapping is a valuable tool in assessing mosquito habitats and designing
control programs. Operators must analyze existing surveillance data to identity any new source
of mosquito problems.
In the event there are no data for your pest management area in the past calendar
year, see Part 5 for documentation requirements regarding why current data are not
available and the data you used to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.1.1. Operators
may use historical data or neighboring district data to identify the species and establish action
thresholds.
Pest Management
Part 2.2.1.2: Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit that
will result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., and at least once each calendar year
thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year,you must select and
implement, for each pest management area, efficient and effective means of pest
management that minimize discharges resulting from application of pesticides to control
mosquitoes or other flying insect pests. In developing these pest management strategies,
you must evaluate the following management options, considering impact to water quality,
impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, and cost effectiveness: No
action; Prevention; Mechanical/physical methods; Cultural methods; Biological control
agents; and Pesticides.
Operators are required to evaluate and implement a pest management strategy to
minimize pesticide discharge into waters of the U.S. prior to the first pesticide application
covered under this permit. Pest management strategies will vary by locality, mosquito species,
and financial concerns. As noted above, combinations of various management methods are
frequently the most effective pest management strategies over the long term. The goal should be
to emphasize long-term control rather than a temporary fix. Operators must reevaluate every
year prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year. The following describes the
management options that must be evaluated.
No Action. No action is to be taken, although a mosquito problem has been identified. This
may be appropriate in cases where, for example, available control methods may cause secondary
or non-target impacts that are not justified or no control methods exist.
Prevention. Prevention strategies are program activities which eliminate developing mosquito
populations through environmental modification and/or habitat management. For mosquito
control, these activities are physical methods such as habitat modification, cultural methods that
reduce sources of mosquitoes, and biological control.
Mechanical/Physical Methods. Habitat modification, also known as physical or permanent
41
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
control, is in many cases the most effective mosquito control technique available and is
accomplished by eliminating mosquito breeding sites. Habitat modification activities have the
potential to be both effective and economical in some areas and can virtually eliminate the need
for pesticide use in and adjacent to the affected habitat. However, the ability to use prevention
strategies is dependent upon local authority and restrictions.
Cultural Methods. Cultural methods can reduce sources of mosquitoes and can be as simple as
properly discarding old containers that hold water capable of producing Aedes aegypti,Ae.
albopictus or Culex spp. or as complex as implementing Rotational Impoundment Management
(RIM) or Open Marsh Water Management(OMWM) techniques. RIM is a source reduction
strategy that controls salt marsh mosquitoes (e.g.,Ae. taeniorhynchus and Ae.sollicitans) at the
same time as significant habitat restoration is occurring. Source reduction may include; water
management, vegetation management, biological control, and pesticide use in non-waters of the
U.S.
Containers provide excellent habitats for development of numerous mosquito species.
These may include but are not limited to flowerpots, cans, and tires. Container-inhabiting
mosquitoes of particular concern include,Ae. aeypti,Ae. albopictus, Cx.p.pipiens, and Cx.
salinarious. A container-breeding mosquito problem can be solved by properly disposing of
such materials, covering them, tipping them over to ensure that they do not collect water, and/or
periodic draining. Urban container-breeding mosquito control is best implemented through
education and surveillance programs.
Source reduction in freshwater lakes, ponds, and retention areas is more applicable to
artificially created areas than natural areas. Artificial ponds can be eliminated as a breeding site
simply by filling in the areas, (i.e. habitat modification). However, large permanent water bodies
and areas for stormwater or wastewater retention require other methods. Options for these areas
include minimizing and/or eliminating emergent and standing vegetation, maintenance of steep
banks, and inclusion of deep water areas as sanctuary for larvivorous fish.
Mosquito production from stormwater/wastewater habitats can result in considerable
mosquito problems as a result of engineering, poor construction or improper maintenance.
However, mosquito populations can typically be managed by keeping such areas free of weeds
through an aquatic plant management program and maintaining water quality that can support
larvivorous fish. Culex, Coquillettidia, Mansonia, and Anopheles mosquitoes are often produced
in these habitats.
Pastures and agricultural lands are enormous mosquito producers, frequently generating
huge broods of Aedes,Psorophora, and Culex mosquitoes. Improved drainage is one effective
tool for source reduction in such habitats. The second is the use of efficient, precision irrigation
practices that will result in less standing water for those agricultural areas that require artificial
watering.
In coastal areas with extensive coastal salt marshes, there can be tremendous production
of Aedes mosquitoes, making coastal human habitation virtually impossible. Several source
reduction efforts can greatly reduce salt-marsh mosquito production through high-to mid-
intensity management that relies upon artificial manipulation of the frequency and duration of
inundation.
42
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Biological Control. The use of biological organisms or their byproducts to combat pest insects,
such as mosquitoes, is termed biological control, or biocontrol. Biocontrol is utilization of
parasites, predators, and pathogens to regulate pest populations. Generally, this definition
includes natural and genetically modified organisms and means that the agent must be alive and
able to attack the mosquito. The overall premise is simple: Biocontrol agents that attack
mosquitoes naturally are grown in the lab and then released into the environment, usually in far
greater numbers than they normally occur, and often in habitats that previously were devoid of
them, so as to control targeted mosquito species.
One advantage of biocontrol agents is host-specificity which affords minimal disturbance
to non-target species and to the environment. However, it is this specificity and the cost of
commercializing biocontrol agents that deter development of biocontrol agents. In addition,
utilization of biocontrol requires increased capital outlay and start up costs as well as increased
training requirements for personnel.
Biocontrol should be considered a set of tools that a mosquito control program can use
when it is economically feasible. When combined with conventional chemicals and physical
control procedures, biocontrol agents can provide short and, occasionally, long-term control.
Biocontrol, as a conventional control method, should aim at the weakest link of the life cycle of
the mosquito. In most cases, this is the larval life stage.
Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) are currently the most extensively used biocontrol
agent. These fish, which feed on mosquito larvae, can be placed in a variety of permanent and
semi-permanent water habitats. Differences of opinion exist on the utility and actual control
benefits derived from Gambusia implementation in an Integrated Pest Management(IPM)
program with results reported from excellent control to no control at all. Recently, concerns over
placing Gambusia in habitats where other fish species assemblages are threatened have arisen.
Care must be taken in placement of this cosmopolitan species in areas where endemic fish
species are sensitive to further environmental perturbation. Additionally, use of endemic fish
species in these areas of concern deserves greater attention. An example of this is Rivulus fish
species. The potential of Rivulus as mosquito predators is currently being evaluated in saltwater
habitats, especially in Brevard County, Florida.
In some aquatic habitats,fish function as an excellent mosquito biocontrol mechanism.
These typically are permanent habitats where Culex and Anopheles are the primary mosquito
residents and where the mosquito densities are not excessive. However, in habitats such as salt
marshes fish are unable to control the sudden explosion of larvae produced by rainfall or rising
tides. Here, the mosquito population numerically exceeds what the fish can consume during the
brief immature mosquito developmental period. In salt marshes, fish must rely on things other
than mosquito larvae for their nutritional needs most of the time, simply because there may be
long delays between hatches of larvae. Mosquito larvae present an abundant food source, but
only for a few days during their rapid development.
Species of predacious mosquitoes in the genus Toxorhynchites have been studied in a
variety of urban areas for control of container-inhabiting mosquitoes, such as the Asian tiger
mosquito (Ae. albopictus). Toxorhynchites mosquitoes also affect mosquito populations that
develop in the treehole environment; however,their introduction into urban container habitats
43
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
has proven unsuccessful.
In specific containers, Toxorhynchites may consume a large number of prey mosquito
larvae, such as Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. However, this predator does not disperse well
enough to impact the vast number of natural and artificial containers used by these mosquitoes.
Additionally their life-cycle is 2-3 times that of their prey making it impossible for them to keep
up with the other more rapidly developing mosquitoes.
Another group of biocontrol agents with promise for mosquito control is the predacious
copepods (very small crustaceans). Copepods can be readily mass reared, are easily to delivered
to the target sites, and perform well when used with insecticides.
Birds and bats are often promoted as potential biocontrol agents of adult mosquitoes.
However,while both predators eat adult mosquitoes, they do not do so in sufficient amounts to
impact the mosquito populations. Mosquitoes provide such a small amount of nutrition that birds
or bats expel more energy pursuing and eating mosquitoes than they derive from them. They are
not a primary food source for these predators. Additionally, with mosquito flight behavior being
crepuscular they are not active during the feeding periods of most birds. While bats are active
during the correct time period, they simply cannot impact the massive numbers of adult
mosquitoes available.
Bio-rational products exploit insecticidal toxins found in certain naturally occurring
bacteria. These bacteria are cultured in mass and packaged in various formulations. The bacteria
must be ingested by mosquito larvae so the toxin is released. Therefore bio-rational products are
only effective against larvae since pupae do not feed. The bacteria used to control mosquito
larvae have no significant effects on non-target organisms. The possibility of creating a new
invasive species by the introduction of biocontrols should be considered, evaluated, and avoided.
Pesticides. There are chemical and biological pesticide products registered for use against
mosquitoes. Two biological pesticide products that are used against mosquito larvae singly or in
combination are Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) and Bacillus sphaericus (Bs).
Manufactured Bti contains dead bacteria and remains effective in the water for 24 to 48 hours;
some slow release formulations provide longer control. In contrast, Bs products contain live
bacteria that in favorable conditions remain effective for more than 30 days. Both products are
safe enough to be used in water that is consumed by humans. In addition to the biological
pesticides, there are chemical pesticides for use against mosquitoes. As described below, once
the determination is made to use pesticides to control mosquitoes, additional requirements under
this general permit must be met.
Pesticide Use
Conduct larval and/or adult surveillance prior to each pesticide application to assess the
pest management area and to determine when action threshold(s) are met that necessitate
the need for pest management. Pest surveillance is important for timing pest control properly
and to evaluate the potential need for pesticide use for mosquito control. Understanding
surveillance data may enable mosquito control operators to more effectively target their control
efforts. Operators are required to conduct a surveillance program to minimize discharges from
control activities. Surveillance is necessary not only to establish species' presence and
44
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
abundance but also as an evaluation tool of the effectiveness of source reduction and chemical
control activities. Furthermore, surveillance should be used as an indicator of the need for
additional chemical control activities based on pre-established criteria related to population
densities in local areas.
Larval surveillance involves routine sampling of aquatic habitats for developing
mosquitoes. The primary tools used to determine larval densities and species composition are a
calibrated dip cup and/or a bulb syringe for inaccessible areas such as treeholes. The counts
may be expressed as the number of immature (larvae and pupae) mosquitoes per dip, per unit
volume, or per unit surface area of the site. However, due to natural mortality from
environmental factors, disease and predators, larval dip counts do not provide an accurate
indication of the potential adult population. Nevertheless, larval counts do indicate when
chemical larval control measures are warranted.
Adult surveillance is a key component of any mosquito control program. Adult
surveillance can be conducted using CDC traps,New Jersey light traps, resting site traps, egg
oviposition traps, vehicle traps, and landing count rates. Mosquito control operators should use a
variety of the available traps as adults are attracted to different traps depending on their species,
sex, and physiological condition. Trapped adults provide information about local species
composition, distribution, and density. In addition, the need for adulticide application may also
be established through the number and distribution of service requests received from the public.
Collection data also provide feedback to the mapping and planning component of the IPM
program as well as to its effectiveness and also serve to identify new sources of mosquitoes or
identify recurring problem sites.
Disease surveillance, where practical, is also a key component of a pest management
strategy. Detecting antibodies in "sentinel" chicken flocks, equine cases, and testing dead birds
and adult mosquitoes for infections are all used to determine whether disease is being transmitted
in an area. Mosquito and vector control agencies also may test mosquitoes for viruses in their
laboratories. Although generally less sensitive than sentinel chickens, mosquito infections may
be detected earlier in the season than chicken seroconversions and therefore provide an early
warning of virus activity. However, disease surveillance is not applicable to all mosquito control
programs. In the absence of a dedicated disease surveillance program, mosquito control
operators should stay informed of arboviral occurrence or potential for occurrence in their
control areas as determined by local, state, and/or national public health agencies.
Assess environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, precipitation, and wind speed) in
the treatment area prior to each pesticide application to identify whether existing
environmental conditions support development of pest populations and are suitable for
control activities. Environmental conditions also may affect the results of adulticide
application. Wind determines how the ULV droplets will be moved from the output into the
treatment area. Conditions of no wind will result in the material not moving from the application
point. High wind, a condition that inhibits mosquito activity, will quickly disperse the insecticide
over too wide an area but at a diluted rate too low to effectively control pests. Light wind
conditions (< 10 mph) are the most desirable because they move the material through the
treatment area and are less inhibiting to mosquito activity. Thermal fogs perform best under very
light wind conditions.
45
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
ULV application should be avoided during hot daylight hours. Thermal conditions,
particularly temperature inversion, will cause the small droplets to quickly rise, moving them
away from mosquito habitats. Generally, applications are made after sunset and before sunrise,
depending upon mosquito species activity. Some mosquitoes (Culex and Anopheles) are most
active several hours after sunset, while others (Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus) are more active
during the daytime, and if these species are the targets, application should be made during the
period of highest activity for the target species, provided that meteorological conditions are
suitable for application (seldom during daylight hours).
One notable exception to treatments made when mosquitoes are up and flying is a
residual barrier treatment application. Barrier treatments are based on the natural history and
behavioral characteristics of the mosquito species causing the problem. Barrier applications use a
residual material and are generally applied with a powered backpack sprayer to preferred resting
areas and migratory stops in order to intercept adult mosquitoes hunting for blood meals. Barrier
treatments are often applied during daylight hours as a large-droplet liquid application and are
designed to prevent a rapid re-infestation of specific areas, such as recreational areas, parks,
special-event areas, and private residences. Barrier applications can help provide control of
nuisance mosquitoes for up to one week or longer.
Reduce the impact on the environment and on non-target organisms by applying the
pesticide only when the action threshold has been met. Operators must apply pesticide only
as indicated by action thresholds for the pest management area. As noted above, action
threshold, established by the operator, help determine both the need for control actions and the
proper timing of such actions. Timing pesticide application can reduce the impact on the
environment and on non-target organisms.
In situations or locations where practicable and feasible for efficacious control, use
larvicides as a preferred pesticide for mosquito or flying insect pest control when larval
action thresholds have been met. Operators may use larvicides, adulticides or a combination of
both. However, when practicable and feasible, larviciding should be the primary method for
mosquito control. Larviciding is a general term for the process of killing mosquitoes by applying
natural agents or manmade pesticide products designed to control larvae and pupae (collectively
called larvicides)to aquatic habitats. Larviciding uses a variety of equipment, including aerial,
from boats, and on the ground, as necessitated by the wide range of breeding habitats, target
species, and budgetary constraints. Applications can be made using high pressure sprayers, ULV
sprayers, handheld sprayers, and back sprayers. However, larviciding is only effective when a
high percentage of the mosquito production sites are regularly treated, which may be difficult
and expensive.
There are advantages and disadvantages to aerial and ground larvicide treatments.
Ground larviciding allows application to the actual treatment area and consequently to only those
micro-habitats where larvae are present. Therefore, ground larviciding reduces unnecessary
pesticide load on the environment. However, ground applications often rely on in-the-field
human estimates of the size of treatment areas and equipment output with a greater chance of
overdosing or under-dosing. Ground larviciding is also impractical for large or densely wooded
areas and exposes applicators to greater risk of insecticide exposure.
Aerial larviciding application methods are generally used for controlling mosquito larvae
46
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
present in large areas and areas that are inaccessible for ground application. However, failure to
treat an entire area with good larvicide coverage can result in the emergence of large adult
populations. In order to prevent poor site coverage, a global positioning system (GPS), where
economically feasible, or site flagging are necessary to increase accuracy of the treatment
coverage while minimizing the amount of larvicides being applied. Aerial application does
provide easier calibration of equipment due to the fact that the target area is generally mapped
and the material is weighed or measured when loading. However, cost of aerial application is
higher than ground application (i.e. additional personnel for flagging or expensive electronic
guidance systems) and also requires special FAA licenses, training of staff, and additional
liability insurance. In addition, aerial larviciding has greater potential for non-target impacts.
In situations or locations where larvicide use is not practicable or feasible for
efficacious control, use adulticides for mosquito or flying insect pest control when adult
action thresholds have been met. Chemical treatment for adult mosquitoes, adulticiding, is the
most visible and commonly used form of mosquito control. Adulticide applications may be used
for nuisance or disease vectoring mosquitoes. Adulticiding consists of dispersing an insecticide
as a space spray into the air column, using ground or aerial equipment, which then remains
suspended in the air column through the habitat where adult mosquitoes are flying. Any
mosquito adulticiding activity that does not follow reasonable guidelines, including timing of
applications, avoidance of sensitive areas, and strict adherence to the pesticide label, risks
affecting non-target insect species.
Operators must ensure that the adulticide applications are made only when necessary by
determining a need in accordance with specific criteria that demonstrate a potential for a
mosquito-borne disease outbreak, or numbers of disease vector mosquitoes sufficient for disease
transmission, or a quantifiable increase in numbers of pestiferous mosquitoes. To determine the
need for adulticide application, at least one of the following criteria should be met and
documented by records: 1)when a large population of adult mosquitoes is demonstrated by
either a quantifiable increase in, or a sustained elevated mosquito population level as detected by
standard surveillance methods, 2) where adult mosquito populations build to levels exceeding
community standards (e.g., 25 mosquitoes per trap night or 5 mosquitoes per trap hour during
crepuscular periods), and/or 3)when service requests for arthropod control from the public have
been confirmed by one or more recognized surveillance methods.
The most common forms of adulticiding are ultra-low volume spray (ULV) and thermal
fogging. Ground adulticiding is almost exclusively conducted with ULV equipment and is the
most common method used to control mosquitoes. Ground adulticiding can be a very effective
technique for controlling most mosquito species in residential areas with negligible non-target
effects.
Aerial adulticiding is a very effective means of controlling adult mosquitoes, particularly
in inaccessible areas, and may be the only means of covering a very large area quickly in case of
severe mosquito outbreaks or vector borne disease epidemics. Aerial adulticide applications are
made using either fixed wing aircraft or rotor craft. Application is generally as ULV spray but
some thermal fogging still occurs.
Adulticide application has its own set of conditions that determine success or failure. The
application must be at a dosage rate that is lethal to the target insect and applied with the correct
47
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
droplet size. Whether the treatment is ground or aerially applied, it must distribute sufficient
insecticide to cover the prescribed area with an effective dose. Typically with ground
applications, vegetated habitats may require up to three times the dosage rates that open areas
require. This is purely a function of wind movement and its ability to sufficiently carry droplets
to penetrate foliage. In addition, aerial application is dependent upon favorable weather
conditions.
Recommended Mosquito Control References
EPA recommends the following sources for additional information on 1PM's and BMP's for
mosquito control.
Anderson, RR and LC Harrington. 2010. Mosquito Biology for the Homeowner. Cornell
Cooperative Extension—Medical Entomology Extension. Available at:
http://www2.entomoloay.cornell.edu/MedEnt/MosquitoFS/MosquitoFS.html
American Mosquito Control Association. 2009. Mosquito Information. Available at:
http://www.mosquito.org/mosquito-information/index.aspx
American Mosquito Control Association. 2010. Best Management Practices for Integrated
Mosquito Management. Available at:
http://www.mosquito.org/securehipload/articles/BMPsforMosqu itoManagement.pdf
California Department of Public Health. 2008. Best Management Practices for Mosquito
Control on California State Properties. Available at:
http://westnile.ca.gov/downloads.php?download id=996&filename=CDPH_BMP_
MosptitoConirol6-08.pd I
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture State Reclamation and
Mosquito Control Board. 1998. Generic Environmental Impact Report(GEIR)
for the Massachusetts Mosquito Control. Available at:
http://www.mass.go\/aer/mosquito/geir docs/G E IR_FULL TEXT.pdf
Florida Coordinating Council on Mosquito Control. 2009. Florida Mosquito Control—The
State of Mission as defined by mosquito controllers,regulators, and environmental managers.
Available online at:
http://mosquito.ifas.ull.edu/Documents/Florida Mosquito Control White Paper.pdf
New York City Department of Health and Human Hygiene. 2006. Comprehensive Mosquito
Surveillance and Control Plan. Available at:
http://www.nyc.gov/htmIldoh/downloads/pdf/wnv/wnvplan2006.pdf
Grodner, MG,J Criswell,C Sutherland,P Spradley,DL Renchie,ME Merchant,M Johnsen,and
S Sawlis. 2007. The Best Way to Control Mosquitoes- Integrated Mosquito Management
Explained. Available at: http://www-
aes.tamu.edu/Public Health and Vector Control/Publications/The%20Best%20Way%20to%20
Control%20Mosquitoes.ndf
Kwasny, DC, M Wolder,and CR Isola. 2004. Technical Guide to Best Management Practices
48
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
for Mosquito Control in Managed Wetlands. Central Valley Joint Venture. Available at:
http://www.dfe.ca.eov/lands/wetland/dots/CVJV-Mosquito-BMP.pdf
Rose, RI. 2001. Pesticides and Public Health: Integrated Methods of Mosquito Management.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 7:1. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no I/rose.htm
Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District. 2008. Mosquito Reduction Best
Management Practices. Available at:
http://www.fightthebite.net/download/SYMVCD BMP Manual.pdf
State of Massachusetts. 2008. Massachusetts Best Management Practices and Guidance for
Freshwater Mosquito Control. Available at:
http://www.mass.gov/aer/mosquito/does/mepa/Document 2 Freshwater%20BMP%20to%20ME
PA %20Oct 24 2008.pdf
State of New Hampshire. 2008. Policy for Mosquito Control on State Lands. Available at:
http://governor.nh.gov/news/documents/0401 08policv.pdf
State of New Mexico. 2008. Philosophy of Mosquito Control.
http://www.hcalth.state.nm.us/ERD/I Tea lthData/clocuments/PhilosophyotMosquitoControl2008
000.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology/Water Quality Program. 2004. Best Management
Practices for Mosquito Control. Available at: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/biblio/03I0023.html
b. Other Flying Insect Pest Control (Black Flies Example)
The Agency has chosen to use black flies as a demonstration of how IPM practices would
be implemented for other flying insect pest control.
Black Flies—Background
There are 1800 species of black flies throughout the world with approximately 254
species in North America alone. Black flies can be 1) a source of annoyance to people, animals,
and wildlife, 2) a limiting factor in economic development(e.g., residential development and
property value), and 3) a causal factor in decreased agricultural productivity (e.g., animal weight
loss/death and milk production). Black fly control in the U.S.provides economic, health and
quality of life benefits. In contrast to the integrated approach used for mosquito control, due to
its unique biology, black fly control in the U.S. is primarily through the use of larvicides.
Black Flies-1PM Practices
Identify the Problem
Part 2.2.1.1: Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit that will
49
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., and at least once each calendar year thereafter
prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year,you must do the following for
each pest management area, as defined in Appendix A. Operators must identify the pest
problem in their pest management area prior to the first application covered under this permit.
Knowledge of the pest problem is an important step to developing pest management strategies.
Re-evaluation of the pest problem is also important to ensure pest management strategies are still
applicable. Operators must identify the pest problem at least once each calendar year prior to the
first application for that calendar year. Operators are required to fulfill problem identification
requirements to minimize discharges to waters of the U.S. in black fly control operations.
Identification includes: (1) black fly biology, (2) local developmental habitats, (3)avoidance
methods, and (4) the benefits and risks of chemical use as a pest management strategy.
Black flies, commonly referred to as buffalo gnats, are the smallest of the blood feeding
dipterans. Worldwide, blackflies are responsible for transmitting ochocerciasis (river blindness)
to millions of people in tropical areas. Black flies can also vector bovine onchocerciasis,
mansonellosis, and leucoytozoonosis in wild and domestic animals. While generally only
considered nuisance pests in the U.S., epidemiological research has demonstrated that black flies
are competent vectors of vesicular stomitis and suggests that these pests may be responsible for
periodic outbreaks of this disease in livestock, wildlife, and humans in the western U.S.
However, flies may also become so abundant as to be drawn into the air passages of livestock,
occasionally resulting in death. Black fly feeding activity may also result in allergic reaction in
both animals and man as a result of histaminic substances in black fly saliva.
Establish densities for larval and adult mosquito or flying insect pest populations to
serve as action threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies. Operators must
develop action thresholds for black flies prior to first pesticide application covered under this
permit. The action thresholds must be re-evaluated at least once each calendar year. As noted in
the general discussion above, an action threshold is a point at which pest populations or
environmental conditions indicate that pest control action must be taken. Action thresholds help
determine both the need for control actions and the proper timing of such actions. It is a
predetermined pest level that is deemed to be unacceptable.
Identify the target mosquito or flying insect pest species to develop species-specific
pest management strategies based on developmental and behavioral considerations for
each species. The life cycle for black fly includes four stages: egg, larva, pupa, and adult. All are
aquatic except the adults, which leave the water to search for food and mates. Black fly
immatures have three general life history strategies. One group of species produces 1 generation
per year (univoltine)that matures in late winter or early spring. A second group is also
univoltine, but these species develop during late spring or summer. The third and final group of
species produces 2 or more generations per year(bivoltine or multivoltine) that typically develop
from early summer through fall.
Adult females deposit from 150 to 500 eggs in flowing water. Flowing water habitats
capable of black fly production range from a 4-inch trickle to large rivers. Egg-laying occurs
near dusk for many species. The eggs are dropped singly from the air or deposited in masses on
trailing vegetation, rocks, debris and other substrates. Eggs hatch in 2 days to 8 months,
depending on black fly species and water temperature. Incubation time in some species is
delayed by a prolonged diapause, or resting period. Eggs of many species can successfully
50
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
withstand temperature extremes, fluctuating water levels, and desiccation associated with
alternating flood and drought conditions during seasonal changes. Many species overwinter in
the egg stage, but a few black flies spend the winter months as larvae and pupae, or rarely, as
adults.
Larvae anchor themselves to clean vegetation, rocks, or debris by spinning a small silken
pad with their mouthparts and inserting a row of hooks at the end of their enlarged abdomen into
the silk pad. This technique allows the larvae to secure themselves in areas of very fast water
velocity and orient their body with the abdomen pointed upstream, and head positioned
downstream to feed. Larvae can easily relocate to other areas by drifting downstream on a silken
thread, spinning a new silk pad, and reattaching themselves in areas with more acceptable
substrates or food supplies. Feeding is accomplished by expanding a pair of fan-like structures
on their hardened head capsule to efficiently filter microscopic food particles from the water
column. The larvae filter or scrape very fine organic matter, filamentous algae, bacteria and tiny
aquatic animals from the current or substrates. Larvae are often infected with various parasites
and pathogens, including nematode worms, bacteria, fungi, protozoa and viruses.
Larval instars vary from 4 to 9, depending on species, with many species passing through
an average of 7 instars. Larval development time varies from 1 week to 6 months depending on
species, water temperature, stream turbidity and food availability. Larval growth is very
temperature dependent, with relatively slow growth during the cold winter months and very rapid
growth during warm summer water temperatures. Some summer-developing, multivoltine
species are capable of completing their entire life cycle in just a few weeks. Mature larvae, with
fully developed respiratory filaments visible as a dark area on each side of the thorax, stop
feeding, and construct a silken pupal cocoon where metamorphosis takes place.
Pupae secure themselves inside their cocoons with rows of spine-like hooks on their
abdomen. The tightly woven or loose cocoons, characteristically shaped for each species, are
attached to substrates with the closed end facing upstream to protect pupae from current and
sediments. Some species have a lateral aperture, or window, on each side of the cocoon to
increase water circulation around the pupa. The branched respiratory organs that project from the
pupal thorax are designed to function in or out of water. This adaptation allows pupae to obtain
oxygen at all times, and survive normal fluctuations in water levels. The pupal stage may last
from 2 days to several weeks depending on the species and water temperature.
Adults emerge from the pupal skin through an elongate slit at the top of the thorax and
ride a bubble of air that propels them to the water surface. Freshly emerged adults fly to
streamside vegetation where their wings and bodies quickly dry and harden. Mature adults
immediately seek food sources and mates. Both sexes feed on nectar, sap, or honeydew to obtain
the sugar used for flight and energy. Only females feed on blood. In most species, mating takes
place in flight, with females flying into male swarms that form over landmarks such as
waterfalls, vegetation or host species. Males utilize their large eyes to detect and seize females
entering the swarm. Male and female pairs exit the swarm, and mating takes place in flight in
just a few seconds. Females then seek a host to obtain the blood meal required to nourish their
eggs. Adults are strong fliers, capable of dispersing many miles from their larval habitats.
Black fly females are attracted to their specific hosts by size, shape, color, carbon
dioxide, body odor, body movement, skin texture, temperature and humidity. Females use their
51
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
mouthparts to cut, or lacerate the host skin, and then drink from the resulting pool of blood.
Anticoagulants in the saliva are injected into the bite to facilitate bleeding. Many domestic and
wild animals have been killed by outbreaks of adult black flies. Deaths have been attributed to
acute toxemia from large numbers of bites, anaphylactic shock, and weakness due to blood loss.
In humans, lesions can develop at the bite, accompanied by reddening, itching, and swelling. In
severe cases, allergic reactions may occur, resulting in nausea, dizziness, and fever.
Host specificity in black flies varies from highly specific species that will feed on blood
from only 1 host, too much more generalized species that will draw blood from a number of
different hosts. Although host preferences for many North American black flies are poorly
understood, it is estimated that 67%feed on mammals and 33% feed on birds. Approximately
10%of North American species will feed on the blood of humans.
Prior to first pesticide application covered under this permit, operators must ensure
proper identification of black fly species to develop a detailed pest management strategy. Due to
preferred hosts and developmental habitats, proper identification of the pest species is
instrumental in determining the biology (univoltine or multivoltine), and developmental habitat
preference (e.g., flow rate, stream size, stream substrate composition), and flight range of the
target species. By knowing these factors, a control program can 1) determine if the black fly
species warrants control activities (i.e. host preference and historical problems), 2) identify
habitats and delineate the potential area for ongoing monitoring and control activities, 3)
determine frequency of site monitoring, 4) estimate timing for pesticide application (i.e.
historical seasonal occurrence, age distribution of susceptible immature population,
environmental conditions suitable for control activity, etc.), 5) reduce discharge of pesticides into
waters of the U.S.
Identify known breeding sites for source reduction, larval control program, and
habitat management. In conjunction with species identification, mapping should be considered
part of control programs aimed at black fly management. Maps may simply be
township/city/county maps but may also include aerial photo assessments, topographic maps,
and satellite imagery where available and/or practicable. Mapping is essential to identify areas
of flowing water which are suitable for production of the target species. As black flies are strong
fliers and will travel great distance to obtain a blood meal, mapping should be for an extended
area from the site to be protected by control activities. Species identification and mapping
should also be a priority in a surveillance program (both current and historical)to determine the
need for initiating control activity. Identification and mapping are both essential to planning a
control program which reduces pesticide discharge into waters of the U.S.
Analyze existing surveillance data to identify new or unidentified sources of
mosquito or flying insect pest problems as well as sites that have recurring pest problems.
As discussed above, mapping is a valuable tool in assessing pest habitats and designing control
programs. Operators must analyze existing surveillance data to identity new sources of black fly
problems.
In the event there are no data for your pest management area in the past calendar year, see
Part 5 for documentation requirements regarding why current data are not available and
the data you used to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.1.1. Operators may use historical
data or neighboring district data to identify the species and establish action thresholds.
52
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Pest Management
Part 2.2.1.2: Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit that
will result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., and at least once each calendar year
thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year,you must select and
implement, for each pest management area, efficient and effective means of pest
management that minimize discharges resulting from application of pesticides to control
mosquitoes or other flying insect pests. In developing these pest management strategies,
you must evaluate the following management options, considering impact to water quality,
impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, and cost effectiveness: No
action; Prevention; Mechanical/physical methods; Cultural methods; Biological control
agents; and Pesticides. Operators are required to evaluate and implement a pest management
strategy to minimize pesticide discharge into waters of the U.S. prior to the first pesticide
application covered under this permit. Pest management strategies will vary by locality (i.e.
stream size, stream substrate, and stream vegetation), black fly species (i.e. multi/univoltine
development and host specificity), and financial concerns (i.e. accessibility to streams and
size/rate of flow for the streams). As noted above, combinations of various management
methods are frequently the most effective pest management strategies over the long term. The
goal should be to emphasize long-term control rather than a temporary fix. Operators must
reevaluate every year prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year.
Based on problem identification, two preventive strategies other than pesticides should be
evaluated. The first is reducing the number of black fly breeding areas. This may include
removal (physical and/or chemical) of vegetation and other objects in streams to reduce number
of larval habitats. The second is temporary damming of flowing stream larval development sites
to create pool habitats. As larvae require flowing water for development, pooling can kill
developing black fly larvae. However, the impact of these habitat management options must be
considered in relation to other environmental impacts on other aquatic species. Furthermore, due
to the wide variability in stream size/flow rate and the accessibility of streams for habitat
modification, these options are seldom acceptable control solutions for most black fly
developmental habitats.
Pesticide Use
Conduct larval and/or adult surveillance prior to each pesticide application to assess the
pest management area and to determine when action threshold(s) are met that necessitate
the need for pest management. Larval surveillance involves routine sampling of aquatic
habitats for developing black flies. Larval surveillance is primarily accomplished by collecting
stream substrates (rocks, vegetation, etc.) and examining for larval and pupal occurrence. Due to
the varied developmental sites for black larvae and their ability to move in streams relative to
changes in flow patterns, quantitative sampling will vary from site to site and in many instances,
particularly with continuously changing water levels, is not practical. Qualitative sampling is
often used in lieu of quantitative sampling, as an indicator of egg hatch and to indicate the age
distribution of developing larvae. Qualitative sampling alone when used in conjunction with
historical occurrence data can provide a reliable indicator of the need to initiate control activities.
Adult surveillance for black flies may include sweep sampling, vacuum aspiration of
53
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
adults, and the use of silhouette traps. Traps may be simple visual attractants or may be baited
with artificial attractants (e.g., ocentol and CO2). However, as different black fly species will
respond differently in relation to different attractants, based on host preference, care must be
used in selecting attractants that will provide a representative sample of the complete black fly
spectrum present in any given location. Choice of adult sampling will in many cases be dictated
by historical occurrence of black flies in a given area. Regardless, surveillance data is a useful
tool in providing feedback to the mapping and planning component of any pest management
strategy.
Assess environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, precipitation, and wind speed) in
the treatment area prior to each pesticide application to identify whether existing
environmental conditions support development of pest populations and are suitable for
control activities. Environmental conditions may affect the results of pesticide application.
Operators must assess the treatment area to determine whether site conditions support pest
populations and are suitable for pesticide application.
Reduce the impact on the environment and on non-target organisms by applying the
pesticide only when the action threshold has been met. Operators must apply pesticide only
as indicated by action thresholds for the pest management area. As noted above, action threshold
help determine both the need for control actions and the proper timing of such actions. Timing
pesticide application can reduce the impact on the environment and on non-target organisms.
In situations or locations where practicable and feasible for efficacious control, use
larvicides as a preferred pesticide for mosquito or flying insect pest control when larval
action thresholds have been met. Bacillus thuringiensis var israelensis (Bti) is the primary
larvicide used for black fly control in the U.S. Bti is a gram positive, aerobic, spore-forming
bacterium that produces protoxins in the form of parasporal protein crystals. In the alkaline
digestive tract of black flies and mosquitoes,the protoxins become activated into highly toxic
delta-endotoxins. The endotoxins cause a rapid breakdown in the lining of the mid-gut and
necrosis of skeletal muscles, resulting in paralysis and mortality of target insect pests. Bti is
nontoxic to most non-target organisms due to their acidic digestive systems and lack of suitable
tissue receptor sites.
To minimize pesticide discharge into waters of the U.S., operators must apply larvicides
as needed for source reduction as indicated by the action threshold in situations or locations
where it is practicable and feasible to do so. The action threshold may be based on occurrence of
adults (current or historical) and/or larval sampling of stream substrates for immature black flies.
Surveillance is also a valuable tool for assessing the effectiveness of larval control activities.
Larvicides may be applied to streams using either ground or aerial equipment. Choice of
equipment is largely dictated by stream size and accessibility. Application equipment may
include backpack sprayers, boats equipped with sprayers or metered release systems, helicopters
or fixed wing aircraft. The amount of insecticide required to treat a stream should be based on
the desired dosage and the stream discharge. Stream discharge is calculated by determining the
average width and depth of the stream and the stream velocity (discharge=width (m)x depth
(m) x velocity (m/s)). Proper calibration of insecticide delivery based on discharge is necessary
to ensure complete coverage throughout the water column in order to expose all larval habitats to
an effective insecticide dose.
54
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Larvicide is applied across the stream width for the time specified by the application rate.
The point of application should be far enough upstream from the larval habitat to ensure proper
insecticide dispersal in the water passing over the treatment area. Operators should determine
the effective downstream carry (maximum distance at which at least 80% larval control is
achieved) of the insecticide suspension. By determining downstream carry, black fly control
operators can limit the number of applications necessary to treat any given stream and thereby
reduce pesticide discharge into waters of the U.S.
In situations or locations where larvicide use is not practicable or feasible for
efficacious control, use adulticides for mosquito or flying insect pest control when adult
action thresholds have been met. Pesticide control of black flies in the U.S. historically relied
upon both larvicides and adulticides. However, adulticide use against black fly populations is no
longer a common practice. As adult black flies are seeking blood meals during the daytime,
adulticide application coincides with human activity, so daytime application is no longer a
standard control procedure. One reason for this change is due to environmental factors
associated with daytime adulticide application, particularly thermal inversions, which cause
adulticide application for black fly control to be ineffective. Furthermore, as only adults directly
contacted by the adulticide application are killed, with no residual activity against other adults
immigrating to the treatment area, adulticide applications are both ineffective and expensive.
For these reasons, larvicides which target the immature stages before development of the
pestiferous adult are now the primary means of black fly control in the U.S.
Recommended Black Fly Control References
EPA recommends the following sources for additional information on IPMs and BMPs
for black fly control:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2009. Black Fly Suppression Program. Available at:
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/blackflv/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=505536&blackflyNav=L
Government of Alberta—Agriculture and Rural Development. 1993. Black Fly Control.
Available at: http://wwwl.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/audex332I
Greater Los Angeles Vector Control District. 2008. Black Flies—Vector Services and
Information. Available at: http://www.glacvcd.org/Contents/Vector-Services-Info/Black-
Flies.aspx
Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. 2009. Biting Gnat Control. Available at:
http://www.mmcd.org/gnat.html
North Carolina Cooperative Extension. 2005. Insect Notes—Black Flies and Their Control.
Available at: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/notes/Urban/blackfly.htm
North Elba—Black Fly Control Dept. 2009. About the black fly control program. Available at:
http://vvww.northelba.oru/html/black fly control.html
Ohio State University Extension. 1997. Factsheet—Black Flies. HYG-2167-97. Available at:
55
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
http://imavhavetermites.com/Black%20F1ics,%20HYG-2167-97.htm
The Merck Veterinary Manual. 2009. Black Flies. Available at:
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index jsp?cfile=htm/bc/71702.htm
Undeen, AH and DP Malloy. 1996. Use of stream width for determining the dosage rates of
Bacillus Thuringiensis Var. israensis for larval black fly (Diptera: Simuliidae) control. Journal
of the American Mosquito Control Association. 12(2):312-315. Available at:
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/bio mollov/patent_pubs/pdfs/undeen & molloy 1996 use of stre
am width.pdf
University of Florida. 2007. Featured Creatures— Black Flies. EENY-30. Available at
http://entomologv.ifas.ui1.edu/creatures/livestock/bt1y.htm
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. 2001. Black Flies. Available at:
http://www.ultimate.com/washington/wla/blacktly/
2.2.2. Aquatic Weed and Algae Control
Background
Aquatic weeds and algae that negatively affect aquatic biodiversity, human health, and
economic stability are considered to be pests. Aquatic weeds and algae can decrease populations
of native aquatic species including threatened and endangered species. Aquatic weeds and algae
can reduce aquatic biodiversity by preventing desirable species growth and unbalancing
desirable aquatic species populations and development. Social, economic, and human health are
all affected by a lower aesthetic appeal of a water bodies, an increased cost of agricultural
irrigation water, and an increase in the risk of human diseases by providing ideal vector breeding
grounds. In addition, the reduction in the utility of water can have social and economic impacts
due to reduced hydroelectric operations, impeded opportunity for recreational activities (e.g.,
fishing, boating, and swimming), and disruption of water transport(e.g., agricultural irrigation)
to name a few. As a result, if aquatic weeds and algae become established and impede the
environmental stability and use goals for a body of water, control measures will be necessary.
Pest control may be necessary before the pests become established.
The requirements in Part 2.2.2, apply to pesticide discharges associated with management
of aquatic weed and algae in, but not limited to, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, irrigation canals,
and drainage systems. Irrigation and drainage systems differ in the type and disposition of the
water that they convey; these systems may consist of earthen or concrete lined canals or
combinations of the two.
Most aquatic plants and algae are largely beneficial to water quality, especially when
present in the appropriate densities. However, overabundant native algae and aquatic vegetation,
as well as introduced, exotic species can decrease water quality and utility. Dense plant or algae
growth can interfere with recreational activities (e.g., fishing, boating, and swimming), disrupt
water transport, reduce aquatic biodiversity by preventing desirable plant growth and
unbalancing fish populations, lower the aesthetic appeal of a water body, and increase the risk of
human diseases by providing ideal vector breeding grounds.
56
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Algae
Algae are non-vascular plant that do not have true roots, stems, leaves, or vascular tissue
and have simple reproductive systems. Some macroscopic algae may resemble a plant in
appearance. Algae may occur in the sea or freshwater. Algae are an important aquatic food
source for many animals. However, excess algae growth such as algae blooms, frequently
caused by unbalanced or elevated nutrients, can be damaging to aquatic ecosystems. Control
options include mechanical, biological, and chemical methods.
Weeds
Aquatic weeds include floating, emergent, or submerged plants that negatively impact the
quality and utility of waters of the U.S. Aquatic systems need plant materials as an important
part of the systems ecology; however, when vegetation becomes established to the point of
impeding the use goals for a body of water, control measures will become necessary. As a part
of such aquatic weed control programs a pest management strategy should consider mechanical,
biological, and/or chemical controls. Details for developing an integrated aquatic weed pest
management strategy can be found in the document Aquatic Plant Management, Best
Management Practices in Support of Fish and Wildlife Habitat(January 2005. Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. Project Leader Kurt Getsinger, Ph.D.
http://cenapa.ucdavis.edu/files/54815.pdf).
The appropriate type of control for aquatic weeds and algae is dictated by the biology of
the target species and by environmental conditions and concerns for a specific area. "Control"
means, as appropriate, eradicating, suppressing, reducing, or managing invasive species
populations, preventing spread of aquatic nuisance plants from areas where they are present, and
taking steps such as restoration of native species and habitats to reduce the effects of aquatic
nuisance plants and to prevent further invasions. [Source:
www.invasivespeciesinfo.e,ov/laws/execorder.shtml#sccl] Numerous strategies are used to
reduce the impact of aquatic weeds and algae, but a pest management strategy should be the
basis for any pest control program. This is a comprehensive approach for managing pest
populations using a variety of control methods.
Aquatic Weed and Al2ae Control IPM Practices
Identify the Problem
Part 2.2.2.1: Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit that
will result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., and at least once each calendar year
thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year you must do the
following for each pest management area,as defined in Appendix A. Operators must
identify the pest problem in their pest management area prior to the first application covered
under this permit. Knowledge of the pest problem is an important step to developing pest
management strategies. Re-evaluation of the pest problem is also important to ensure pest
management strategies are still applicable. Operators must identify the pest problem at least
once each calendar year prior to the first application for that calendar year.
57
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Identify areas with aquatic weed or algae problems and characterize the extent of
the problems, including, for example,water use goals not attained (e.g.wildlife habitat,
fisheries,vegetation, and recreation). Operators must be well-acquainted with the unique
regional conditions of their sites and available methods for controlling the pest species present.
Intended use goals for the water bodies that are being impeded because of nuisance pest
infestation must also be considered based on the control site. The use of the best available
mapping information to aid in identifying the problem areas is suggested. Mapping may include
aerial photo assessments, topographic maps, and satellite imagery where available and/or
practicable. Mapping can be essential to identify problem areas which can and cannot be
controlled using non-pesticide preventative measures (e.g., mechanical control). Mapping can
also be used in plotting the regional desired aquatic species, as well as water use goals and
complaints or reports of aquatic weeds and algae from the public.
Identify target weed species. Positive identification of the aquatic weed or algae is
required because many species within the same genera may require different levels and types of
control measures species. Aquatic weed and algae identification is important when determining
the best pest management strategy for each particular species and for determining application
areas. Operators should develop a detailed pest management strategy based on identification of
the targeted pest species which occur in their area.
Identify possible factors causing or contributing to the weed or algae problem (e.g.,
nutrients, invasive species, etc). While there may not be reasonable means to control and/or
stop the introduction and occurrence of some nuisance species infestations, the identification of
possible sources (e.g., outflows from other water systems/bodies) may help in reducing the need
for control measures. Potential aquatic weed and algae sources such as changes in nutrient levels
or accidental or intentional introduction of exotic species must be identified before control
measures are implemented
Establish past or present aquatic weed or algae densities to serve as action
threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies. Any data and/or information
regarding pest densities can be used to establish an action threshold. Determining increases in
pest densities may indicate a need for action. An action threshold must be established before
implementing a pest management strategy. However, action thresholds will be species specific.
In the event there are no data for your pest management area in the past calendar
year, see Part 5 for documentation requirements regarding why current data are not
available and the data you used to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.2.1. Operators
may use historical data or neighboring district data to identify the species and establish action
thresholds.
Pest Management
Part 2.2.2.2: Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit that
will result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., and at least once each calendar year
thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year,you must select and
implement, for each pest management area, efficient and effective means of pest
management that minimize discharges resulting from application of pesticides to control
aquatic weeds or algae. In developing these pest management strategies,you must evaluate
58
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
the following management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to non-
target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, and cost effectiveness: No action; Prevention;
Mechanical/physical methods; Cultural methods; Biological control agents; and Pesticides.
Operators must evaluate and implement a pest management strategy to minimize pesticide
discharge into waters of the U.S. prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit.
As noted above, combinations of various management methods are frequently the most effective
pest management strategies over the long term. The goal should be to emphasize long-term
control rather than a temporary fix. Operators must reevaluate every year prior to the first
pesticide application for that calendar year. All control measures must be implemented in a
manner that reduces impacts to non-target species. The following describes the management
options that must be evaluated.
No Action
No action is to be taken, although an aquatic weed or algae problem has been identified.
This may be appropriate in cases where, for example, available control methods may cause
secondary or non-target impacts that are not justified, no available controls exist, or the pest
population is stable at a level that does not impair water body uses.
Prevention
Preventing introductions of possible aquatic weeds and algae is the most efficient way to
reduce the threat of nuisance species (ANS Task Force, 2009). Identifying primary pathways of
introduction and actions to cut off those pathways is essential to prevention. Through a better
understanding of the transportation and introduction of aquatic weeds and algae, private entities
(aquaculture) and the public have the necessary knowledge to assist in local aquatic weed and
algae control by reducing conditions that encourage the spread of aquatic weeds and algae in
their immediate surroundings. For example, recreational water users provide a pathway of
unintentional introductions. Increasing public awareness of aquatic weeds and algae, their
impacts, and what individuals can do to prevent their introduction and spread is critical for
prevention. Other examples of prevention include: better design of water holding sites, better
management and maintenance of potential problem sites, and volunteer removal of pest species
(e.g., hand weeding). Monitoring and detection also play important roles in the prevention of the
spread and introduction of aquatic weeds and algae.
Cultural Method
Cultural techniques include the use of pond dyes and water-level drawdown. Use pond
dyes to manage filamentous algae and submersed (underwater) vegetation. Several pond
colorants and one or two dyes are EPA-registered for aquatic-weed control. Pond dyes and
colorants can be effective if there is little water outflow from the pond. Dyes and colorants
intercept sunlight needed by algae and other underwater plants for photosynthesis. Therefore,
they are generally ineffective on floating plants like duckweed and water lilies and emergent
(growing above the surface) plants like cattails and bulrushes. Dyes and colorants are nontoxic
and do not kill the plants, and they are safe for use in ponds for irrigation, fishing and livestock.
However, they are not intended for use in large lakes with a lot of water flow or lakes used for
59
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
public water supplies.8
Mechanical and Biological Control
Mechanical and biological controls will be the appropriate method in some cases, or a
part of a combination of methods. In some instances, the need for chemical pesticide use in and
adjacent to the affected habitat can be reduced or virtually eliminated with proper execution of
alternative strategies and proper best management practices.
Mechanical control techniques will vary depending on the pest. Examples include
dewatering, pressure washing, abrasive scrubbing, and weed removal by hand or machine.
Biological control of aquatic weeds and algae may be achieved through the introduction
of diseases, predators, or parasites. While biological controls generally have limited application
for control of aquatic weeds and algae, the operator should fully consider this option in
evaluating pest management options.
Pesticide
Aquatic herbicides are chemicals specifically formulated for use in water to kill or
control aquatic plants. Aquatic herbicides are spray directly onto floating or emergent aquatic
plants or are applied to the water in either a liquid or pellet form. Systemic herbicides are
capable of killing the entire plant. Contact herbicides cause the parts of the plant in contact with
the herbicide to die back, leaving the roots alive and able to regrow. Non-selective, broad
spectrum herbicides will generally affect all plants that they come in contact with. Selective
herbicides will affect only some plants.9
Pesticide Use
Conduct surveillance prior to each pesticide application to assess the pest
management area and to determine when the action threshold is met that necessitates the
need for pest management. Often, each aquatic weed and algae species and pest management
area warrants a different pest management strategy tailored to the regional conditions. The pest
management strategy should consist of combinations of mechanical, biological, and/or pesticidal
control methods. All control measures must be conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to
non-target species.
Operators should apply chemical pesticides only after considering the alternatives and
determining those alternatives not to be appropriate control measures. If pesticides are used they
must be used only as needed as determined by the action threshold, and proper best management
practices including use of the minimum effective application rate. Also, the operator should
conduct surveillance (e.g., pest counts or area survey) prior to application of pesticides to
determine when the action threshold is met and necessitates the need for pest control measures.
8 http.//www.grouncls-mag.comimae/nrounds maintenance weeds overboard/
°http://www.ecv.wa.eov/programs/wq/plantsimaoaeement/anua028.html
60
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Surveillance may include the relatively sophisticated transect method used in ecological
studies to evaluate species distribution, or it may consist of simply conducting visual
observations in the treated area to verify the eradication or reduction in populations of aquatic
weeds and algae following pesticide application (Getsinger et al. 2005, pp 23-25).
Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by applying the
pesticide only when the action threshold has been met. Operators must apply pesticide only
as indicated by action thresholds for the pest management area. As noted above, action threshold
help determine both the need for control actions and the proper timing of such actions. Timing
pesticide application can reduce the impact on the environment and on non-target organisms.
Environmental factors such as temperature and dissolved oxygen content, as well as biological
factors such as stage of growth should be considered when deciding on application timing.
Partial site treatments over time may be considered to reduce risk. Pesticide application must be
limited to the appropriate amount required to control the target pests. Methods used in applying
pesticides must reduce the impact to non-target species.
Recommended Aquatic Weed and Algae Control References
EPA recommends the following sources for additional information on IPM's and BMP's
for aquatic nuisance plant control:
Aquatic Nuisance Species Taskforce. Online: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/default.php.
Aquatic Plant Management, Best Management Practices in Support of Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
January 2005. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. Project Leader Kurt Getsinger,
(http://cenapa.ucdavis.edu/files/54815.pdf)
2.2.3 Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control
Background
Aquatic nuisance animals, such as fish, lampreys, and mollusks, negatively affect aquatic
biodiversity, human health, and economic stability. Aquatic nuisance animals decrease
populations of native aquatic species including threatened and endangered species. Aquatic
nuisance animals can reduce aquatic biodiversity by preventing desirable species growth and
unbalancing desirable aquatic species populations and development. Social, economic, and
human health are all affected by a lower aesthetic appeal of water bodies, an increased cost of
agricultural irrigation water, and an increase in the risk of human diseases by providing ideal
vector breeding grounds. In addition, the reduction in the utility of water can have social and
economic impacts due to reduced hydroelectric operations, impeded opportunity for recreational
activities (e.g., fishing, boating, and swimming), and disruption of water transport(e.g.,
agricultural irrigation), to name a few. As a result, if or when aquatic nuisance animals become
established and impede the environmental stability and use goals for a body of water, control
measures will become necessary.
The requirements in this Part apply to pesticide discharges associated with management
of aquatic nuisance animals including, but not limited to, fish, lampreys, and mollusks. Aquatic
nuisance animal control includes management of nuisance species in waters of the U.S. including
61
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
but not limited to lakes, ponds, rivers, estuaries, and streams. As a part of an aquatic nuisance
animal control program, a pest management strategy should consider mechanical, biological, and
chemical controls. Details for identifying aquatic nuisance animals and developing a pest
management strategy can be found online through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Taskforce
(http://www.anstaskforce.gov/default.php).
Fish
Reasons for applications of piscicides in waters of the U.S. for controlling nuisance
species of fish may include, but are not limited to, restoration of threatened and endangered
species; fish population management; restoration of native species; and aquaculture. A pest
management strategy for fish should consider mechanical, biological, and chemical controls.
Lampreys
There are approximately 40 species of lamprey, which are aquatic vertebrates. The sea
lamprey is an example of a problematic non-native parasitic species that feeds on native fish
species in U.S. waters. Lampreys may be managed using lampricides that are applied directly to
the waters of the U.S. Several effective management techniques such as mechanical and
biological methods are available for lamprey control in addition to lampricides and should be
considered when developing a pest management strategy.
Mollusks
Nuisance mollusks including, but not limited to, zebra and quagga mussels, may cause
damage to freshwater ecosystems, degrade drinking water, clog water-intake/discharge pipes for
utilities and industries, and negatively impact commercial and recreational activities. Use of
molluscicides is one of several methods of control for these aquatic nuisance animals; however,
it is important to consider the impacts of mechanical, biological, and/or chemical pesticide use
for control of mussels and other aquatic nuisance mollusk species.
Other Aquatic Nuisance Animals
There may be aquatic nuisance animals of concern in addition to fish, lampreys, and
mollusks. Control of other aquatic animals including, but not limited to, crustaceans found to be
a nuisance and requiring management with mechanical, biological, and/or chemical pesticides
are included in the requirements in Part 2.2.3.
The appropriate type of control for aquatic nuisance animals is dictated by the biology of
the target species and by environmental conditions and concerns for a specific area. "Control"
means, as appropriate, eradicating, suppressing, reducing, or managing invasive species
populations, preventing spread of aquatic nuisance animals from areas where they are present,
and taking steps such as restoration of native species and habitats to reduce the effects of aquatic
nuisance animals and to prevent further invasions. [Source:
www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/laws/execorder.shtml#secl] Numerous strategies are used to
reduce the impact of aquatic nuisance animals, but a pest management strategy should be the
basis for any pest control program. This is a comprehensive approach for managing pest
populations using a variety of control methods.
62
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Aquatic Nuisance Animal IPM Practices
Identify the Problem
Part 2.2.3.1: Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit
that will result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., and at least once each calendar year
thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year,you must do the
following for each pest management area,as defined in Appendix A. Operators must
identify the pest problem in their pest management area prior to the first application covered
under this permit. Knowledge of the pest problem is an important step to developing pest
management strategies. Re-evaluation of the pest problem is also important to ensure pest
management strategies are still applicable. Operators must identify the pest problem at least
once each calendar year prior to the first application for that calendar year
Identify areas with aquatic nuisance animal problems and characterize the
extent of the problems, including, for example,water use goals not attained (e.g. wildlife
habitat, fisheries,vegetation,and recreation). Operators must be well-acquainted with the
unique regional conditions of their sites and available methods for controlling the pest species
present. Intended use goals for the water bodies that are being impeded because of nuisance pest
infestation must also be considered based on the control site.
The use of the best available mapping information to aid in identifying the problem areas
is suggested. Mapping may include aerial photo assessments, topographic maps, and satellite
imagery where available and/or practicable. Mapping can be essential to identify problem areas
which can and cannot be controlled using non-pesticide preventative measures (e.g., mechanical
control). Mapping can also be used in plotting the regional distribution of desired aquatic
species, as well as water use goals and complaints or reports of aquatic nuisance animals from
the public.
Identify target aquatic nuisance animal species. Positive identification of the aquatic
nuisance animal is required because many species within the same genus may require different
levels and types of control measures. Aquatic nuisance animal identification is important when
determining the best pest management strategy for each particular species and for determining
application areas. Operators must develop a detailed pest management strategy based on
identification of the targeted pest species which occur in their area.
Identify possible factors causing or contributing to the problem (e.g., nutrients,
invasive species). While there may not be reasonable means to control and/or stop the
introduction and occurrence of some nuisance species infestations, the identification of possible
sources (e.g., outflows from other water systems/bodies) may help in minimizing the need for
control measures. Potential factors which could lead to establishment of aquatic nuisance animal
populations such as accidental or intentional introduction of exotic species must be identified
before control measures are implemented.
Establish past or present aquatic nuisance animal densities to serve as action
threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies. An action threshold should be
established before implementing a pest management strategy. Any data and/or information
63
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
regarding pest densities can serve as an action threshold.
In the event there are no data for your pest management area in the past calendar
year, see Part 5 for documentation requirements regarding why current data are not
available and the data you used to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.3.1. Operators
may use historical data or neighboring district data to identify the species and establish action
thresholds.
Pest Management
Part 2.2.3.2: Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit that
will result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., and at least once each year thereafter prior
to the first pesticide application during that calendar year,you must select and implement,
for each pest management area, efficient and effective means of pest management that
minimize discharges resulting from application of pesticides to control aquatic nuisance
animals. In developing these pest management strategies,you must evaluate the following
management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to non-target organisms,
pest resistance, feasibility, and cost effectiveness: No action; Prevention;
Mechanical/physical methods; Biological control agents; and Pesticides.
Operators are required to evaluate and implement a pest management strategy to minimize
pesticide discharge into waters of the U.S. prior to the first pesticide application covered under
this permit. As noted above, combinations of various management methods are frequently the
most effective control strategies over the long term. The goal should be to emphasize long-term
control rather than a temporary fix. Operators must reevaluate every year prior to the first
pesticide application for that calendar year. All control measures must be conducted in a manner
that minimizes impacts to non-target species. The following describes the management options
that must be evaluated.
No Action
No action is to be taken, although an aquatic nuisance animal problem has been
identified. This may be appropriate in cases where, for example, available control methods may
cause secondary or non-target impacts that are not justified or no available controls exist.
Prevention
Preventing introductions of possible nuisance species is the most efficient way to reduce
the threat of aquatic nuisance animals (ANS Task Force, 2009). Identifying primary pathways of
introduction and actions to cut off those pathways is essential to prevention. Through a better
understanding of the transportation and introduction of aquatic nuisance animals, private entities
(aquaculturists) and the public have the necessary knowledge to assist in local aquatic nuisance
animal control by reducing conditions that encourage the spread of aquatic nuisance animals in
their immediate surroundings. For example, recreational water users provide a pathway of
unintentional introductions. Increasing public awareness of aquatic nuisance species, their
impacts, and what individuals can do to prevent their introduction and spread is critical for
prevention. Other examples of prevention include: better design of water holding sites, better
management and maintenance of potential problem sites, and volunteer removal of pest species
(e.g.,fishing). Monitoring and detection also play important roles in the prevention of the spread
64
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
and introduction of aquatic nuisance animals.
Mechanical and Biological Control
Mechanical and biological controls will be the appropriate methods in some cases, or a
part of a combination of methods. Mechanical control techniques will vary depending on the
pest. Examples include fishing, dewatering, netting, electrofishing, pressure washing, use of
electric fences and abrasive scrubbing.
Biological control of aquatic nuisance animals may be achieved through the introduction
of diseases, predators, or parasites. While biological control generally has limited application for
control of aquatic nuisance animals, operators should fully consider this option in evaluating pest
management options.
Cultural Method
Cultural controls require altering the habitat such that it is unsuitable for the aquatic
nuisance animals. This is an unlikely method of control for aquatic nuisance animal control.
Pesticide
Chemical and biological pesticides such as lampricides, molluscides, and piscicides, are
registered for use to control aquatic nuisance animals. These pesticides are specifically
formulated for use in water where aquatic nuisance animals occur. In some cases, pesticide use
may impact non-target species. As described below, once the determination is made to use
pesticides, additional requirements must be met.
Pesticide Use
Conduct surveillance prior to each application to assess the pest management area
and to determine when the action threshold is met that necessitates the need for pest
management. Often, each aquatic nuisance animal and pest management area warrants a
different IPM plan, tailored to the regional conditions. The IPM practices should consist of
combinations of mechanical, biological, and/or pesticidal control methods. All control measures
must be conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to non-target species.
Operators must apply chemical pesticides only after considering the alternatives and
determining those alternatives not to be appropriate control measures. In some instances,the
need for chemical pesticide use in and adjacent to the affected habitat can be reduced or virtually
eliminated with proper execution of alternative strategies and proper best management practices.
If pesticides are used, they must only be used as needed as determined by an action threshold,
and proper best management practices must be adopted, including use of the minimum effective
application rate. Also, the operator must conduct surveillance (e.g., pest counts or area survey)
prior to application of pesticides to determine when the action threshold is met that necessitates
the need for pest control measures.
Surveillance may include the relatively sophisticated transect method used in ecological
studies to evaluate species distribution, or it may consist of simply conducting visual
65
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
observations in the treated area to verify the eradication or reduction in populations of aquatic
nuisance animals following pesticide application (Getsinger et al. 2005, pp 23-25).
Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating site
restrictions, application timing, and application method in addition to applying the
pesticide only when the action threshold has been met. Aquatic nuisance animal species and
site restrictions (water use, water movement, etc.) must be identified when choosing an
appropriate pesticide. Environmental factors such as temperature as well as biological factors
such as migration timing should be considered when deciding on application timing. Partial site
treatments over time may be considered to minimize risk to non-target organisms.
Pesticide application must be limited to the appropriate amount required to control the target
pests. Methods used in applying pesticides must minimize the impact to non-target species.
Recommended Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control References
EPA recommends the following sources for additional information on IPMs and BMPs
for ANS control:
Aquatic Nuisance Species Taskforce. Online: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/default.php.
Aquatic Plant Management, Best Management Practices in Support of Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
January 2005. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. Project Leader Kurt Getsinger,
(http://cenapa.ucdavis.edu/files/54815.pdf)
2.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control
Background
The forest canopy is the uppermost level of the forest. It is composed of mature treetops,
or the crowns of the mature trees. It provides habitat for animals and plants, some of whom live
their entire lives in the canopy. Pests that threaten the health of the forest canopy must be
controlled to maintain forest health. Forest canopy pest control programs are designed to integrate
environment-friendly control measures (e.g., sterile insect release, pheromone trapping, mating
disruption, etc.) to reduce losses and pesticide use. But pesticide applications may aerially
blanket large tracts of terrain to control an entire population of pests within a delimited geographic
area
Forest canopy pest control programs included in this permit are treetop pesticide
applications that may inadvertently expose waters of the U.S. to direct, but limited, pesticide
application. Forest canopy pest control can be directed at a variety of pests, but primarily
insects. Forest canopy pest control programs are utilized to prevent habitat elimination/
modification, economic losses (e.g., habitat aesthetics,tree losses), quarantine pest outbreaks,
and eradicate or prevent the spread of introduced invasive species. Therefore, forest canopy pest
management programs provide environmental, economic, and quality of life benefits in the U.S.
The type of forest canopy pest control is dictated by the biology of the target pest and by
environmental conditions and concerns for a specific area. Forest canopy pest control programs
66
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
are primarily conducted at the state and federal level but may also be conducted at the
local/community level.
This permit requires IPM programs to incorporate, but not be limited to, the following
components: problem identification, mapping/planning, pest survey, cultural control, biological
control, chemical control, and education.
Forest Canopy Pest Control IPM Practices
Identify the Problem
Part 2.2.4.1: Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit that
will result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., and at least once each calendar year
thereafter prior to the first pesticide application in that calendar year,you must do the
following for each pest management area,as defined in Appendix A. In order to reduce
pesticide discharge into waters of the U.S. associated with forest canopy pest control, it is
important for operators to ensure proper problem identification. Problem identification is
determined through pest identification, delineation of the extent and range of the pest problem,
determination of the potential for pest problem expansion, and assessing the economic impact of
failure to provide pest control.
Establish target pest densities to serve as action threshold(s) for implementing pest
management strategies. Operators must develop action thresholds for the target pests prior to
first pesticide application covered under this permit. The action thresholds must be re-evaluated
at least once each calendar year. As noted in the general discussion above, an action threshold is
a point at which pest populations or environmental conditions indicate that pest control action
must be taken. Action thresholds help determine both the need for control actions and the proper
timing of such actions. It is a predetermined pest level that is deemed to be unacceptable.
Identify target species to develop a species-specific pest management strategy based
on developmental and behavioral considerations for each species. Pest identification is a key
activity for implementation of a forest canopy pest control system. Pest identification should
only be conducted by personnel with adequate training and experience with the pests. While
numerous similar pests (insects and/or pathogens) may be present in any given location, only a
few of the representative species may constitute a threat which requires control activities.
Through proper pest identification informed control decisions can be made based on the
development biology of the pest (susceptible development stage), pest mobility (potential rate of
spread), timing of selected control measures, applicable control techniques, and most effective
chemical pesticides for the target species (insecticide class, resistance, etc.). Failure to identify
pests can lead to unwarranted control activities and/or the need for chemical application with
potential for discharge into waters of the U.S. Control for each specific pest is also predicated on
the status of the pest as native recurring, quarantine restricted, or designated as an invasive
species.
Identify current distribution of the target pest and assess potential distribution in
the absence of control measures. Control activities are warranted only after exact pest
identification and delineation of the extent of the pest infestation. As forest canopy pest control
can involve treating large expanses of forests, mapping is also an important component in
67
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
identification of the problem. The distribution of the pest, usually insects, within the area of
infestation can impact the selection of treatment activities. In addition, mapping of the pest
infestation will allow evaluation of the actual/potential spread of the infestation (e.g., pest
biology, pest mobility, and host availability) and also serve as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness
of the control activities. Mapping can also provide essential information for assessment of
economic damages that can result from the current and potential pest infestation and failure to
control the pest. Management decisions can thereby be based on cost/benefit evaluations based
on the current and potential distribution of any pest.
The third component of problem identification is to determine the potential economic
impact of not controlling the pest. By establishing economic thresholds, it is possible to
determine pest density action thresholds which warrant control activities. However, control
decisions must take into account not only the projected economic impact of the current pest
infestation but also the potential of the pest infestation to spread. Therefore, control decisions
based on economic impact must in turn rely on proper pest identification, pest biology, and
current and potential pest distribution.
In the event there are no data for your pest management area in the past calendar
year, see Part 5 for documentation requirements regarding why current data are not
available and the data you used to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.4.1. Operators
may use historical data or neighboring district data to identify the species and establish action
thresholds.
Pest Management
Part 2.2.4.2: Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit that
will result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., and at least once each calendar year
thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year,you must select and
implement for each pest management area efficient and effective means of pest
management that minimize discharges resulting from application of pesticides to control
forestry pests. In developing these pest management strategies,you must evaluate the
following management options considering impact to water quality, impact to non-target
organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, and cost effectiveness: No action; Prevention;
Mechanical/physical methods; Cultural methods; Biological control agents; and Pesticides.
Pest control activities in forest canopy management programs may be warranted following
problem identification and based solely on pest occurrence (e.g., quarantine pest, invasive
species). However, in many instances control activities may only be necessary based on pest
population distribution and/or pest densities. To minimize the need for pest control while also
producing the best control results, a pest management strategy appropriate for the specific
problem site(s) must be developed. A site-specific management plan will consider biotic (e.g.,
plant and animal species community structure) and abiotic (e.g., environmental) factors.
Combinations of various management methods are frequently the most effective pest
management strategies over the long term. The goal of a pest management strategy in forest
canopy pest control should be to emphasize long-term control rather than a temporary fix.
All control measures must be conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to non-target
species. The following is a discussion of the relevant management options as they might be
implemented for forest canopy pest control.
68
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
No Action
No action is to be taken, although a forest canopy pest control problem has been
identified. This may be appropriate in cases where available control methods may cause
secondary or non-target impacts or where aesthetic/economic losses are not anticipated.
Mechanical and Biological Control
Mechanical and biological controls will be the appropriate method in some cases, or a
part of a combination of methods. In some instances, the need for chemical pesticide use in and
adjacent to the affected habitat can be reduced or virtually eliminated with proper execution of
alternative strategies and proper best management practices.
Mechanical control techniques will vary depending on the pest. An example of
mechanical control in a forest canopy would be egg mass removal (gypsy moth).
Biological control of forest canopy pests may be achieved through the
introduction/enhancement of diseases, predators, or parasites. In addition, forest canopy pest
control programs aimed specifically at insects may also utilize sterile insect release, mating
disruption, and biological pesticides. While biological controls generally have limited
applications for forest canopy pest control programs, they should be fully considered as an
option in the development of an IPM plan. The latter two control approaches are often utilized
when controlling for gypsy moth.
Cultural Method
Cultural control methods are strategies that make the habitat unsuitable for a pest. An
example of a cultural method to manage pests of the forest canopy would be to select a different
species of tree to plant, or to plant resistant varieties of trees. Maintaining the trees in good
health to discourage pests is another method of cultural control.
Pesticide
Several chemical and biological pesticides are available that may be used to reduce
defoliation of the trees. These pesticides are typically used when pest populations are high and
the action threshold has been reached. These products are aerially applied. As described below,
once the determination is made to use pesticides, additional requirements must be met.
Pesticide Use
Conduct surveillance prior to each application to assess the pest management area
and to determine when a pest action threshold is met that necessitates the need for pest
management. Operators must apply pesticides only as needed as determined by pre-established
criteria and pest action thresholds. Operators must establish a pest action threshold that warrants
pesticide application based on problem identification and pest surveillance. In order to establish
pest densities and determine when pest action thresholds have been met, forest canopy pest
69
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
control programs must include pest surveillance activities as an integral component of pest
management strategies. Pest surveillance is necessary to detect the presence (or confirm the
absence) and magnitude of pest populations in a given location and precisely pinpoint zones of
infestation. Surveillance activities will vary according to the pest(insect, weed, or pathogen) but
in general should include observations of pest numbers, developmental stage of the current
infestation, and biotic factors which would enhance development/expansion of pest populations
(e.g., weather, crowding, predators, pathogens, etc.).
Pest surveillance will vary according to pest type and species. For insect pests,
surveillance activities may include, but not be limited to, pheromone traps, sticky traps, light
traps, defoliation monitoring. In some cases, traps used in surveillance activities have been
developed to the extent that they alone provide adequate control of the targeted pest,thus
eliminating the need for pesticide completely. Conversely, in the instance of quarantine pests or
invasive species, pest identification alone may suffice to fulfill surveillance requirements and
indicate need for control measures. Regardless, surveillance should take in to account local
environmental conditions and projected environmental conditions which would support
development and/or spread of the pest population and which would limit the choice or
effectiveness of control activities.
It is also important to continue surveillance following control activities to assess
treatment efficacy and to monitor for new pests. Surveillance can determine if the current
techniques are effective and whether additional control measures are required, particularly
pesticide application. Based on follow-up surveillance activity, operators can make informed
decisions which serve to increase the effectiveness of their control programs and minimize the
potential for pesticide discharge to waters of the U.S. Surveillance is necessary not only to
establish the species presence and their abundance but also as an evaluation tool of the
effectiveness of chemical control activities. Furthermore, surveillance should be used as an
indicator of the need for additional chemical control activities based on pre-established criteria
related to population densities in local areas.
Assess environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, precipitation, and wind speed) in
the treatment area to identify conditions that support target pest development and are
conducive for treatment activities. Operator may use insecticides as dictated by the pest.
Although pesticide formulations and applications vary according to pest and habitat, the focus
here is on aerial applications of chemical/biological sprays. Aerial application is considered the
preferred application method for large areas and areas that are inaccessible for ground
application. In order to prevent poor site coverage, a guidance system (GPS), where
economically feasible, or site flagging are necessary to increase accuracy of the treatment
coverage while minimizing the amount of pesticides being applied.
Before using a pesticide, the forest canopy pest control operator should consider the
following points; I) do not apply a pesticide in unfavorable environmental conditions (e.g.,
windy, rainy, etc.) with increased potential for drift and wash off/runoff, 2) choose an application
method and a pesticide formulation that will minimize the potential for movement of the material
to off-site locations, 3) restrict or minimize the use of volatile pesticides on areas in or around
sensitive on-target plants or animals, especially during hot weather, 4) generally, liquid
pesticides applied by broadcast methods are more subject to drift than are granular formulations
and their application methods, 5)during liquid application, spray droplet size should be
70
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
maintained within the recommended range for the proposed target and the application method to
be used, and 6) use additives to minimize drift and enhance efficacy as appropriate.
Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating the
restrictions, application timing,and application methods in addition to applying the
pesticide only when the action thresholds have been met. Forest canopy pest species and site
restrictions (water use, water movement, etc.) must be identified when choosing an appropriate
pesticide. For instance with gypsy moth control a biological insecticide, Bacillus thuringiensis
kurstaki, is usually selected. However, if endangered or threatened butterfly or moth species are
in the area, a viral insecticide that specifically targets gypsy moth larvae will be selected.
Environmental factors such as temperature, as well as biological factors such as migration timing
should be considered when deciding on application timing. Partial site treatments over time may
be considered to minimize risk to non-target organisms. Pesticide application must be limited to
the appropriate amount required to control the target pests. Methods used in applying pesticides
must minimize the impact to non-target species.
Evaluate using pesticides against the most susceptible developmental stage. For
forest canopy pests, pesticides should be selected that target the most susceptible life stage. For
instance, with gypsy moths, the larvae are present in the canopy, are soft-bodied, and therefore
are the target of chemical controls.
Recommended Forest Canopy Pest Control Reference
EPA recommends the following source for additional information on IPM's and BMP's
for forest canopy pest control:
Emily Grafton and Ralph Webb. Homeowner's guide to gypsy moth management. West
Virginia University Extension Service.
http://www.nj.gov/agriculture/divisions/pi/pdf/GMgu ide.pdf
3. WATER-QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
The CWA requires NPDES permits to include technology-based effluent limitations for
all discharges and then if necessary for a specific discharge, water quality based effluent
limitations (WQBELs). Permit writers are to assess whether the technology-based effluent
limitations are protective of water quality standards and if not, permit writers must also include
WQBELs as necessary to ensure that the discharge will not cause, have the reasonable potential
to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any state water quality standard, including state
narrative criteria for water quality (see 40 CFR 122.44(d)). In developing WQBELs; permit
writers must consider the potential impact of every proposed surface water discharge on the
quality of the receiving water. Unlike individual permits that include requirements tailored to
site-specific considerations, general permits, while tailored to specific industrial processes or
types of discharges (e.g., from the application of pesticides), often do not contain site-specific
WQBELs. Instead, in general, EPA includes a narrative statement that addresses WQBELs. In
this permit the WQBEL is as follows:
Your discharge must be controlled as necessary to meet applicable numeric and
71
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
narrative stale, territory, or tribal water quality standards.
If at any time you become aware, or EPA determines, that your discharge causes or
contributes to an excursion of applicable water quality standards, you must take
corrective action as required in Part 6.
The first sentence includes the general requirement to control discharges as necessary to
meet water quality standards, while the second sentence implements this requirement in more
specific terms by imposing on operators a responsibility to take corrective action in response to
an excursion of applicable water quality standards, whether discovered by EPA or by the
permittee. Failure to take such corrective action is a violation of the permit. Additionally, the
permit includes a provision, in Part 1.2.3, that specifies that EPA may determine that additional
technology-based and/or water quality-based effluent limitations are necessary, or may deny
coverage under this permit and require submission of an application for an individual NPDES
permit, as detailed in Part 1.3.
Each permittee is required to control its discharge as necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards. In general, EPA expects that compliance with the other conditions in this
permit(e.g., the technology-based limitations, corrective actions, etc.) will result in discharges
that are controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards based on the
cumulative effect of the following factors, which are described in more detail below:
(1) Under FIFRA, EPA evaluates risk associated with pesticides and mitigates unreasonable
ecological risk. Compliance with FIFRA is assumed. (See Part 111.1.5 of this fact sheet.)
(2) EPA evaluated national—scale ambient monitoring data, as well as the frequency of the
identification of specific pesticides as the cause of water impairments,to assess whether
pesticide residues are currently present in waters at levels that would exceed water
quality standards. The monitoring data show that, in most samples, most pesticides were
below ambient water quality criteria or benchmarks developed by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) as indicators of narrative water quality criteria. For the small
number of pesticides found in monitoring data to be present above such benchmarks,the
evaluation, as summarized in Appendices B and C of this fact sheet, also documents risk
mitigation actions taken by EPA (such as cancellation of pesticide uses) that EPA expects
have reduced the levels of those pesticides in water.
(3) Technology-based effluent limitations in the PGP provide further protections beyond
compliance with existing FIFRA requirements.
(4) Biological pesticides discharged to waters, by regulatory definition, do not work through
a toxic mode of action. For chemical pesticides, the discharges covered under this permit
are the residues after the pesticide has performed its intended purpose. Thus, the residue
will be no higher than, and in many instances, lower than,the concentration of the
pesticide as applied.
(5) The PGP excludes pesticide applications that result in discharges of any pesticide to (1)
waters impaired for that pesticide or (2) any Tier 3 waters (i.e., outstanding national
resource waters).
In addition to the five factors identified above, before issuance, EPA permits require
CWA §401 certification by states and tribes. The states and tribes review the permit and certify
that it will meet their water quality standards. States and tribes can, in this process, add further
conditions to ensure that water quality standards will be met. Part 10 of the permit is reserved
72
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
for any additional conditions so required by any state or tribe in areas where this permit is
available.
This permit requires permittees to control discharges as necessary to meet applicable
water quality standards. When the permittee or EPA determines a discharge will cause or
contribute to an excursion above any WQS, including failure to protect and maintain existing
designated uses of receiving waters, the permittee must take corrective action to ensure that the
situation is eliminated and will not be repeated in the future. (See Part 6.0). If additional control
measures are required, EPA expects the operator to vigilantly and in good-faith follow and
document, as applicable, the process for BMP selection, installation, implementation and
maintenance, and cooperate to eliminate the identified problem within the timeframe stipulated
in Part 6.0 of the PGP.
(1) Under FIFRA, EPA evaluates risk associated with pesticides and mitigates
unreasonable ecological risk
Background
EPA regulates the use of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In general, FIFRA authorizes EPA to register each pesticide product
intended for distribution or sale in the U.S. To register a pesticide, the Agency must determine
that its use in accordance with the label will not cause "unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment." (see, e.g., FIFRA sec. 3(c)(5)). FIFRA defines that term to mean, in part, "any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide" (FIFRA sec. 2(bb)). The
"unreasonable adverse effects" standard requires EPA, in effect, to balance the human health and
ecological risks of using a pesticide against its economic, social, human health, and ecological
benefits. Pesticides are registered for sale and distribution only if EPA determines that the
benefits outweigh the risks. In making decisions on whether to register a pesticide, EPA
considers the use directions on proposed product labeling and evaluates data on product
chemistry, human health, ecological effects, and environmental fate to assess the potential risks
associated with the use(s) proposed by the applicants for registration and expressed on the
labeling. Among other things, the Agency evaluates the risks to human health and the
environment(including water quality) posed by the use of the pesticide.
As stated above, EPA reviews and approves pesticide product labeling. EPA implements
risk mitigation measures identified through the risk assessment process by placing use
restrictions and warnings on labeling to ensure the use of the pesticide(under actual use
circumstances and commonly accepted practice) will not cause any "unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment." It is a violation under FIFRA sec. 12(a)(2)(G) (FIFRA's"misuse"
provision) to use a registered pesticide inconsistent with its labeling.
After a pesticide has been registered, changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use
practices will occur over time. FIFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996,
mandates a registration review program, under which the Agency periodically reevaluates
pesticides to make sure that as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices
change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable
adverse effects to human health or the environment. The Agency is implementing the
73
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
registration review program pursuant to Section 3(g) of FIFRA and will review each registered
pesticide every 15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for
registration. Information on this program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/registration_review/.
Ecological Risk Assessment
The following is a discussion about the FIFRA risk assessment process with a focus on
Ecological (specifically aquatic) Assessments. Persons seeking pesticide registrations bear the
burden of demonstrating their products meet the statutory standard under FIFRA. As set forth in
40 CFR Part 158, applicants for pesticide registrations must provide EPA with a suite of product
chemistry, residue chemistry, toxicity, environmental fate, and ecotoxicity studies to support an
application for registration. To support outdoor uses, studies are required that provide
information related to the environmental fate and transport of the chemical and that measure the
acute and chronic toxicity to terrestrial and aquatic organisms. These studies, along with open
literature that meet data quality guidelines, are the basis for the ecological risk assessments. The
ecological risk assessment combines the results of an environmental exposure assessment and an
ecological effect assessment for a pesticide active ingredient to produce a quantitative measure
of potential risk.10 A risk characterization is also presented to put the quantitative assessment of
risk in the context of other lines of evidence, such as available monitoring data and incident
reports, and to discuss uncertainties in the risk assessment. The quantitative and qualitative
determination of potential ecological risk is independent of economic or other benefit
considerations.
Aquatic Exposure
EPA estimates pesticide concentrations in aquatic environments to determine if exposure
to a pesticide active ingredient is at a level that could cause unreasonable adverse effects to
aquatic organisms. EPA estimates pesticide concentrations in water using peer-reviewed
simulation modeling because there are not sufficient monitoring data to estimate exposure to
aquatic organisms under all potential use conditions. When available, monitoring data are used
to help characterize aquatic exposure.
EPA also estimates potential exposure from uses involving direct application to water.
The model used for pesticides applied directly to water uses environmental fate data to simulate
partitioning of the pesticide between the water column and bottom sediment in a standard rice
paddy. This modeling is conservative because it does not simulate degradation of the applied
pesticide, as would be necessary to estimate the amount of residue remaining after the pesticide
product had performed its intended function. Depending on the rate of degradation, the initial
concentration as estimated by the model could be much higher than the residual concentration
remaining after treatment has been completed. Additionally, this modeling scenario is
conservative because the resulting exposure estimate is the concentration in the paddy water
itself, not taking into account dilution which would occur when paddy water is diluted by
precipitation or when it is released into a receiving water body.
1D As part of the risk assessment,EPA also examines available information to determine the need to expand
beyond the focus on the active ingredient to consider pesticide formulation,inert ingredients,or degradates.
74
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
As discussed above,when available, EPA uses ambient water monitoring data as a line of
evidence to characterize aquatic exposure in ecological and human health risk assessments. The
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains several sources of pesticide monitoring data. These
sources include the National Water Quality Assessment program (NAWQA), the Toxic
Substances Hydrology Program, and the National Stream Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN). EPA sources of water monitoring data include STORET, a storage and retrieval
database of national water quality information, the Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS), Office of Water compliance monitoring data, and the USGS/EPA Reservoir
Monitoring Program. In addition to the federal data sources, monitoring data are sometimes
available from States, pesticide registrants, and the open literature.
These monitoring data are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to help characterize the
likelihood, extent, and nature of pesticide concentration in water under current use practices and
actual field conditions. EPA considers the locations and frequency of sampling,the analytical
methods, and detection limits when determining how such data will be incorporated into the risk
assessment. The usefulness of monitoring for an aquatic exposure assessment is tied to the
purpose of the monitoring studies from which the data are derived. For example, a monitoring
study targeted to measure concentrations of a pesticide in a watershed with high agricultural use
of that pesticide will not provide much insight on the potential exposure from its use as a
mosquito adulticide. Similarly, a general survey of ambient water quality might not necessarily
target specific pesticide use areas or the time of year when pesticide concentrations may be at
their peak, and for this reason may not provide a reliable estimate of acute exposure. However,
if monitoring data from such a study shows higher confirmed detections than estimated by
modeling, the higher monitoring values typically would be used in the risk assessment.
In sum, EPA's screening level exposure estimates from simulation models are
conservative, consistent with their intended use as a screen to identify pesticide use scenarios
that do not pose a risk of concern, both because of the selected inputs used to generate them and
the values from the model outputs that are selected for risk assessment. When ambient aquatic
monitoring data are available for a given pesticide, monitored concentrations are usually lower
than modeled concentrations and in many cases substantially lower. The next section describes
the second portion of the risk assessment: effects.
Aquatic Effects
To determine if a pesticide is sufficiently toxic at its estimated exposure concentrations to cause
unreasonable adverse effects in the environment, EPA reviews available ecotoxicity data. These
data may come from a number of sources, including direct guideline study submissions required
in support of registration, and open literature data retrieved through ECOTOXI I. The typical
assessment endpoints for pesticide ecological risk assessments are reduced survival from direct
acute exposures and survival, growth, and reproductive impairment from direct chronic
exposures. As noted in the OPP Overview12 document, which describes the process OPP uses to
" U.S. EPA. 2007. Ecotoxicity Database(ECOTOX)Mid-Continent Ecology Division,National Health
and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Research and
Development. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/.
12 U.S.EPA.2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide
Programs. Office of Prevention,Pesticides,and Toxic Substances. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington,
75
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
conduct ecological risk assessment, OPP evaluates other data on sublethal effects in addition to
direct effects on survival, growth and reproduction.
In general, the current data regulations require studies that include but are not limited to a
suite of aquatic toxicity studies for effects characterization. These test requirements are defined
for each chemical class by use category (40 CFR Part 158 Subpart D; Wildlife and Aquatic
Organism data requirements; http://edocket.access.gno.gov/cfr 2007/iulqtr/40cfr I 58.490.htm)
and are performed on a limited number of laboratory test organisms in the following broad
taxonomic groupings.
• Freshwater fish,
• Freshwater invertebrates,
• Estuarine/marine fish,
• Estuarine/marine invertebrates, and
• Algae and aquatic plants.
Within each of these very broad taxonomic groups, the most sensitive acute and chronic
toxicity value is selected from the all available test data, including open literature and registrant
submissions. If additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a particular group are
available, the most sensitive toxicity values from all sources for other species/studies that meet
data quality standards are used in the risk assessment13. Aquatic toxicity data are required for
each active ingredient, but aquatic toxicity data are also required on the typical end use product
for any pesticide that will be introduced directly to aquatic environments (40 CFR Part 158.630).
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the integration of effects and exposure characterization to
determine the ecological risk from the use of the pesticide and the likelihood of effects on non-
target species based on the pesticide-use scenarios. In screening-level assessments, OPP relies
on the deterministic risk quotient (RQ) method to compare estimated exposure to toxicity
endpoints. Estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) derived in the exposure
characterization are divided by acute and chronic toxicity endpoints identified in the effects
characterization. Risk quotients are then compared to the Agency's Levels of Concern (LOCs).
These LOCs are the Agency's interpretative policy and are used to analyze the potential risk to
non-target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. These criteria are used to
indicate when a pesticide use as directed on the label has the potential to cause adverse effects on
non-target organisms. If a risk of concern is identified, risk mitigation measures are considered.
Risk Mitigation
EPA acknowledges that there are uncertainties in its pesticide risk assessments (see full
discussion below), nonetheless the Agency reduces the risks of concern by imposing additional
restrictions on the use of a pesticide to reduce pesticide concentrations in the aquatic
environment. Mitigation measures may include limits on the amount and frequency that a
pesticide may be applied, or the application methods may be restricted to limit off-site transport.
D.C. January 23,2004.Support Document 1: Study Classification used by EFED in Data Evaluation Records
(DERs)http://www.epa.aov/oppfead1/endanger/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf
'bid U.S. EPA 2004
76
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Mitigation may also limit the geographical areas to which a pesticide can be applied or may
include mandatory buffer distances from sensitive habitats. Mitigation measures are
implemented through product labeling instructions, with which pesticide users are required to
comply.
In some cases, EPA restricts the use of a pesticide so that levels of pesticide predicted by
the model to reach water are below the relevant aquatic benchmarks (see Aquatic Bencharmks
discussion below). In other cases, using the FIFRA risk-benefit balancing standard, EPA may
permit the use of a pesticide even though estimated water concentration might exceed a relevant
benchmark. In such cases, the decision incorporates consideration of the benefits of the pesticide
use and other lines of evidence, such as any available National Recommended Water Quality
Criterion for ambient water quality, concerning the conservativeness of the modeling assessment
and available monitoring data.
Uncertainties with Risk Assessment and Mitigation
For the majority of pesticides, the Agency relies on simulation modeling to predict
potential aquatic exposure following pesticide applications. There are uncertainties embedded in
the exposure assessment, for example,the extent to which the simulated scenario represents
actual use conditions in terms of hydrologic vulnerability and the amount and frequency with
which pesticides are applied. In order to account for the inherent uncertainty the Agency uses a
combination of parameters and assumptions in the models that results in estimated potential
exposure concentrations that are high-end and are not likely to underestimate actual aquatic
exposure. This allows the Agency to screen out pesticides that are not likely to pose a risk to
aquatic life.
In the effects characterization under FIFRA, the lowest acute and chronic toxicity values
from the most sensitive species tested in acceptable studies are used as the relevant endpoint for
evaluating risk to various taxa. Implicit in the use of the lowest toxicity values for the most
sensitive species is the presumption that these toxicity values afford protection not only for the
individual surrogate species but for other untested taxa as well. The extent to which the most
sensitive laboratory test species are representative of the sensitivities of naturally occurring
aquatic species to pesticides is uncertain.
In the FIFRA risk characterization, data gaps are also considered as a source of
uncertainty in the risk assessment conclusions, and each risk assessment discusses the potential
for additional data to affect the risk assessment conclusions.
An additional source of uncertainty in assessing risk to aquatic life is the impacts of
multiple stressors on aquatic organisms. A United States Geological Survey (USGS) 10-year
study (Gilliom et al., 2006) shows that the most common form of pesticide exposure for aquatic
organisms is simultaneous exposure to multiple pesticides. More than 50 percent of all stream
samples contained five or more pesticides, although the majority of mixtures are comprised
mainly of agricultural herbicides and their degradates, or urban/residential use insecticides in
urban streams. Pesticides that will be applied under the PGP may also co-occur with other
manmade contaminants and/or other pesticides from other uses. For instance, the USGS has also
performed monitoring studies which revealed the widespread presence of some pharmaceuticals
and personal care products in drinking water. However, although pesticides may be detected
77
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
with other chemicals or in discharges covered by other NPDES permits,the majority of research
and data on the effects of pesticides has focused on individual pesticides.
Possible interactions among pesticides or between pesticides and other contaminants may
occur including: independent, additive, antagonistic or synergistic. The variety of chemical
interactions presented in the available literature suggests that the interaction can be a function of
many factors including but not necessarily limited to: (1)the exposed species, (2) the co-
contaminants in the mixture, (3)the ratio of concentrations in the mixture, (4) differences in the
pattern and duration of exposure among contaminants, and (5) the differential effects of other
physical/chemical characteristics of the receiving waters (e.g., organic matter present in sediment
and suspended water). Quantitatively predicting the combined effects of all these variables on
mixture toxicity to any given taxon with confidence is beyond the capabilities of the available
data. In order to assess the impacts of environmental mixtures on aquatic life, states have
included ambient toxicity testing (also called Whole Effluent Toxicity or WET testing) in their
monitoring programs. WET testing allows states to identify potential impacts to aquatic life and
identify the toxicant(s) and through the toxicity reduction evaluation, reduce the source(s) of the
toxicant(s). The level of toxic effect to the most sensitive tested species is therefore assumed to
be protective of other species that may be present in any given water body and is assumed to
represent the most toxic component of a mixture. Note that a discussion of EPA's consideration
of WET testing as a condition of the permit is discussed in Part I II.4 of the fact sheet.
Aquatic Benchmarks
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) derives aquatic benchmarks by multiplying
the most sensitive toxicity values (i.e., the lowest acceptable toxicity value for the most sensitive
species within a taxonomic group) by their respective (level of concern) LOC. These taxon-
specific benchmarks, based on toxicity data used by OPP in assessments for pesticide registration
decision-making, are considered estimates of the concentrations below which pesticides are not
expected to have the potential for adverse effects for the particular taxon for which those data
serve as surrogates. It is reasonable to assume that above these levels, there is potential for the
pesticide to cause adverse effects to the given taxon.
EPA's Office of Water(OW) and OPP agreed that these values can be used by States
and others to evaluate potential risks of pesticides in the aquatic environment, if a National
Recommended Water Quality Criterion for ambient water quality is not available.14 A number
of States have used these benchmark values as indicators of whether pesticide residues detected
in surface water warrant additional action such as refined monitoring efforts. While benchmarks
can be useful as a screening tool, they do not provide the information necessary to link detected
concentrations with their sources.
In response to recommendations and input from stakeholders, EPA developed a webpage
of non-regulatory "OPP Aquatic Benchmarks."t 5
1°Correspondence to SFIREG,November 3,2006 from Office of Water director.
15 OPP Aquatic Benchmark Table http://www.epa.eov/opnefedl/ecorisk ders/aquatic life benchmark.htm
78
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
As described above, EPA's FIFRA risk assessment process includes a number of
conservative assumptions that taken as a whole mitigate unreasonable ecological risk and protect
water quality.
(2) Examination of national—scale ambient monitoring data to assess whether pesticide
residues are currently present in waters at levels that would exceed water quality
standards.
U.S. Geological Survey: The Quality of Our Nation's Waters—Pesticides in the Nation's
Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001.
In addition to the protective nature of the pesticide risk assessment, EPA reviewed readily
available surface-water monitoring data. In 2006, the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment
Program (NAWQA)16 released a 10-year(1992-2001) study of 51 major river basins and aquifer
systems that account for more than 70 percent of total U.S. water use and more than 50 percent
of the U.S. drinking water supply. Most NAWQA samples were analyzed for 75 pesticides and
eight degradation products, including 20 of the 25 most commonly used herbicides and 16 of the
25 most commonly used insecticides. Water samples were collected at 186 stream sites for
analysis of pesticides and degradates dissolved in water. The samples were collected from
streams throughout the year, including high-flow and low-flow conditions. Sampling was most
intensive during the time of highest pesticide use and runoff—generally weekly or twice monthly
for a 4-to 9-month period. As a general matter, the USGS uses sampling and analytic methods
that provide highly reliable data. The NAWQA database stands out among available data
sources in terms of the number of pesticides and sites examined, as well as the overall number of
samples collected and analyzed.
Overall results. Overall, the 10-year assessment indicates that for the pesticides sampled, surface
and ground water are generally not being adversely affected by pesticide applications for
irrigation, drinking water, and home/recreational uses. The USGS analytical methods are very
sensitive and are designed to detect and measure minute amounts—in some cases parts per
trillion—that are often 10 to 100 times lower than benchmarks or water quality criteria for most
pesticides. There were detections of pesticides in these samples, but the concentrations detected
were generally low (parts per billion and parts per trillion). The NAWQA data generally reflect
pesticides that were used in watersheds from which water samples were taken. There were also
some detections of legacy pesticides that were no longer registered at the time of sampling.
For environmental effects, the USGS compared the concentrations found in the NAWQA
sampling with two general types of aquatic life benchmarks (1) ambient water quality criteria
(AWQC) for the pesticide and (2) benchmarks derived from the lowest acute and chronic
ecological effects endpoint for the pesticide (OPP benchmarks). Acute AWQC and all acute
OPP benchmarks were compared with each measured concentration for the most complete year
of data for each NAWQA stream. Chronic AWQC were compared with 4-day moving average
concentrations, chronic OPP benchmarks for invertebrates were compared to 21-day moving
average concentrations, and chronic fish OPP benchmarks were compared to 60-day moving
average concentrations. AWQC were available for 7 of the 83 pesticides and degradates
'6 Gilliom and others 2006.The Quality of Our Nation's Waters-Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and
Ground Water, 1992-2001:U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1291, 172p.
79
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
analyzed by NAWQA. One or more OPP benchmarks were available for 60 of the 83 NAWQA
analytes, including 5 of the 7 that had AWQC. A total of 62 of the pesticide compounds
analyzed in water by NAWQA had one or more aquatic-life benchmarks.
A total of 20 pesticides or degradates exceeded an EPA benchmark in one or more
agricultural streams and/or urban streams (see Appendix A of fact sheet for a complete list of
pesticides/degradates that had exceedances). In agricultural streams, most concentrations
greater than a benchmark involved chlorpyrifos, azinphos-methyl, atrazine,p,p'-DDE and
alachlor. In urban streams most concentrations greater than a benchmark involved diazinon,
chlorpyrifos, and malathion. It should be noted that pesticide concentrations in agricultural
streams most often originate from terrestrial agricultural activities exempted under the CWA
from NPDES permit requirements or activities not covered under this permit.
Since 2001, the last year of sampling covered by the NAWQA report, EPA has taken
regulatory action against all 20 pesticides found to be in excess of a benchmark and many of
their uses have been canceled (several detections were of pesticides no longer in use prior to the
start of the study). For atrazine, the registrant has been required to undertake an aggressive and
innovative ecological monitoring program to protect vulnerable watersheds in areas of atrazine
use, and to develop mitigation measures for watersheds that might have atrazine detections above
levels of concern. Residential uses of the two pesticides most commonly detected above a
benchmark (diazinon and chlorpyrifos) have been canceled. Additional detail on the nature of
EPA's regulatory actions under FIFRA appears in Appendices B and C of the fact sheet.
State Water Quality Monitoring under CWA
Every two years States must identify waterbodies that are not attaining water quality
standards (WQS; both narrative and numeric) under CWA Section 303(d). States must place
waterbodies not meeting water quality standards on a list(303(d) list) which identifies the
pollutant or pollutants causing or expected to cause the impairment. The Office of Water's
Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads websitel7 (accessed November 2009)
indicates 303(d) impairments in several states for 14 currently registered specific pesticides and
3 general classes of pesticides (e.g., pyrethoids; Table 1). With the adoption of a 303 list, States
are required to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). States also must include a
priority ranking for developing those TMDLs. A critical component in the TMDL process is to
identify the sources of each parameter for which the waterbody is listed. Then, the State must
develop waste load allocation(s) for point source(s) and load allocation(s) for nonpoint source(s).
Table 1. Currently registered pesticides listed as causes of 303(d) impairment (data accessed
November 2009).
Cause of Impairment States
2-Methylnaphthalene CA,NH, WA
Acrolein OR
Atrazine AL, IA, IL, KS, LA, MO,NE, OH, OR
Azinphos-methyl CA, OR
Carbaryl OR
Carbofuran CA, LA, OR
17 http://iaspub.epa.gov/watersl0/attains nation cy.control?p report type—T
80
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Cause of Impairment States
Chlorpyrifos AL, CA, OK, OR, WA
Dacthal CA
Diazinon CA, OK, OR, WA
Dibutyl phthalate OR, WA
Dimethyl phthalate OR, WA
Diuron OR
Endosulfan AL, CA, MT, OR, WA
Fipronil LA
Malathion CA, OR
Methyl parathion AL, CA, LA
Naphthalene NH, OR, WA
Prometon OR
Pronamide OR
Simazine OR
Terbacil OR
Tributyltin VA
Trifluralin OR
Xylenes CA
Organophosphates CA
"Pesticides"— listed generically as such CA, IN, MA,NY, OH, OR, PA, PR
Pyrethroids CA
According to the Office of Water's Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads
website there are a total of 75,677 causes of impairments for 303(d) listed waters'8. Of these,
approximately 2% (a total of 1,798) are listed as pesticides. The majority (77% or 1,386 of the
1,798) of impairments attributed to pesticides are for those no longer registered for use by the
EPA. While 23% (412 of the 1,798) of impairments attributed to pesticides are for currently
registered pesticides, including impairments listed generically for"pesticides" (83 of the 1,798).
This accounts for 0.5% (412 of 75,677) of the total causes of impairments for 303(d) listed
waters nationally. However, it is important to note that many States do not routinely monitor for
many currently registered pesticides which is a source of uncertainty for this assessment.
Additionally, 3,266 impairments are listed for"impaired biota" and 1,259 impairments are for an
"unknown" cause, which together account for about 6%of all impairments.
EPA has received ambient monitoring data for pesticides present in waters that are
attributable to the pesticide use patterns covered under this permit from states and other
stakeholders. A list of these data sources is included in the administrative record for this permit
(see docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257). EPA is still in the process of evaluating these
data in more detail, but in general, these data do not show the presence of pesticides in
concentrations above levels of concern (i.e., recommended water quality criteria—available at
http://epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/or FIFRA benchmark levels—available at
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed I/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm).
2004 National Water Quality Inventory Report
8 http://iaspub.epa._ov/watersl0/attains nation cy.control?p report type=T
81
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
States,tribes and territories are required to report biennially on the water quality of
navigable waters in their boundaries, and the extent to which these waters support designated
uses, under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. In its report to Congress on the 2004
reporting cycle19, which was submitted in January 2009, the Agency reported the results on the
portion of Waters of the U.S. evaluated during that cycle. The report indicated that 44%of river
miles assessed, 64% of lake acres assessed, and 30%of the square miles of estuaries assessed
were impaired for failing to support at least one designated use.
While pesticides are not always monitored when assessing water quality, the Report to
Congress indicated that pesticides were not among the most common causes of impairments in
the 2004 cycle for rivers and streams, nor for lakes, ponds and reservoirs. Pesticides were the
sixth leading cause of impairments for bays and estuaries, but the Report did not indicate
whether these were caused by actively registered pesticides, or by sediment contamination by
persistent legacy pesticides, which account for the majority of water impairments caused by
pesticides nationwide. The Report does not indicate whether any impairments identified by the
States were caused by uses that will be subject to NPDES permits under the CWA.
Interpretation of Monitoring Data Relevant to the PGP
When re-evaluating the registrations of existing pesticides, the Agency considers
available surface-water monitoring data as a line of evidence regarding potential aquatic risk in
addition to considering exposure estimates derived from simulation models. Such monitoring
data can provide a measure of trends in aquatic exposure associated with mitigation measures
imposed by the Agency. For instance,the USGS's 2009 report of Trends of Pesticide
Concentrations in Corn-belt Streams states, "(t)he declines in pesticide concentrations closely
followed declines in their annual applications, indicating that reducing pesticide use is an
effective and reliable strategy for reducing pesticide contamination in streams."
Monitoring studies are valuable because they may specifically target areas in which
pesticides considered in the study are likely to be used. This is an effective way of evaluating
impact from mitigation measures, or the increase in use of other pesticides that might replace
pesticides to which mitigation measures are applied.
The best way to interpret the likely causes of pesticide detections in surface water is to
consider any detection in light of the design of the monitoring study itself. For instance, the
USGS's study The Quality of Our Nation's Water—Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and
Ground Water, 1992-2001, described above, used a targeted approach, focusing on areas of
relatively homogenous land-use and environmental settings to relate pesticide occurrence to
individual non-point sources. The sampling was also most intensive during periods of high
pesticide use and runoff. Such a design can best capture transport of pesticide to surface water
from runoff from treated agricultural fields (or treated buildings/lawns) in a watershed. But, the
timing and location of sample collection may not be as effective in capturing residues of
pesticides applied for purposes covered under the General Permit. Concentrations detected could
at times reflect such uses, but the design of the study was meant to capture more diffuse non-
point transport of pesticides in watersheds, and not point source discharge.
19 hitp://www.epa.Hov/owow/305b/20041 eport/
82
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Uncertainties with Monitoring Data
The Agency recognizes that monitoring of pesticide levels in water has limitations in its
ability to identify whether use of specific pesticides may adversely affect water quality. The
product monitoring data give only a "snap shot" of the concentration in a particular waterbody at
a particular time. While the USGS (Gilliom et al., 2006) intensified the frequency of its
monitoring during times of the year when most agricultural pesticide usage commonly occurred,
their sampling did not necessarily account for timing of specific pesticide applications, frequency
of applications, and meteorological events that can cause pesticides to reach surface water as
covered by this permit. Thus, monitoring may not collect a sample when pesticide concentrations
are at peak levels or when present in the water. Moreover, if monitoring detects the presence of
a pesticide, the data usually do not identify the source or if the pesticide residue is actually still a
product serving its intended purpose. Ambient monitoring cannot determine whether the
contamination was due to lawful use (and if so, which one) or unlawful pesticide use, an
accidental spill or discharge, or whether the residues detected were from runoff, or from aquatic
uses such as those to be included in the NPDES general permit. Monitoring data are often
difficult to interpret because the ancillary data on pesticide usage in a basin, and factors that
could make the location more or less vulnerable are often not available.
(3) Technology-based effluent limitations in the PGP provide further protections beyond
compliance with existing FIFRA requirements.
EPA expects the proposed general permit contains requirements necessary to ensure that
water quality is protected. For example, the operators that apply pesticides over the annual
treatment area threshold must implement IPM control measures under Part 2.2. As stated above,
EPA expects that the technology-based effluent limitations are as stringent as necessary to meet
WQS. These effluent limitations require permittees to minimize the discharge of pesticides
through the use of the most efficient and effective means of pest management options, including
pesticide and non-pesticide methods. The technology-based effluent limitations require
applicators to: use the lowest effective amount of pesticide product per application and optimum
number of applications to control the target pest, perform regular maintenance activities on
pesticide containers and application equipment, and calibrate equipment. There are other
requirements to consider human health and ecological impact, pest resistance, feasibility, and
cost effectiveness and include prevention, mechanical/physical methods, cultural methods,
biological control agents, and as a final resort, the application of pesticides. To ensure that
pesticide discharges are minimized, permittees identified under Part 2.2 must identify target pest
species and areas where those pests occur, identify the possible sources of the problem, and
establish action thresholds for implementing pest management strategies. The technology-based
effluent limitations also require permittees identified under Part 2.2 to conduct surveillance prior
to each pesticide application to assess the treatment area and to determine when pest action
thresholds are met.
The general permit includes several other provisions that the Agency expects to provide
further protections beyond compliance with FIFRA requirements. For one, Part 4 of the permit
requires these operators to monitor pesticide applications activities to minimize discharges and
during any post-application monitoring to determine effectiveness of the pesticide treatment. In
83
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
addition, Part 6.0 of the general permit contains requirements for all permittees to document and
report adverse incidents involving non-target organisms or the environment, and to take
corrective action if it is determined that revising control measures can help to prevent future
incidents. An adverse incident report calls due attention to a situation in which water quality
may be impacted by pesticide use and may indicate that corrective action is required to ensure
that water quality standards are further protected during future applications. The permit also
requires permittees to take corrective actions to eliminate other situations such as unauthorized
releases (i.e., spills or leaks) or the failure to meet applicable water quality standards. These
requirements are discussed further in Part 6.0 of this fact sheet. EPA expects this approach will
further reduce discharges of pesticides to waters of the U.S. from the use patterns covered under
this permit.
(4) Biological pesticides do not work through a toxic mode of action. For chemical
pesticides, the discharges covered under this permit are the residues after the pesticide has
performed its intended purpose.
This permit provides coverage for point source discharges from certain applications of
pesticides, as identified in Part 1.1.1 of the PGP. Discharges from the application of both
chemical and biological pesticides are covered under this PGP consistent with the Sixth Circuit
Court's reading of the CWA term "pollutant" in National Cotton Council v. EPA.
For chemical or conventional pesticides applied directly to waters (e.g., for aquatic weed
control and aquatic nuisance pest control), it is the pesticide residue, including excess pesticide
that is present outside of the treatment area or within the treatment area once the target pests
have been controlled that is considered a pollutant under this permit. For any pesticide applied
over water(e.g., mosquito control), any pesticide or pesticide residue that is incidentally
deposited in waters of the U.S. is considered a pollutant since the intended purpose of the
application is to target pests above the water. Therefore, the concentrations of"pollutants" will
be no higher, and in many instances significantly lower, than the product concentrations
considered in EPA's assessment when registering these products.
Discharges of biological pesticides require permit coverage regardless of whether or not a
residue exists. Biological pesticides or biopesticides are certain types of pesticides derived from
such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals. Two classes of
biopesticides are relevant to this permit, microbial pesticides and biochemical pesticides.
Microbial pesticides consist of a microorganism (e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan) as
the active ingredient. The most widely used microbial pesticides are subspecies and strains of
Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. Biochemical pesticides, as defined at 40 CFR 158.2000(a), are
naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms. Biochemical
pesticides include substances, such as insect sex pheromones that interfere with mating, as well
as naturally-occurring repellants and attractants.
Biopesticides are usually inherently less toxic than conventional pesticides and generally
only affect the target pests and closely related organisms. Often, they are effective in very small
quantities and decompose quickly thereby resulting in lower exposures and largely avoiding the
pollution problems caused by chemical pesticides. When used as a component of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) programs, biopesticides can greatly decrease the use of chemical pesticides;
84
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
however, use of biopesticides effectively requires users to have a very good understanding of
pest management. Since biochemical pesticides, by regulatory definition, do not work through a
toxic mode of action they may be less likely to result in an excursion of a water quality standard.
(5) The PGP excludes pesticide applications that result in discharges of any pesticide to (1)
waters impaired for that pesticide or (2) any Tier 3 waters (i.e., outstanding national
resource waters).
EPA identified two scenarios where it believes the PGP may not be adequately protective
of water quality standards and has excluded those discharges from coverage under this permit.
Namely,the PGP excludes from coverage: (I) discharges to impaired waters from the application
of pesticides when that waterbody is impaired for that specific pesticide or its degradates and (2)
discharges to Tier 3 Waters (i.e., Outstanding National Resource Waters). Any operator desiring
to discharge in either of these two scenarios is required to submit an application for an individual
permit. Note that the PGP does cover situations where a waterbody may be impaired generically
for"pesticides,"though EPA is requesting comment on this issue. EPA will post on its website a
list of Tier 3 waterbodies in the areas of the country where this permit applies.
4. Site Monitoring
Monitoring is required in any NPDES permit specifically for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance with the permit conditions. There are a variety of monitoring
methods that a "traditional"NPDES permit may require, including end-of-pipe monitoring to
show compliance with relevant effluent limitations prior to discharging to a receiving waterbody.
Monitoring may also pertain to actions taken to ensure that record keeping or other permit
control activities are being properly implemented. Water quality monitoring of receiving
streams is not typically required in NPDES permits unless it is required to determine among
other things, compliance with mixing zone dilution standards or some other special permit
condition.
Pursuant to CWA section 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable
implementing regulations, the following requirements have been included in the permit, as
discussed below. The monitoring requirements of this permit are narrative and demonstrate
compliance with permit conditions by using currently established pesticide use routines for
monitoring pest control. For instance, the permit requires routine visual inspections (described
below)to be conducted as part of the pest treatment activity or as part of post-application pest
surveillance, and calls for records of the pesticide discharge volume to be kept. The monitoring
requirements of the permit are reasonable measures of good pest management practice that the
conscientious operator should be currently employing to ensure environmental health and safety
and optimal control of pest organisms.
Monitoring of pesticide discharges poses several challenges not generally encountered in
"traditional"NPDES permitting situations. For example, there is no "wastewater discharge" per
se from pesticide applications that is analogous to end-of-pipe discharges. A manufacturing
plant would, for example, typically direct its wastewater through a treatment system to remove
pollutants, and then would direct the effluent through a pipe into a receiving waterbody.
However,for chemical pesticide applications, at the time of application the pesticide contains
both the portion serving its intended purpose as well as the potential residual for which
85
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
monitoring data would be appropriate. Thus, monitoring the"outfall" in this case would merely
provide data on the amount of the product as applied (information already known through the
FIFRA registration process) and would not be useful for comparing with any type of effluent
limitation or water quality standard.
EPA considered requiring ambient water quality monitoring. However EPA determined
that it was infeasible for the following reasons:
1) Uncertainty: Ambient water quality monitoring would generally not be able to distinguish
whether the results were from the pesticide application for which monitoring is being performed,
or some other upstream source.
2) Lack of applicable measurable standards: Pesticide-specific water quality standards do not
exist at this time for the vast majority of constituents in the products authorized for use under this
PGP.
3) Safety and Accessibility:Pesticides, particularly those used for mosquito control and forestry
pest control, are often applied over waterbodies in remote areas, hazardous terrain, and swamps
that are either inaccessible or pose safety risks for the collection of samples.
4) Difficulty of residue sampling for chemical pesticides: For chemical pesticides, the
"pollutant" regulated by the PGP is the residue that remains after the pesticide has completed its
activity, and it is this residue that would be the subject of any water quality monitoring
requirement. However, the point at which only "residue" remains is not practically discernable
at this time for all pesticides.
5) Usefulness of data: Some states have questioned the value of ambient water quality
monitoring data obtained from state permitting programs. The data generally showed that water
quality impacts were not occurring, and one state even discontinued the requirement in revisions
of its state permit.
Given the questionable ability of ambient water quality data to demonstrate permit compliance,
EPA has determined that there are suitable alternative monitoring activities to determine permit
compliance, other than ambient water quality monitoring, for this permit.
Additionally, in assessing the appropriateness of requiring ambient water quality
monitoring, EPA also considered Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing as a possible option for
assessing operator compliance with permit conditions; however, WET testing in an NPDES
permit program is best used to monitor whether an operator's discharge is toxic and not whether
a receiving stream (i.e., the ambient environment), that may be influenced by a number of
different discharges from different operators and different sources is toxic. In addition, WET
testing would not indicate the actual source of the toxicity. If a waterbody is found to be toxic or
to contain pollutants above water quality standards, it can be quite complex to identify the source
of the toxicity, which may or may not actually be the NPDES permittee performing the
monitoring.
Thus, the monitoring program that EPA has developed for this PGP has been tailored to
accommodate the unique situations related to pesticide applications. Visual monitoring is
86
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
required in the PGP to determine if any pesticide use practices may need to be revised to ensure
that avoidable adverse impacts to the environment do not occur(See Section 4.2 of fact sheet).
Monitoring records required by those operators who submit NOIs will establish a history that
may indicate if or when practices need to be reconsidered.
4.1 Monitoring Requirements for all Permittees
All permittees must monitor the amount of pesticide used to ensure that the lowest
amount needed to effectively control the pest is balanced with the potential for development of
pesticide resistance. EPA understands that appropriate application rates are variable depending
on conditions, and expects permittees to use their best professional judgment in combination
with the label requirements in determining the appropriate amount of product needed to optimize
efficacy of the treatment. EPA expects that should a pest be eradicated or marginalized, no
further discharge to control that pest should occur unless it is absolutely necessary for the
continued control of that pest. All permittees must also monitor their operation to ensure the
integrity of application equipment by calibrating, cleaning, and repairing equipment on a regular
basis to reduce the potential for leaks, spills, and unintended/accidental release of pesticides to
waters of the U.S.
4.2 Visual Monitoring Requirements
Visual monitoring assessments are required as a means of identifying, for example,
instances of detrimental impact to non-target organisms, disruption or degradation of wildlife
habitat, or the prevention of designated recreational or municipal uses of a waterbody that may
possibly be related to the operator's use of pesticides in a given area. Visual monitoring will
consist of spot checks in the area to and around which pesticides are applied for possible and
observable adverse incidents, such as fish kills and/or distressed fish or macro-invertebrates.
Visual monitoring assessments are also required during the pesticide application when
feasibility and safety allow. Visual monitoring is not required during the course of treatment
when that treatment is performed in darkness as it would be infeasible for the inspector to note
adverse effects under these circumstances. Additionally, the following scenarios often preclude
visual monitoring during pesticide application:
I. Applications made from an aircraft
2. Applications made from a moving road vehicle when the applicator is the driver
3. Applications made from moving watercraft when the applicator is the driver
4. Applications made from a moving off-road wheeled or tracked vehicle when the
applicator is the driver.
A visual monitoring assessment must also be conducted during any post-application
surveillance to determine the efficacy of the pesticide treatment. Visual monitoring of this type
is only required if the operator performs post application surveillance in the normal course of
business. EPA expects that visual assessments may reasonably be conducted during applications
and efficacy inspections may be conducted on foot or from a stationary vehicle.
5. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP)
87
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Part 5 of this permit requires any operator who is subject to Part 2.2 of this permit(i.e.,
one who is required to submit an NOI) to develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan
(PDMP). Operators who know or should have reasonably known prior to commencement of
discharge, that they will exceed an annual treatment area threshold identified in Part 1.2.2 for
that year, must develop a PDMP prior to first pesticide application covered under this permit..
Operators who do not know or would reasonably not know until after commencement of
discharge, that they will exceed an annual treatment area threshold identified in Part 1.2.2 for
that year , must develop a PDMP prior to exceeding the annual treatment area threshold..
Operators commencing discharge in response to a declared pest emergency situation as defined
in Appendix A, that will cause the operator to exceed an annual treatment area threshold, must
develop a PDMP no later than 90 days after responding to the declared pest emergency. Once
the operator meets the requirement to prepare a PDMP, he/she must maintain the plan thereafter
for the duration of coverage under this general permit. This means even if the operator's annual
treatment area subsequently falls below the annual treatment area threshold, the operator is
required to keep the plan up-to-date.
Developing a PDMP helps operators ensure they have(1)taken steps to identify the pest
problem, (2) evaluated pest management options, and (3) appropriate control measures to control
pesticide discharges. Operators, who exceed an annual treatment area due to a declared pest
emergency and thus must submit an NOI, do not need to include activities in their PDMP that
were conducted in response to that declared pest emergency. Their PDMP, however, must
address any future pesticide application covered under this permit. Part 5.1 of the permit
contains the required elements to be documented in the PDMP.
The PDMP itself does not contain effluent limitations; rather it constitutes a tool both to
assist the operator in documenting what control measures it is implementing to meet the effluent
limitations, and to assist the permitting/compliance authority in determining whether the effluent
limitations are being met. A PDMP is a"living" document that requires periodic reviews and
must be kept up-to-date. Where control measures are modified or replaced to meet effluent
limitations, such as in response to a Part 6.1 triggering condition, such changes must be
documented in the PDMP. If operators fail to develop and maintain an up-to-date PDMP, they
will have violated the permit. This recordkeeping violation is separate and distinct from a
violation of any of the other substantive requirements in the permit(e.g., effluent limitations,
corrective action, monitoring, reporting, and state-specific requirements).
Operators may choose to reference other documents, such as a pre-existing integrated
pest management (IPM) plan or spill prevention and response plan, in the PDMP rather than
recreating the same text in the PDMP. It is not required that an operator must have authored the
pre-existing plan in order to use it. When referencing other documents, the operator is
responsible for ensuring his/her PDMP and the other documents together contain all the
necessary elements for a complete PDMP, as specified in Part 5.1. In addition,the operator
must ensure that a copy of relevant portions of those referenced documents is attached to the
PDMP and is located on-site and it is available for review consistent with Part 5.3 of the permit.
5.1. Contents of Your PDMP
The PDMP prepared under this permit must meet specific requirements under Part 5.1 of
the permit. Generally, operators must document the following: (1) a pesticide discharge
88
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
management team; (2) a description of the pest management area and the pest problem; (3) a
description of control measures; (4) schedules and procedures for application rate and frequency,
pest surveillance, assessment of environmental conditions, spill prevention and response,
equipment maintenance, adverse incident response, and pesticide monitoring; and (5) any
eligibility considerations under other federal laws.
Pesticide Discharge Management Team
The permit requires that a qualified individual or team of individuals be identified to
manage pesticide discharge, including the pesticide applicator. If the pesticide applicator has not
been identified at the time of the plan development, the operator should indicate whether or not a
for-hire applicator will be used. Identification of a pesticide discharge management team ensures
that appropriate persons (or positions) are identified as necessary for developing and
implementing the plan. Inclusion of the team in the plan provides notice to staff and
management(i.e., those responsible for signing and certifying the plan) of the responsibilities of
certain key staff for following through on compliance with the permit's conditions and limits.
The pesticide discharge management team is responsible for developing and revising the
PDMP, implementing and maintaining the control measures to meet effluent limitations, and
taking corrective action where necessary. Team members should be chosen for their expertise in
the relevant areas to ensure that all aspects of pest management are considered in developing the
plan. The PDMP must clearly describe the responsibilities of each team member to ensure that
each aspect of the PDMP is addressed. EPA expects most operators will have more than one
individual on the team, except for small entities with relatively simple plans and/or staff
limitations. The permit requires that team members have ready access to any applicable portions
of the PDMP and the permit.
Pest Management Area Description
The pest management area description includes the pest problem description, action
threshold(s), a general location map, and water quality standards.
1. Pest Problem Description.
The permit requires that the PDMP include a description of the pest problem at the pest
management area. A detailed pest management area description assists operators in subsequent
efforts to identify and set priorities for the evaluation and selection of control measures taken to
meet effluent limitations set forth in Parts 2 and 3 and in identifying necessary changes in pest
management. The description must include identification of the target pest(s), source of the pest
problem, and source of data used to identify the problem. The permit allows use of historic data
or other available data (eg,from another similar site) to identify the problem at your site. If you
use other site data, you must document in this section why data from your site is not available or
not taken within the past year and explain why the data is relevant to your site. Additionally, the
pest management area descriptions should include any sensitive resources in the area, such as
unique habitat areas, rare or listed species, or other species of concern that may limit pest
management options.
2. Action Threshold(s)
89
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
The permit requires that the PDMP include a description of the action threshold(s)
established for the target pest, including a description of how they were determined. An action
threshold is a level of pest prevalence at which an operator takes action to reduce the pest
population.
3. General Location Map
The PDMP must also contain a general location map of the site that identifies the
geographic boundaries of the area to which the plan applies and location of the waters of the U.S.
To improve readability of the map, some detailed information may be kept as an attachment to
the site map and pictures may be included as deemed appropriate.
4. Water Quality Standards
Operators must identify the water quality standards applicable to their discharge. This
must include a list of pesticide(s) or any degradates for which the water is impaired. Internet
links to all state,territory and tribal water quality standards are available at:
http://epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/.
Description of Control Measure
The permit requires that the PDMP include a description of the control measures to
demonstrate how the operators specifically plan to meet the applicable technology-based or
water quality-based effluent limitations. The description of the control measures selected to
meet the effluent limitations must include a brief explanation of the control measures used at the
site to reduce pesticide discharge, including evaluation and implementation of the six pest
management tools (no action, prevention, mechanical/physical methods, cultural methods,
biological control agents, and pesticides). Operators must consider impact to non-target
organisms, impact to water quality, pest resistance, feasibility, and cost effectiveness when
evaluating and selecting the most efficient and effective means of pest management to minimize
pesticide discharge to waters of the U.S.
All six pest management tools may not be available for a specific use category and/or
treatment area. However, the PDMP must include documentation of how the six pest
management tools were evaluated prior to selecting a site specific pest management strategy.
For the no action option, operators should document the impact of this option without any
current pest management strategy at the site. For the prevention management option, the
operator should document the methods implemented to prevent new introductions or the spread
of the pests to new sites such as identifying routes of invasion and how these can be intercepted
to reduce the chance of invasion. Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free
or weed-free seeds or fill; exclusion methods (e.g., barriers) and/or sanitation methods, like wash
stations, to prevent reintroduction by vehicles, personnel, etc. Some prevention management
methods may fall under mechanical/physical or cultural methods as well.
For the pesticide management option, operators must include a list of active ingredient(s)
evaluated. Discussion should also identify specific equipment or methods that will prevent or
reduce the risks to non-target organisms and pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S.
90
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Schedules and Procedures
a. The following schedules and procedures, used to comply with the effluent limitations in Part 2
of the permit, must be documented in the PDMP:
1. Application Rate and Frequency Procedures
In the PDMP, operators must describe the procedures for determining the lowest effective
amount of pesticide product per application and the optimum frequency of pesticide applications
to minimize discharges from the application of pesticide.
2. Spill Prevention
a. Operators must describe the spill prevention program for their pest management area.
The program should address areas and activities at the site that typically pose a high risk
for spills including loading and unloading areas, storage areas, process areas, and waste
disposal activities. It should also address appropriate material handling procedures,
storage requirements, and containment or diversion equipment that will minimize the
potential for spills, or in the event of a spill, enable proper and timely response.
b. As required in Part 6.1 of this permit, any spills or leaks that occur while covered under
this permit must be documented.
c. Documenting spills does not relieve operators of any reporting requirements established
in 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117, and 40 CFR 302, or any other statutory requirements
relating to spills or other releases of oils or hazardous substances.
3. Pesticide Application Equipment Procedures
Operators must describe the preventive equipment maintenance program to keep the
pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition, including how and when the
following will be addressed: calibration, regular inspections, and cleaning/repairing of the
application equipment to avoid situations that may result in leaks, spills, and other releases.
4. Pest Surveillance Procedures
Operators must discuss how their pest surveillance programs assess the pest treatment
area, to determine when the action threshold(s) is met. The discussion should also include
surveillance method(s) selected.
5. Environmental Conditions Assessment Procedures
Operators must discuss the procedures and methods to assess environmental conditions in the
treatment area.
b. The following additional schedules and procedures necessary to minimize discharges must
also be documented in the PDMP
91
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
1. Spill Response Procedures
The PDMP must document procedures for expeditiously stopping, containing, and
cleaning up leaks, spills, and other release. In addition, the PDMP must include documentation
of the procedures for notification of appropriate facility personnel, emergency response agencies,
and regulatory agencies.
2. Adverse Incident Response Procedures
In the PDMP, operators must document appropriate procedures for responding to an
adverse incident resulting from pesticide applications. Operator must identify and document the
following:
• Course of action or responses to any incident resulting from pesticide
applications;
• Chain of command notification for the incident, both internal to your
agency/organization and external;
• State/Federal contacts with phone numbers;
• Name, location, and telephone of nearest emergency medical facility;
• Name, location, and telephone of nearest hazardous chemical responder; and
(including police and fire department).
3. Pesticide Monitoring Schedules and Procedures
In the PDMP, operators must describe procedures for monitoring consistent with the
requirements in Part 4.0 including:
• The process for determining the location and timing of monitoring;
• A schedule and procedures for monitoring;
• The person (or position) responsible for conducting monitoring; and
• Procedures for documenting any observed impacts to non-target organisms
resulting from your pesticide discharge.
Signature Requirements
The PDMP must be signed and certified in accordance with the signatory requirements in
the Standard Permit Conditions part of the permit (Appendix B, subsection B.l 1). This
requirement is consistent with standard NPDES permit conditions described in 40 CFR 122.22
and is intended to ensure that the operator understands his/her responsibility to create and
maintain a complete and accurate PDMP. The signature requirement includes an
acknowledgment that there are significant penalties for submitting false information.
5.2 Pesticide Discharge Management Plan Modifications.
This permit requires that the PDMP be updated whenever any of the triggering conditions
for corrective action in Part 6.1 of the permit occur, or when a review following the triggering
conditions in Part 6.1 requires the operator to revise his/her control measures as necessary to
meet the effluent limitations in this permit(Part 2). Keeping the PDMP up-to-date will help the
operator ensure that the condition that triggered the corrective action does not reoccur.
Operators are also required to review the PDMP at least once a year or whenever necessary to
update the pest problem description and pest management strategies at the pest management
92
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
area.
It is important to note that failure to update the PDMP in accordance with Part 5.2 is a
recordkeeping violation, not a violation of an effluent limit. For example, if the operator changes
its maintenance procedures, but fails to update its PDMP to reflect these changes, a
recordkeeping violation will result. The operator must revise its PDMP to reflect the new
maintenance procedures and include documentation of the corrective action (in accordance with
Part 6)to return to full compliance.
5.3 Pesticide Discharge Management Plan Availability.
This permit requires that a copy of the current PDMP, along with all supporting maps and
documents, be kept at the address provided on the NOI. The PDMP and all supporting
documents must be immediately available to representatives of EPA, a State, Tribal, or local
agency governing pesticide applications, as well as representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the time of an on-site
inspection or upon request. This requirement is consistent with standard NPDES permit
conditions described in 40 CFR 122.41. Part 5.3 of this permit indicates that EPA may provide
access to portions of your PDMP to a member of the public upon request. Confidential Business
Information (CBI) may be withheld from the public, but consistent with 40 CFR Part 2, may not
be withheld from EPA or the Services.
6.0 Corrective Action
The purpose of including corrective action requirements in this permit is to assist this
new universe of NPDES permittees with effectively meeting technology-based and water-
quality-based effluent limitations and implementing integrated pest management practices in this
permit. Corrective actions in this permit are follow-up actions a permittee must take to assess
and correct problems. They require review and revision of control measures and pesticide
application activities, as necessary, to ensure that these problems are eliminated and will not be
repeated in the future. The permit makes clear that the permittee is expected to assess why a
specific problem has occurred and document what steps were taken to eliminate the problem.
EPA believes this approach will help permittees in complying with the requirements of the
permit quickly. Compliance with many of the permit's requirements -- for instance, those related
to reporting and recordkeeping and some of those related to operation and maintenance -- can be
accomplished immediately, and therefore, are not considered problems that trigger corrective
actions.
It should be noted that a situation triggering corrective action is not necessarily a permit
violation and, as such, may not necessarily trigger a modification of control measures to meet
effluent limitations. However, failure to conduct (and document) corrective action reviews in
such cases does constitute a permit violation.
6.1 Situations Requiring Revision of Control Measures.
Permittees are required to review and, as necessary, revise the selection and
implementation of their control measures to eliminate any of the following situations:
93
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
- an unauthorized release or discharge occurs;
- the permittee becomes aware, or EPA determines, that control measures are not stringent
enough for the discharge to meet applicable water quality standards;
- an inspection or evaluation of your facility by an EPA official, or local, state, or Tribal entity,
determines that modifications are necessary to meet the non-numeric effluent limits detailed
in Part 2 of the PGP; or
- the permittee observes or is otherwise made aware (e.g., a third party notification) of an
adverse incident for which symptoms are unusual or unexpected during the normal course of
treatment.
EPA considers the above situations to be of significant concern. Thus, EPA is requiring
permittees to assess the cause of these situations which may be affiliated with the permittees
discharge from the application of pesticides and to take any necessary steps to eliminate the
situation and ensure that the situation will not be repeated in the future.
The purpose of Part 6.1 is to ensure compliance with corrective action requirements
through increased accountability and oversight. EPA views ongoing assessment of control
measure effectiveness and corrective actions as integral to an effective pesticide management
program. This corrective action assessment must be kept with the other recordkeeping
documentation required by this permit.
6.2. Corrective Action Deadlines.
The permit requires that corrective action be completed "before the next pesticide
application that results in a discharge, if practicable, or if not, as soon as practicable thereafter."
EPA emphasizes that this timeframe is not a grace period within which an operator is relieved of
any liability for a permit violation. EPA is adopting this flexible deadline to account for the
variation in types of responses (e.g., evaluate situation and select, design, install, and implement
new or modified control measures) that may be necessary to address any identified situations of
concern. EPA recognizes that in rare cases a corrective action review may identify the need for
substantial improvements to the permittee's control measures, and does not want to limit the
selection and implementation of such controls with an inflexible deadline. Another possibility is
that EPA or the permittee may determine that further monitoring is needed under Part 6.3 of the
permit to pinpoint the source of the problem, and this monitoring may need to be conducted
during future pesticide application activities. However, EPA believes that in the vast majority of
cases, corrective action reviews will identify responses that can be taken quickly, either before
the next pesticide application that results in a discharge or shortly thereafter. EPA expects
operators to document and justify any schedules for selecting, designing, installing, and
implementing new or modified control measures.
When any of the listed situations are identified under 6.1, such as discovery that water
quality standards are being exceeded,the permittee must take steps to ensure the problems
causing any violation are eliminated. If the original inadequacy constitutes a permit violation,
then that violation is not excused by response within the timeframe EPA has allotted for
corrective action, though EPA may consider this when determining the appropriate enforcement
response to a violation. EPA assumes that permittees will need less time to make minor repairs
or change practices than to make substantial operational changes or equipment repair. A
timeframe, albeit flexible, is included specifically so that problems are not allowed to persist
94
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
indefinitely.Failure to take the necessary corrective action within the stipulated timeframe
constitutes an additional and independent permit violation.
6.3 Effect of Corrective Action
The occurrence of a situation described in Part 6.1 may, but does not implicitly,
constitute a violation of the permit. The occurrence of a situation identified in Part 6.1 does
require the permittee to immediately review and as necessary, revise the selection and
implementation of their control measures to eliminate the situation. Part 6.3 explains that taking
corrective action does not absolve the permittee of any liability for a permit violation requiring
that action, however, failure to take required corrective action will constitute an original or an
additional permit violation. EPA will consider the appropriateness and promptness of corrective
action in determining enforcement responses to permit violations. EPA or a court may impose
additional requirements and schedules of compliance, including requirements to submit
additional information concerning the condition(s) triggering corrective action, additional site-
specific water-quality based limitations, additional monitoring requirements, or other schedules
and requirements more stringent than specified in this permit. Those requirements and schedules
will supersede those of Part 6.1 if such requirements conflict.
6.4 Adverse Incident Documentation and Reporting
Part 6.4 of the PGP requires permittees to take specific actions in response to identified
adverse incidents which may have resulted from a discharge from the permittee's pesticide
application. Namely, permittees are required to provide oral notice to EPA within 24 hours and
then follow-up with a written report within 5 days of becoming aware of the adverse incident.
EPA defines an "adverse incident" in Appendix A of the PGP, but generally it is defined as any
effect of a pesticide's use that is unexpected or unintended.
Part 6.4.1 requires Permittees to call the appropriate EPA Incident Reporting Contact
within 24 hours of any identified adverse incident and provide basic information about it. The
purpose of this requirement is twofold: (1) to provide an opportunity for the Agency to respond
to these incidents as soon as reasonably can be expected, and (2)to provide a basis for potential
corrective actions. EPA does not expect this initial notification to be detailed but merely a
reporting of the date of the finding, a general discussion of the incident and a review of the
necessity to conduct corrective action. The permit requires permittees to document the
information identified in 6.4.1, including the date and time you notified EPA and a description of
any deviations from 6.4.1 notification requirements based on nuances of the adverse incident.
For example, a permittee may decide to notify multiple EPA contacts because of the severity of
the adverse incident. This type of information should be included in the written documentation
of the 24-hour notification as described below.
Part 6.4.2 requires permittees to provide a written report of the adverse incident to the
appropriate EPA Regional office and to the State Lead Agency for pesticide regulation within 5
days of discovering the adverse incident. The adverse incident report must include the following
information:
• Information required to be provided in Part 6.4.1
• Date and time you contacted EPA notifying the Agency of the adverse incident;
95
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
• Location of incident, including the names of any waters affected and appearance of
those waters (sheen, color, clarity, etc.)
• A description of the circumstances of the incident including species affected, number
of individual and approximate size of dead or distressed organisms
• Magnitude of the effect (e.g., aquatic square area or total stream distance affected)
• Pesticide application rate, intended use site (e.g., banks, above, or direct to water),
and method of application;
• Description of the habitat and the circumstances under which the incident occurred
(including any available ambient water data for pesticides applied);
• Actions to be taken to prevent recurrence of the incident.
EPA believes adverse incident information associated with discharges from the
application of pesticides is useful to the Agency because the information:
Provides the Agency with an indication of the effectiveness of the permit in
controlling discharges to protect water quality, including data upon which the Agency
may base future permit decisions (e.g., modifications to or reissuance of this permit).
May be considered when reviewing applications for registration of new pesticides
that are chemically similar to existing pesticides;
May be considered in ecological risk assessment and during deliberations on risk
management decisions;
May be reviewed to determine trends that may indicate potential ecological impacts
with an existing pesticide and/or to track improvements when mitigation measures are
applied;
Provides information on the nature, extent, and severity of incidents to decision-
makers, stakeholders, and the public; and
Provides the Agency with information on which to assess compliance with regulatory
requirements, including documentation and reporting.
Currently, there is no database that includes adverse reporting from anyone other than the
registrant under 6(a)(2) of FIFRA. EPA does not consider inclusion of adverse incident
reporting in the NPDES permit to be a duplicative requirement to the FIFRA section 6(a)(2)
requirements for registrant reporting of adverse incidents. This is because pesticide registrants
are not likely to be directly covered under the PGP. Requiring the reporting of adverse incidents
and follow-up corrective actions may address the lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty for
pesticide users to report adverse incidents, at least for the pesticide use patterns covered by this
permit.
EPA acknowledges that assessing and correcting adverse incidents may be complicated
in certain instances. For example, symptoms associated with adverse incidents are often vague
or mimic other causes which may lead to incorrect diagnoses. Thus, it may be difficult to
identify and track chronic effects resulting from pesticides discharges. It may also be difficult to
observe adverse effects because of limited visibility or access such as dead fish poisoned in a
wetland under dense vegetation or in sparsely populated areas or because scavengers scatter or
devour carcasses before discovery. However, EPA believes that it is important to identify to the
extent feasible situations where adverse effects occur where discharges from the application of
pesticides also occur.
96
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Immediately observable signs of distress or damage to non-target plants, animals and
other macro-organisms within the treatment area may warrant concern for a possible adverse
incident related to a discharge of pesticides during application. EPA acknowledges that some
degree of detrimental impact to non-target species is to be expected and is acceptable during the
course of normal pesticide treatment. EPA expects operators to use their best professional
judgment in determining the extent to which non-target effects appear to be abnormal or
indicative of an unforeseen problem associated with an application of pesticides.
During a visual inspection, operators should watch for distressed or dead juvenile and
small fishes, washed up or floating fish, fish swimming abnormally or erratically, fish lying
lethargically at the water surface or in shallow water, fish that are listless or nonresponsive to
disturbance, the stunting, wilting, or desiccation of non-target submerged or emergent aquatic
plants, and other dead or visibly distressed non-target organisms including amphibians, turtles,
and macro-invertebrates. These observations must be noted unless they are deemed not to be
aberrant (for example, distressed non-target fish are to be expected when conducting a treatment
with rotenone and non-target vegetation will be stressed near the target of contact herbicides). It
should be noted that observation of these impacts does not necessarily imply that a pesticide has
been misused or that there has been a permit violation or an instance of noncompliance, but may
provide cause for further investigation of local water quality or reconsideration of Best
Management Practices. Not reporting such incidents, however, is a permit violation.
Complete information concerning adverse impacts will aid EPA in any review of current
or future pesticide use, adherence to Best Management Practices, or effectiveness of Best
Management Practices. Reporting of adverse incidents is not required under this permit in the
following situations: (1) you are aware of facts that clearly establish that the adverse incident
was not related to toxic effects or exposure from the pesticide application; (2) you have been
notified in writing by EPA that the reporting requirement has been waived for this incident or
category of incidents; (3) you receive information notifying you of an adverse incident but that
information is clearly erroneous; (4) an adverse incident occurs to pests that are similar in kind to
pests identified as potential targets on the FIFRA label. However, records of all visual
inspections, even for these situations, must be kept on site with the permittee.
6.5 Reportable Spills and Leaks
Part 6.5.1 requires permittees to call the appropriate EPA Incident Reporting Contact to
report any spill or leak of a hazardous substance or oil into waters of the U.S with 24 hours of
becoming aware of the spill or leak 20 Part 6.5.2 requires permittees to document this
notification within 5 days of becoming aware of such spill or leak. This documentation provides
a written record of what you reported to EPA orally. It should also include a description of the
reporting system that will be used to alert responsible managers and legal authorities in the event
of a future spill or leak and a description of preventive measures to prevent, contain, or treat
spills and leaks of these materials. Part 6.4.3 requires permittees to notify either the National
Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if the permittee becomes aware of
an incident that may have resulted from a discharge from your pesticide application that
adversely affects a federally-listed threatened or endangered species or its federally-designated
20 Reportable Spills and Leaks are defined as those that trigger the requirement to notify the National
Response Center(40 CFR Parts 110, 117,302)based on the type of pollutant and quantity released.
97
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
critical habitat. This information will be used by EPA to ascertain compliance with permit
conditions.
6.6 Other Corrective Action Documentation
For any event described in Part 6.1 of the permit, other than for adverse incidents or
reportable spills or leaks, immediate reporting to EPA is not required, but permittees must
document basic information describing the event and the permittees' response to that event
within 5 days. For triggering events in Part 6.1, where the permittee determines that any revision
to control measures is not necessary, the permittee must still document the review and the basis
for this determination. EPA is not requiring permittees to submit this documentation to the
Agency. Rather, EPA expects permittees to retain this information on-site and upon request, to
make any such records available to EPA or any other Federal, state, or local regulatory agency
governing pesticide applications. A summary of this information must also be included in the
annual report for permittees subject to the annual reporting requirement.
7. Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting
This permit requires operators to maintain certain records to help them assess
performance of control measures and to document compliance with permit conditions. These
requirements are consistent with Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(j), but have been tailored
to more closely reflect requirements of the PGP. Part 7 of this permit describes recordkeeping
requirements for all operators and the requirements for certain operators (i.e., those large
applicators that are required to submit an NOI). Operators can rely on records and documents
developed for other programs, such as requirements under FIFRA, provided all requirements of
the permit are satisfied.
This permit requires those who will exceed the annual treatment area threshold in Part
1.2.2. to keep additional records and to submit an annual report. EPA recommends that all
operators keep records of acres of linear miles treated each calendar year for all applicable use
patterns covered under this general permit. This record will help operators estimate when they
will exceed the annual treatment area threshold. As explained in the NO1 discussion,the total
acres or linear miles should not include those acres/miles accounted for in another operator's
NOI.
The records that must be kept by all operators, specifically the entity who has operational
control over the decision to perform pesticide applications, include the following:
• A copy of the permit;
• Adverse incident reports; and
• Rationale for any determination that reporting of an identified adverse incident is not
required consistent with allowances identified in Part 6.4.1.
• A copy of any corrective action documentation (See Part 6.6)
As noted above, operators who are required to submit an NOI must keep additional
records. These records are listed below and identified in Section 7.2 of the permit. Section 7.2
of the permit applies to the entity submitting the NOI and to any pesticide applicator hired by
such entity to perform activities covered under the permit. Records of equipment maintenance
and calibration are to be maintained only by the entity performing the pest management activity
98
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
on behalf of self or client.
a. A copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between you and
EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a copy of the EPA acknowledgment letter
assigning your permit tracking number;
b. The date on which you knew or should have known that you would exceed an annual
treatment area threshold during any calendar year, as identified in Part 1.2.2;
c. Surveillance method(s) used, date(s) of surveillance activities, and findings of
surveillance;
d. Target pest(s);
e. Pest density prior to pesticide application;
f. Company name and contact information for pesticide applicator;
g. Pesticide application date(s);
h. Description of treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of
treatment area and identification of any waters, either by name or by location, to which you
discharged any pesticide(s);
i. Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number;
j. Quantity of pesticide applied (and specify if quantities are for the pesticide product as
packaged or as formulated and applied)
k. Concentration (%) of active ingredient in formulation;
I. For pesticide applications directly to waters, the effective concentration of active
ingredient required for control;
m. Any unusual or unexpected effects identified to non-target organisms;
n. Documentation of any equipment cleaning, calibration, and repair(to be kept by pesticide
application equipment operator);
o. A copy of your PDMP, including any modifications made to the PDMP during the term
of this permit.
All required records must be prepared as soon as possible but no later than 14 days
following completion of the associated activity. Operators must retain copies of these documents
for a period of at least 3 years from the date their coverage under this permit expires or is
terminated. The recordkeeping requirements in Appendix B, Subsection B.12 include a more
general statement of the NPDES standard condition for records retention, but does not impose
additional requirements on the operator above what is required in Part 7.
In addition to recordkeeping, EPA is requiring certain operators (i.e., those larger
applicators that are also required to submit an NOI) to submit annual reports that contain basic
information on their pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. EPA expects to have an online
system available in time for submission of the first annual reports (in early 2012) with the intent
of streamlining the process for completing this permit obligation.
The annual report must include information for the calendar year, with the first annual
report required to include activities for the portion of the calendar year after the effective date of
the NOI. If the effective date of the NOI is after December 1, he/she is not required to submit an
annual report for that first partial year but must submit annual reports thereafter, with the first
annual report submitted also including information from the first partial year. When an operator
terminates permit coverage, as specified in Part 1.2.5, the operator must submit an annual report
for the portion of the year up through the date of the termination. The annual report is due no
later than 45 days after the termination date, or February 15 of the following year, whichever is
99
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
earlier.
This information in the annual report will be used by EPA to assess permit compliance
and to determine whether additional controls on pesticide discharges are necessary to protect
water quality. For example, these data will help the Agency identify where pesticide discharges
are occurring and the types of pesticides being discharged.
The annual report is a summary of the pest control activities for each applicable use
pattern. The annual report must contain the following information specific to each pest treatment
area covered under the permit:
a. Identification of any waters or other treatment area, including size, either by name or by
location, to which you discharged any pesticide(s);
b. Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, aquatic weeds and algae,
aquatic nuisance animals, or forest canopy) and target pest(s);
c. Company name(s) and contact information for pesticide applicator(s), if different from
the NOI submitter;
d. Total amount of each pesticide product applied for the reporting year by the EPA
registration number(s) and by application method (e.g., aerially by fixed-wing or rotary
aircraft, broadcast spray, etc.);
e. Whether this pest control activity was addressed in your PDMP prior to pesticide
application;
f. If applicable, an annual report of any adverse incidents as a result of these treatment(s),
for incidents, as described in Part 6.4.1; and
g. A description of any corrective action(s), including spill responses, resulting from
pesticide application activities and the rationale for such action(s).
8. EPA Contact and Mailing Addresses
This part of the permit identifies contact information and mailing addresses for any
applicable reporting requirements of this permit. Note that depending on the requirement, some
reports/notifications are to go to the EPA Regional office while others are to be sent to an EPA
Headquarters location. Generally, Regions are notified for information that may require rapid
review and response by the Region to address potential adverse effects or other concerns
requiring more immediate attention.
9. Permit Conditions Applicable to Specific States, Indian Country Lands, or
Territories
Part X of the final PGP will contain conditions provided by States and Tribes as part of
the Clean Water Act(CWA) Section 401 certification and consistent with the Coastal Zone
Management Act(CZMA).
Section 401 of the CWA provides that all Federally-issued permits be certified by the
state in which the discharge occurs. The state certifies that the proposed permit will comply with
state water quality standards and other state requirements. Additionally, Section 401 provides
that any certification under the Act shall set forth any effluent limitations and other limitations,
and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any applicant for a Federal license or
100
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
permit will comply with any applicable effluent limitations and other limitations, standard of
performance, or prohibition, effluent standard, or pretreatment standard, and with any other
appropriate requirement of State and Tribal law set forth in such certification and shall become a
condition on any Federal permit subject to the provisions of this section.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and its implementing regulations (15 CFR
Part 930) require that any Federal licensed activity directly affecting the coastal zone of a state
with an approved Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) be consistent with the
enforceable policies of that approved program to the maximum extent practicable. Agency
general permits that do not involve case-by-case or individualized determinations by the Agency
are federal activities for the purposes of CZMA section 307(c)(1). For the final PGP, EPA will
make a consistency determination regarding the enforceable policies in each approved state CZM
program for the coastal zones including state waters where the PGP would authorize discharges.
15 CFR 930.31(d).
Those provisions are not included in the draft PGP but will be included in the final PGP.
10. Appendices
A. Definitions and Acronyms
Appendix A of the Permit provides permit-specific definitions of statutory, regulatory,
and other terms important for understanding this draft permit and its requirements. Any terms
that are not listed in this definitions part have the meaning given to the terms by 40 CFR Part
122.2 (the definitions section of the NPDES regulations). To develop these definitions, EPA has,
where possible, relied on existing definitions in other laws and regulations applicable to this
universe of permittees in order to provide consistency with those laws and provide permittees
with a familiar framework.
B. Standard Permit Conditions
Federal regulations require that all NPDES permits contain the standard permit
conditions specified in 40 CFR 122.41. Appendix B incorporates those standard conditions with
some minor revisions to more clearly address pesticide application operations covered under the
PGP. Of note, Subsection B.l in Appendix B explains the permittee's duty to comply with the
conditions of the permit with failure to do so constituting a violation of the Clean Water Act.
C. Areas Covered
As noted above, this permit is available in those areas where EPA remains the NPDES
permitting authority for discharges from the application of pesticides to or over, including near,
waters of the U.S. NPDES-authorized states issue permits elsewhere in the U.S. for these types
of discharges. Appendix C includes a list of those areas where this EPA permit is available for
such discharges and includes portions of all ten EPA Regions where EPA remains the NPDES
permitting authority. One important note to acknowledge is that the State of Alaska has received
authorization to administer the NPDES program; however, EPA and the State established a
three-year phase-in schedule that does not have the State issuing permits for discharges from
101
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
pesticide applicators until November 1, 2011. As the court decision only granted a stay until
April 9, 2011, EPA is including discharges from pesticide applications in Alaska in this permit
such that permit coverage is available at least between April 9,2011 and November 1, 2011.
D. Notice of Intent Form
Part 1.2.2 identifies certain operators required to prepare and submit a complete and
accurate Notice of Intent(NO1) form to be authorized to discharge under this permit. Operators
must submit NOls in accordance with the deadlines provided in Part 1.2.3 of the PGP. The NOI
form provides EPA with the information necessary to determine an operator's eligibility to
discharge under this permit, and enables EPA to better match up permittees with other reporting
requirements and to prioritize oversight activities. Appendix D of the PGP contains information
that is required to be provided on the NOI form. Operators are required to submit that
information electronically using EPA's eNOI system (website URL to be provided in the final
permit but will be similar to EPA's Vessel General Permit eNO1 site at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/enoi.cfm and EPA's stormwater general permit eNO1 site at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/enoi.cfm). EPA is using the eNOI system because it is
easier(including availability of online instructions and help menus to guide you through the
process), faster(NOls can be processed 2 weeks or more faster than paper forms), and more
accurate(eNOI will ensure form is completed and will auto check certain key elements to
improve accuracy of information submitted).
E. Notice of Termination Form
Part 1.2.5 of the PGP requires certain permittees (i.e.,those required to submit an NOI to
be authorized under this permit)to submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) form within 30 days
of the occurrence of one of several different triggering events: (1) when a new operator has taken
over responsibility for the pest treatment, (2)the operator has ceased aquatic pesticide
application covered under the general permit, (3) there is not and no longer will be pesticide
discharge, or (4)the operator has obtained coverage under an individual permit or an alternative
general permit. Appendix E of the PGP contains a copy of the information required to be
submitted on the NOT form. Like the NOI, EPA is requiring that operators complete and submit
the NOT form electronically using EPA's eNOI system, (website URL to be provided in final
permit).
F. Endangered Species Procedures
Background
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act(ESA) requires each Federal agency, in
consultation with and with the assistance of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), collectively "the Services," to ensure that the actions
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species (referred to as "listed species") or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of their designated critical habitats.
The Services have published regulations implementing ESA section 7 at 50 CFR Part
402. The regulations provide that a Federal agency (such as EPA) must consult with FWS,
102
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
NMFS, or both if the agency determines that an activity authorized, funded, or carried out by the
agency may affect listed species or critical habitat. The kinds of effects that trigger the
consultation obligation could include, among other things, beneficial, detrimental, direct and
indirect effects. EPA believes the issuance of the PGP may affect listed species and is thus
subject to the ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation requirements.
Current Action
EPA is consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) on this general permit, which may result in the addition of permit
conditions to further protect:
- Species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as endangered or threatened
(known as "listed species");
- Listed species' habitat that is designated under the ESA as critical ("critical habitat"); and
- Species proposed, but not yet listed as endangered or threatened, or habitat proposed, but not
yet listed as designated critical habitat.
EPA initiated informal consultation with the Services in October 2009 and continues to
work closely with them to meet the Agency's obligation to insure that issuance of the PGP will
not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitats.
As a result of EPA's discussions with the Services, EPA has proposed three provisions in
the draft permit to address ESA-related concerns. First, if an operator is required to file an NO1
to be eligible for coverage, the operator must provide information in the NOI relating to the
possibility that the pesticide activities covered by the permit will overlap with the distribution of
listed species or critical habitat. If such overlap is expected and the pesticide activities have not
been the subject of consideration by the appropriate Service under ESA sections 7 or 10, the
operator must identify the species and habitat within the areas for which the operator is seeking
permit coverage. (See the Notice of Intent requirements in Appendix D of the draft permit.) The
Agency proposes to transmit to the appropriate Service a copy ofNOls received pursuant to the
general permit. Second, Part 6.4.3 of the draft permit would require any permittee who becomes
aware of an adverse effect on any listed species to report that information not only to EPA (as is
already required under Parts 6.4.1 and 6.4.2), but also to the appropriate Service. Information
submitted pursuant to either of these provisions could lead EPA to impose on a permittee
additional restrictions to protect listed species or critical habitat. Finally, Part 1.6.2 of the draft
permit contains a provision that makes clear that an operator must comply with requirements
resulting from any pre-existing consultations under ESA section 7 or"take permits" under ESA
section 10 that address any discharges from activities that would be covered under this general
permit.
The general permit also includes a placeholder in Part 1.6.1 noting that the Agency is
working with the Services to identify possible additional permit conditions (i.e., effluent
limitations, site monitoring, planning, corrective action, recordkeeping, and/or reporting) to
reduce the risks to listed species and critical habitat from actions under this permit in addition to
documenting the actions necessary and that were taken to protect species and critical habitat. In
developing these additional requirements, EPA is considering how best to draft these
103
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
requirements so that they apply to operators whose activities may affect listed species or their
critical habitat, while not imposing requirements on operators when their activities would not
affect listed species or critical habitat. EPA is also considering how best to draft these permit
provisions so that compliance with permit terms that may require operators to further minimize
or eliminate pesticide use in certain circumstances does not result in operators taking actions that
would cause greater harm to listed species and their habitats than would otherwise result from
the application of pesticide discharges consistent with the conditions in the draft PGP.
Based on the results of consultation with the Services, it may be necessary to add
additional effluent limitations to the permit. Effluent limitations such as those identified below
are examples of what EPA is considering, should they be necessary, to protect listed species and
their habitat. The limitations described below reflect two general approaches that may be
appropriate for inclusion in the PGP: a) where practicable, avoid the discharge of any pesticide in
areas where it could adversely affect listed species adversely; or b) when avoiding pesticide
discharge is impracticable, select the types of pesticide and the method of application that will
minimize adverse effects. In the FR notice announcing this draft permit, EPA is requesting
comment on appropriate measures to protect listed species, including the potential provisions
described below.
1. For aquatic weeds and algae control upstream of threatened and endangered species habitat,
explore the use of mechanical or physical control methods before applying pesticides. In
many cases, manual removal of weeds would be less harmful than applying pesticides.
2. Consider treating vegetation early in the season and the vegetation growth stage to minimize
the build-up of nuisance vegetation, and to minimize the depletion of dissolved oxygen from
decaying vegetation at these times unless listed species are present only at this time.
3. In cases where listed species use a waterbody for specific periods, if practicable, control pests
when these organisms are not present.
4. Treat only a portion of a waterbody at a time, allowing the possibility that more mobile
organisms will move away from the treatment area, if such a step-wise treatment would
provide for adequate pest control. Depending on the type of organism, using some type of
exclosure or deterrence measures in or near the treated area prior to treatment may reduce
likelihood of species being exposed. For instance, in areas upstream of areas containing
listed salmonids, consider the use of block nets to deter movement of fish into the treatment
area.
5. In cases where pesticides are applied upstream, or in a pond-like environment draining into
waters occupied by listed species, consider the retention time of the treated areas,
degradation rate of the pesticide and/or the dilution capacity of the receiving waters to
minimize exposure of listed species to pesticides.
104
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
APPENDIX A. List of pesticides and degradates which exceeded aquatic-life benchmarks
in the USGS study and the draft CA Central Valley Regional 303(d) impairment list of
pesticides.
Table Al. List of all pesticides and degradates
which exceeded aquatic-life benchmarks in the
USGS study
Percentage of sites that
exceed one or more
aquatic-life benchmarks
Agricultural
Pesticide/Degradate sites Urban Sites
Chlorpyrifos 20.5 36.7
Azinphos-methyl p ho s-methyl 19.3 13.3
Atrazine 18.1 --
p,p-DDE 15.7 13.3
Alachlor 14.5 --
Diazinon 8.4 73.3
Malathion 7.2 30.0
Parathion-methyl 7.2 3.3
Carbofuran 6.0 --
Disulfoton 2.4 --
Diuron 2.4 6.7
Methomyl 2.4 --
Thiobencarb 2.4 --
Carbaryl 1.2 13.3
Dieldrin 1.2 3.3
Molinate 1.2 --
Parathion 1.2 6.7
Phorate 1.2 --
Propargite 1.2 --
Terbufos 1.2 --
105
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Table A2. Pesticides/Degradates that are listed as 303(d) impairments from the CA Central
Valley (Draft 2008 list)
Pesticide/Degradate #of WQS being exceeded
impairments
Aldicarb 1 Narrative toxicity and pesticide objectives—one-tenth the 48-hr
LC50 Chironomus tentans.
Azinphos-methyl 3 Narrative toxicity and pesticide objectives—USEPA ambient
water quality criteria(USEPA, 1976).
Bifenthrin 1 Narrative toxicity and pesticide objectives-one tenth the 96 hour
LC50 for Haylella azteca.
Carbofuran 1 Narrative toxicity and pesticide objectives—USEPA
recommended water quality criterion for the protection of
freshwater aquatic life.
Chlorpyrifos 63 Numeric site-specific water quality objective for chlorpyrifos or
narrative toxicity and pesticides objective—exceedance of I-hour
and/or 4-day average maximum concentration criterion above the
allowable frequency.
Copper(not all from 18 Exceedance of 4-day average maximum concentration criterion
pesticide sources) above the allowable frequency;or exceedance of California
Toxics Rule criteria.
Diazinon 46 Numeric site-specific water quality objective for diazinon or
narrative toxicity and pesticides objectives—exceedances of(-
hour and/or 4-day average maximum concentration criterion
above the allowable frequency.
Dichlorvos 1 Narrative toxicity and pesticides objectives—one-tenth the 96-
hour LC50 for Daphnia magna.
Dimethoate 8 Narrative toxicity and pesticides objectives—one-tenth LC50 for
the most sensitive species in freshwater(Cyclops strenuus,a
copepod crustacean).
Disulfoton I Narrative toxicity and pesticides objectives—USEPA National
Ambient Water Quality Disulfoton Criterion for freshwater
aquatic life protection,maximum concentration of 0.05 ug/L.
Diuron 8 Narrative toxicity and pesticides objectives—the 96-hour EC50
for Chlorella pyrenoidosa(1.3 ug/L).
Malathion 3 Narrative toxicity and pesticides objectives—The USEPA
recommended 4-day average criterion continuous concentration
(CCC)(0.1 ug/L)(USEPA, 1976). The California Department of
Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criterion 1-hr average
concentration(CMC)(0.43 ug/L)(CDFG, 1998)..
Organophosphorus 1 Narrative toxicity and pesticides objectives—Toxicity and
Pesticides chemistry results indicating organophosphorus pesticide toxicity..
Oxyflurofen 2 Narrative toxicity and pesticides objectives—the 96-hour EC50
for Selenastrum capricornutum,a green algae.
cis-Permethrin 1 Narrative toxicity and pesticides objectives—one-tenth the LC50
value for the most sensitive freshwater species,Tanytarsus sp.
Prometryn I Narrative toxicity objective;96-hour EC50 value for Navicula
pelliculosa,a freshwater diatom.
Pyrethroids 13 Narrative toxicity objective; sediment-bound toxicity;chemical
analysis;and TIE manipulations indicate pyrethroid pesticides are
the likely cause.
Simazine 4 Drinking water primary Maximum Contaminant Limit(MCL)(4
µg/L).
106
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Table A2. Pesticides/Degradates that are listed as 303(d) impairments from the CA Central
Valley (Draft 2008 list)
Pesticide/Degradate # of WQS being exceeded
impairments
Trifluralin 1 Narrative toxicity and pesticides objectives; interpreted using
LOEC for Pimephales promelas of 0.7 ug/L.
107
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Appendix B. Chemicals with exceedances in USGS study and subsequent mitigation
measures that reduce pesticide residues in water
Chemical Action Date
Alachlor Reduced maximum application rates and frequency of 1998 Reregistration
application; Restricted Use Pesticide; 50 foot setback Eligibility Decision
from waters for mixing and loading; state management (RED)
plan; spray drift advisory; monitoring program.
Atrazine Intensive monitoring program 2003 Interim
Reregistration
Eligibility Decision
(IRED)
Diuron Powder formulations cancelled; reduction in application 2003 RED
Used monitoring data from rates and number of applications; no aerial applications
USGS,Florida&California for most crops; no treatment of home lawns
Thiobencarb Application restrictions for LA, TX; label restrictions for 1997 RED
catfish/crayfish farming; 14-day holding periods for rice
farming; mixing and loading restrictions within 100 ft of
water; no applications within 24 hr of rainfall
Azinphos-methyl All uses to be phased out by 2012; until such time, the 2001 IRED
following measures imposed: buffer zones; limit
maximum usage and frequency; spray drift requirements;
prohibit aerial application on most crops; limit maximum
usage and frequency
Carbaryl Lawn broadcast uses of liquid formulations cancelled; 2003 IRED
certain other uses and application methods cancelled;
reduced application rates for some uses; prohibit most
aerial applications
Carbofuran Most uses cancelled;for remaining six uses the Agency 2006 IRED
plans to issue a Notice of Intent to Cancel.
Chlorpyrifos Residential uses cancelled; agricultural use restrictions 2001 IRED
including reduced application rates and fewer
applications per season, increase in retreatment intervals
and addition of buffer zones around water bodies
Diazinon Residential uses and granular uses cancelled; aerial 2002 IRED
application cancelled; seed treatment uses cancelled
Disulfoton Cancelled some uses; reduced application rates and 2002 IRED
frequency of application for certain crops; buffers zones
near water; aerial application prohibited;Notice of
Receipt of Voluntary Cancellation of all Product
Registrations published 7/22/09. Product Cancellation
Order published September 23, 2009.
108
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Chemical Action Date
Malathion Some uses cancelled; reduced application rates and 2006 RED; 2009
frequency of application for many crops; 25 and 50 foot RED Revision
buffer zones for non-ULV and ULV aerial applications
near water; droplet size and application altitude
specifications for mosquito adulticide use; spray drift
minimization label statements for agricultural and public
health products; environmental hazard precautionary
label statements required for agricultural, public health,
and residential products
Methomyl Reduced maximum applications rates; buffer zones; use 1998 RED
rate restrictions; ground water and surface water
advisories
Methyl Parathion Cancelled several fruit and vegetable uses; mixing and 2003 IRED
loading away from water; reduced application rates and
number of applications
Phorate Reduced application rates and number of applications; 2001 IRED
prohibit aerial applications; buffer zones; setbacks from
wells
Propargite Reduced maximum rates and number of applications; 50 2001 RED
ft buffer; spray drift label requirement
Terbufos Buffer zones and setbacks; reduction in sales; limited 2001 IRED
mixing and loading near water
Lindane All uses cancelled except seed treatment(2002 RED); all 2002 RED; 2006
remaining uses cancelled effective 7/07 RED Addendum
Heptachlor/Heptachlor All uses cancelled 1978 Cancellation
Epoxide
Chlordane All uses cancelled 1978 Cancellation
Molinate All uses cancelled over 5 year period - 2008 effective 2003 Voluntary
date Cancellation
All uses cancelled; all products phased out by 2003 2000 Cancellation
Ethyl Parathion
Dinoseb All uses cancelled 1986 Cancellation
Cyanazine All uses cancelled 1996 Cancellation
109
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Chemical Action Date
DDT/DDE All uses cancelled 1972 Cancellation
Dieldrin All uses cancelled 1974 Cancellation
Toxaphene All uses cancelled
1982 Cancellation
Methoxychlor All uses cancelled
2004 Cancellation
Endrin All uses cancelled
1995 Cancellation
110
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
APPENDIX C
Summary of Pesticide-Specific Exceedance Data and Risk Mitigation Actions
• Of the 75 pesticides and 8 degradates analyzed, 19 pesticides in use at the time of the
study were measured at concentrations that exceeded EPA benchmarks: 5 herbicides
(alachlor, atrazine, diuron, molinate, and thiobencarb) and 13 insecticides (azinphos-
methyl, carbaryl, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, disulfoton, malathion, methomyl,
parathion, methyl parathion, phorate, propargite, and terbufos).
• In addition, DDE, a degradate of DDT, was detected at levels in approximately 20
streams that exceeded EPA benchmarks.
• The uses for five pesticides (diuron, diazinon, chlorpyrifos, parathion, and DDT
(degradate DDE)) detected by USGS have been cancelled or significantly limited.
• 5 pesticides accounted for the majority of the exceedances: alachlor, azinphos-methyl,
chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion. These pesticides are discussed in more detail
below:
Alachlor
Summary of USGS Findings:
• For alachlor, there were 14 instances where alachlor measured concentrations exceeded a
benchmark. Usage of alachlor declined along with number of exceedances throughout
the study and following the issuance of EPA's RED in 1998, there were no exceedances
observed in the last 3 years of the study (1999—2001).
Azinphos Methyl
Summary of USGS Findings:
• For azinphos-methyl, there were 15 instances where azinphos-methyl measured
concentrations exceeded a benchmark. All uses of azinphos methyl will be phased out by
2012.
Atrazine
History:
• Registered in 1958 as a triazine herbicide
• Initiated special review based on carcinogenic potential in 1988
• Risk reduction measures voluntarily initiated by registrant in 1990s
• Special review for triazines initiated in 1994
• January 2003 IRED specified mitigation measures to reduce risk, including intensive
drinking water monitoring of 125 vulnerable CWS
• October 2003 Addendum to IRED concluded not likely to be a human carcinogen;
specified ecological monitoring and mitigation program for vulnerable
watersheds; and, consistent with FIFRA-SAP review, concluded that available data does
not establish atrazine caused developmental effects on amphibians
• Cumulative triazine assessment to be issued later this year and may identify further risk
mitigation options
111
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
Review Process:
• Extensive public participation review process during reregistration
• Extensive consultation with federal, state, and local regulatory partners, registrants,
pesticides users, public interest groups, and other stakeholders
• SAP review of Agency's cancer assessment and ecological risk assessment for
amphibians
Mitigation Measures:
• Product use changes required in January, 2003 IRED to reduce exposure to workers
and exposure from residential uses
• Intensive and targeted monitoring program of drinking water(raw water at 125 CWS in
areas of atrazine use); if atrazine exceeds EPA's safety standards, use will be prohibited
in affected watershed area; complemented by routine SDWA monitoring of finished
drinking water and rural well monitoring study
• Ecological monitoring and risk mitigation within 40 representative vulnerable watersheds
associated with corn and sorghum production. If watershed exceeds level of concern,
remediation measures will be required, and need for further expansion of monitoring will
be considered.
• Implementation of testing program to evaluate potential risk to amphibians
• Continue to review ongoing epidemiology and cancer studies and amphibian studies
Summary of USGS Findings:
• Only 4 exceedances in agricultural streams for the aquatic community benchmark were
observed.
Atrazine Ecological Monitoring Program
• As a condition of reregistration, the registrant must conduct a monitoring program. The
purpose of program is to determine the extent to which water bodies in the most
vulnerable watersheds may exceed an effects-based benchmark. If a water body exceeds
a benchmark, it will be subject to mitigation measures through registrant actions,
regulatory options, and/or TMDL-like watershed management programs.
• Endpoint of concern or benchmark is change in aquatic community structure, based in
part, on a large number of microcosm and mesocosm studies for atrazine. This is the
most sensitive endpoint and considers direct effects on fish and invertebrates and indirect
effects on habitat and food sources.
• The FIFRA risk assessment and draft atrazine aquatic life criteria are based on the same
endpoint and were jointly prepared.
• 40 representative vulnerable watersheds in corn/sorghum areas (Midwest) are being
monitored. Monitoring in the Midwest sites will occur over three years (2004-2006) and
each watershed will have a minimum of two years worth of data. Each watershed is
sampled every 4 days; some watersheds are sampled daily.
• 4 vulnerable watersheds in sugarcane growing areas (LA, FL) will be monitored;
sugarcane monitoring sites will have two years of data from 2005-2006.
• EPA scientists are reviewing the first 5 years of Midwest data and 2 years of the
sugarcane data for Louisiana. Preliminary analysis suggests that measured
112
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
concentrations of atrazine in Missouri and Nebraska exceeded the Agency's LOC. The
Agency is evaluating the sugarcane data and has not yet made a determination on those
results.
Atrazine Drinking Water Monitoring Program
• As a condition of reregistration, the registrant must monitor over 130 Community Water
Systems (CWSs) in areas of atrazine use in 10 states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Missouri,North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Louisiana.) If atrazine is detected
above Agency standards for raw water,the use will be prohibited in that specific
watershed area.
• Weekly monitoring through the growing season (generally April through July)with
biweekly monitoring for the rest of the year.
• Both raw and finished water are being monitored; some CWSs have more than one raw
water source measured.
• There were no exceedances of the human health benchmark, which is 37.5 ppb atrazine
and its degradates based on a 90-day average in raw water.
Chlorpyrifos
History and Mitigation Measures
• Registered in 1965 as an Organophosphate ("OP") insecticide
• MOA signed with registrant in January 1997 to reduce indoor exposures
• MOA signed with registrant in June 2000 to eliminate and phase out most uses that result
in residential exposure (home lawns, indoor crack and crevice treatments, and whole
house post-construction termiticide treatments). These actions also mitigated risks to
workers who apply chlorpyrifos and reduced risks to the environment.
• IRED issued in February 2002 included additional provisions to further reduce worker
and ecological risks through label changes that included worker protection measures,
buffer zones around water bodies, and rate reductions for agricultural uses.
Summary of USGS Findings:
• Chlorpyrifos exceedances were observed in approximately 20 of the agricultural streams,
10 of the mixed land-use streams, and 14 of the urban streams predominantly in the
period of 1993-1994.
• For chlorpyrifos, there were 46 instances where chlorpyrifos measured concentrations
exceeded a benchmark which were predominantly observed in the period of 1993-1994.
Urban uses for chlorpyrifos have been banned in 2000, and in 2002 agricultural uses were
changed to mitigate potential aquatic effects.
• Chlorpyrifos levels have decreased significantly since the June 2000 MOA was signed
and residential uses were eliminated
Diazinon
History and Mitigation Measures:
• MOA with registrant signed in December 2000; phased out and cancelled all indoor and
outdoor residential uses.
113
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 NPDES Pesticides General Permit Fact Sheet
• IRED issued in May 2004 included additional measures for the remaining agricultural use
products to further reduce risks to workers, birds and the environment. These measures
included cancellation of certain crop uses, terminating most uses of the granular
formulation, deleting most aerial applications, reducing the amount and frequency of use,
adopting engineering controls, and other protective measures.
• EPA's regulatory activities have eliminated about 75% of diazinon's former uses,
particularly its residential uses.
• Final water quality criteria was issued by Office of Water in 2006
USGS Results:
• Diazinon exceedances were observed in approximately 10 agricultural streams, 10 mixed
land-use streams, and 20 urban streams.
• The vast majority of exceedances were associated with potential aquatic invertebrate
effects.
• For diazinon, there were 44 sites where diazinon measured concentrations exceeded a
benchmark.
• Since urban uses of diazinon were cancelled in 2000, concentrations have decreased
significantly in urban and mixed land-use streams. A recent regional USGS study of
diazinon shows declining concentrations in several urban streams in the Northeast during
1998-2004.
Malathion
Summary of USGS Findings:
• For malathion, there were 27 instances where malathion measured concentrations
exceeded a benchmark.
• The revision of the malathion RED was completed in 2009. Mitigation required by the
RED will reduce maximum application rates and the number of applications allowed
annually when labels are revised during product reregistration, which is currently
underway.
114
COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS)
FACT SHEET FOR PERMIT NUMBER COG860000
GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES FROM APPLICATIONS OF PESTICIDES
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
Introduction and Schedule
EPA and many states that are delegated Clean Water Act permitting authority are preparing
general permits to provide coverage for discharges from applications of pesticides for the first
time. This is being done to comply with a Court Decision that requires discharges from
applications of pesticides to have permit coverage beginning April 10, 2011. The Division has
intended to develop and issue a CDPS general permit that models EPA's general permit, with the
few notable exceptions described in this fact sheet, for some time. The Division had planned to
conduct the permit drafting and notice process after EPA had issued their final permit. However,
EPA's schedule for issuance has recently changed and the Division determined that it would be
more appropriate to move forward with the permit drafting and notice process expeditiously in
order to be able to provide permit coverage beginning April 10, 2011. Because of the
timeframes involved in the drafting and notice process and the lack of availability of EPA's final
permit, the Division is publishing this draft General Permit for public notice which has been
modeled based on EPA's draft permit that was published for public notice on June 2, 2010.
EPA received public comments on the draft permit for 45 days. During that time the agency held
four public meetings and a webcast. EPA received approximately 750 sets of comments on their
draft permit and has made those available on the intemet. The Division has determined that in
this case it is appropriate for the period of public comment to close 31 days from the date of
notice of the draft permit, or February 28, 2011. In order for the Division to provide permit
coverage beginning April 10, 2011, the Division must issue a final permit no later than March
11, 2011 to provide 30 days prior to the permit becoming effective for the right to appeal.
Therefore, the Division would not be able to issue a draft permit, hold a public meeting, and
comply with a state regulatory requirement more stringent than the federal contained in
61.5(2)(d)to extend the close of the public comment period to 60 days from the date of notice of
the draft permit in situations where a public meeting is held. The Division also determined that a
public meeting is not necessary in this case, since the Division is using EPA's permit as a model,
EPA held several public meetings and a webcast, the Division intends to receive and review
written comments, and the Division anticipates that comments provided on the CDPS permit will
generally be consistent with comments EPA received on their draft permit. On this basis, the
Division determined that it was appropriate to not schedule and notice a public meeting as part of
this notice of availability of the draft permit and start of the 31 day comment period on the draft
permit.
Based on the current schedule, the Division plans to have EPA's final issued permit, fact sheet,
and response to comments available at the close of the comment period on February 28, 2011.
The Division intends to review the comments received during this public comment period to
determine whether they are consistent with comments that EPA received on their draft permit.
The Division intends to model its review of and response to comments received based on EPA's,
1
and make changes to the general permit and fact sheet consistent with EPA's final permit and
fact sheet, again with the few notable exceptions described in this fact sheet.
Summary of Changes from EPA's draft Permit
The Division has modeled this draft permit after EPA's draft permit with the following
exceptions.
No Application. The Division is not requiring entities seeking coverage under this
permit to submit an application, or notice or intent, for any discharges associated with
applications of pesticides authorized under this permit. In their draft, EPA had no
requirement to submit an application, for a subset of discharges authorized under their
permit. The authority to provide coverage under a general permit without a requirement
to submit an application is found at 61.9(2)(b)(ii)(E), which conforms to the federal
requirements found at 40 CFR 122.28 (b)(2)(v). In making their determination, EPA
analyzed the factors that must be considered prior to making a no application
determination and then exercised its discretion and did not require a subset of operators to
submit NOls. The Division has relied upon EPA's analysis of the factors, and expands
that analysis with additional information. The Division is exercising its discretion to not
require an application because the Division does not have the resources to receive and
process applications. The development and implementation of a new general permit to
authorize 1,000's of pesticide applications in Colorado is a substantial undertaking. For
example: (1) According to EPA's projections, this will result in a 30% increase in the
number of permits for EPA and state permitting programs; and (2)According to a recent
letter to EPA by the State of North Carolina,the statewide costs of pest control will
increase by about 100% (increase of$5.4 million/year) in order to comply with the
proposed EPA pesticide permit. As a practical matter the Division does not have staff
available to receive applications, does not have a database available to enter the
information, and does not have staff available to review the adequacy of applications and
process those as appropriate to authorize permit coverage. The Division included a
requirement in this permit to submit a Certification of Compliance to the Division which
will provide another means of identifying the subset of discharges covered under this
permit that would have been required to submit an application or Notice of Intent if EPA
were the permitting authority rather than the Division.
No Termination. Requirements to Submit a Notice of Termination were removed from
the permit as they were determined to be unnecessary since there is no requirement to
submit an application for any discharges associated with applications of pesticides
authorized under this permit
Requirement for Submission of a Certification of Compliance. The Division included
a requirement in this permit to submit a Certification of Compliance to the Division. This
was included to provide a means other than a permit application of identifying the subset
of discharges covered under this permit that would be required to submit an application
under EPA's permit. The Division also determined in accordance with the provisions of
61.8(3)(f)that this condition is necessary to ensure compliance with the technology based
2
requirements of the state and federal act. The certification of compliance is required to
be submitted for the subset of discharges required to implement Integrated Pest
Management Practices(IPMs) and document those practices in a Pesticide Discharge
Management Plan in order to ensure that those operators are aware of and are complying
with those conditions in the General Permit.
No Annual Report. Requirements to submit an annual report were removed from the
permit as the Division does not have the resources available including staff and a
database to receive, log in, review, and store copies of those documents. The Division
determined that the requirement for a Certification of Compliance provided another
means for the same subset of discharges to certify that they are in compliance with the
terms and conditions of the permit.
Permit Term. The Division intends to issue a short term 2 year permit. The duration of
the term is based on the time frame the Division anticipates will be required to obtain the
resources necessary to implement state level implementation of the NPDES program
requirements for this category of discharges, including permitting, data management, and
compliance assurance. The Division determined that a short term permit is appropriate
because it will be necessary to revisit the terms and conditions of the pesticide permit at
that time, including the requirement to submit an application, commensurate with
resources available to implement the program elements.
Editorial Changes. The Division made the following editorial changes in the draft
permit: substitution of the Division as the responsible agency, replacement of waters of
the U.S. with surface waters of the state, and removal of text singularly related to EPA
and pertaining to marine waters. The Division understands that it is necessary to replace
federal regulatory citations with conforming state regulatory citations, but did not take
the time to make these changes to the draft permit. The Division intends to issue the final
permit with state regulatory citations instead of federal citations. No changes are made to
EPA's Fact Sheet, which is provided as the remainder of the Division Fact Sheet to
document the basis of the terms and conditions of the CDPS permit. As applicable,the
basis for the conditions of the CDPS permit which are different than the conditions in the
EPA permit that is described in this preface supersedes the basis described in EPA's fact
sheet(attached as Appendix A).
Janet Kieler
January 28, 2011
3
Permit No. COG860000
CDPS GENERAL PERMIT
FOR
DISCHARGES FROM APPLICATIOSN OF PESTICIDES
COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, (25-
8-101 et seq., CRS, 1973 as amended), facilities engaged in applications of pesticides
are authorized to discharge from locations throughout the State of Colorado to
surface waters of the state. Such discharges shall be in accordance with conditions
of this general permit.
Any party may demand an adjudicatory hearing within thirty (30) days of the date
of issuance of the final permit determination, per the Colorado Discharge Permit
System Regulations,61.7(1). Should the party choose to contest any of the effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements or other conditions contained herein, the party
must comply with Section 24-4-104 CRS and the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations. Failure to contest any such effluent limitation, monitoring
requirement, or other condition, constitutes consent to the condition by an operator.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, April 9,
2013.
Issued and Signed this day of 2011.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
PUBLIC NOTICE
VERSION OF PERMIT
Janet Kieler,Permits Section Manager
Water Quality Control Division
Permit No. COG860000
Table of Contents
1.0 Coverage under This Permit
2.0 Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
3.0 Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
4.0 Site Monitoring
5.0 Pesticide Discharge Management Plan
6.0 Corrective Action
7.0 Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting
8.0 State Contact Information and Mailing Addresses
Appendix A- Definitions and Acronyms
Appendix B - Standard Permit Conditions
Appendix C- Notice of Intent Form
Permit No. COG860000
1.0 Coverage under This Permit. This permit covers any operator that meets
the eligibility requirements identified in Part 1.1 An operator, defined in
Appendix A, generally includes both (1)the entity with control over the
financing for, or the decision to perform pesticide applications, including the
ability to modify those decisions, that results in a discharge to waters of the
United States (U.S.) and (2) the entity with day-to-day operational control of
or who performs activities (e.g., the application of pesticides)that are
necessary to ensure compliance with the permit(e.g., they are authorized to
direct workers to carry out activities required by the permit or perform such
activities themselves). As such, more than one operator may be responsible
for compliance with this permit for any single discharge from the application
of pesticides.
1.1 Eligibility
1.1.1 Activities Covered. This permit is available to operators who discharge to
surface waters of the state from the application of(1) biological pesticides or
(2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue(hereinafter collectively
"pesticides"), when the pesticide application is for one of the following
pesticide use patterns:
a. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control—to control public
health/nuisance and other flying insect pests that develop or are present
during a portion of their life cycle in or above standing or flowing water.
Public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests in this use category
include but are not limited to mosquitoes and black flies.
b. Aquatic Weed and Algae Control—to control invasive or other nuisance
weeds and algae in water and at water's edge, including irrigation ditches
and/or irrigation canals.
c. Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control—to control invasive or other nuisance
animals in water and at water's edge. Aquatic nuisance animals in this use
category include, but are not limited to fish, lampreys, and mollusks.
d. Forest Canopy Pest Control - aerial application of a pesticide over a
forest canopy to control the population of a pest species (e.g., insect or
pathogen) where to target the pests effectively a portion of the pesticide
unavoidably will be applied over and deposited to water.
1.1.2 Limitations on coverage
1.1.2.1 Discharges to Water Quality Impaired Waters. You are not eligible for
coverage under this permit for any discharges from a pesticide application to
surface waters of the state if the water is identified as impaired by that
pesticide or its degradates. For purposes of this permit, impaired waters are
Permit No. COG860000
those that have been identified by the Water Quality Control Commission to
Section 303(d) of the CWA as not meeting applicable State water quality
standards. Impaired waters for the purposes of this permit include both waters
with EPA-approved or EPA-established Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) and waters for which EPA has not yet approved or established a
TMDL. A list of these waters is available on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/. If your discharge would not be eligible under
this permit because the water is listed as impaired for that specific pesticide,
but you have evidence that shows the water is no longer impaired, you may
submit this information to the Division and request that coverage be allowed
under this permit.
1.1.2.2 Discharges to Waters Designated as Tier 3 for Antidegradation Purposes.
You are not eligible for coverage under this permit for discharges from a
pesticide application to waters designated by Colorado as Outstanding Waters
for anti-degradation purposes under 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3) (see a list of these
waters in geographic areas covered under this permit on Colorado's website at
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/Assessment/TMDL/TMDLs.html
1.1.2.3 Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by another Permit. You are
not eligible for coverage under this permit if any of the following
circumstances apply:
a. The discharges are covered by another CDPS permit, or
b. The discharges were included in a permit that within the last five years has
been or is in the process of being denied, terminated, or revoked by the
Division (this does not apply to the routine reissuance of permits every
five years).
1.2 Authorization to Discharge under This Permit
1.2.1 How to Obtain Authorization. To obtain authorization under this permit, an
operator must meet the eligibility requirements identified in Part 1.1,
Operators meeting the eligibility provisions outlined in Part 1.1 are
automatically authorized to discharge after April 9, 2011, in compliance with
the requirements of this permit without submission of an NOI.
1.2.2 Discharge Authorization Date. Beginning April 10, 2011, you must be
covered under a CDPS permit for discharges to surface waters of the state as a
result of the application of a pesticide. Operators are authorized to discharge
under this permit immediately
1.2.3 Continuation of this Permit. If this permit is not reissued or replaced prior
to the expiration date, it will be administratively continued in accordance with
40 CFR 122.6 and remain in force and effect. If you were authorized to
discharge under this permit prior to the expiration date, any discharges
2
Permit No. COG860000
authorized under this permit will automatically remain covered by this permit
until the earliest of:
a. Your authorization for coverage under a reissued permit or a replacement
of this permit following either automatic authorization under a reissued
permit or a replacement of this permit or your timely and appropriate
submittal of a complete NOI requesting authorization to discharge under a
new permit or replacement of this permit and compliance with the
requirements of the NOI
b. The issuance or denial of an individual permit for a discharge resulting
from application of a pesticide that would otherwise be covered under this
permit;
c. A formal permit decision by the Division not to reissue this general
permit, at which time the Division will identify a reasonable time period
for covered dischargers to seek coverage under an alternative general
permit or an individual permit. Coverage under this permit will cease
when coverage under another permit is granted/authorized; or
d. The Division has informed you that you are no longer covered under this
permit.
1.2.4 Terminating Coverage
Operators covered under this permit are terminated from permit coverage
when they no longer have a discharge from the application of pesticides or
their discharges are covered under a CDPS individual permit or alternative
CDPS general permit.
1.3 Alternative Permits
1.3.1 Division Requiring Coverage under an Alternative Permit. The Division
may require you to apply for and/or obtain authorization to discharge under
either an individual CDPS permit or an alternative CDPS general permit in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.64 and 124.5. If the Division requires you to
apply for an individual CDPS permit,the Division will notify you in writing
that a permit application is required. This notification will include a brief
statement of the reasons for this decision and will provide application
information. In addition, if you are an operator whose discharges are
authorized under this permit,the notice will set a deadline to file the permit
application, and will include a statement that on the effective date of the
individual CDPS permit, or the alternative general permit as it applies to you,
coverage under this general permit will terminate. The Division may grant
additional time to submit the application if you submit a request setting forth
reasonable grounds for additional time. If you are covered under this permit
3
Permit No. COG860000
and fail to submit an individual CDPS permit application as required by the
Division, then the applicability of this permit to you is terminated at the end of
the day specified by the Division as the deadline for application submittal.
The Division may take enforcement action for any unpermitted discharge or
violation of any permit requirement.
1.3.2 Operator Requesting Coverage under an Alternative Permit. If you do not
want to be covered by this general permit, but need permit coverage, you can
apply for an individual permit. In such a case, you must submit an individual
permit application in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
122.26(c)(1)(ii), with reasons supporting the request, to the Division at the
address listed in Part 8 of this permit. The request may be granted by issuance
of an individual permit or authorization of coverage under an alternative
general permit if your reasons are warranted.
When an individual CDPS permit is issued to you or you are authorized under
an alternative CDPS general permit to discharge a pollutant to surface waters
of the state as a result of a pesticide application, your authorization to
discharge under this permit is terminated on the effective date of the
individual permit or the date of authorization of coverage under the alternative
general permit.
1.4 Severability. Invalidation of a portion of this permit does not render the
whole permit invalid. The Division's intent is that the permit will remain in
effect to the extent possible; in the event that any part of this permit is
invalidated, the remaining parts of the permit will remain in effect unless the
Division issues a written statement otherwise.
1.5 Other Federal and State Laws. You must comply with all other applicable
federal and state laws and regulations that pertain to your application of
pesticides. For example, this permit does not negate the requirements under
FIFRA and its implementing regulations to use registered pesticides consistent
with the product's labeling. Additionally, there are other laws and regulations
that may apply to certain activities that are also covered under this permit(i.e.
regulations of the Colorado Department of Agriculture).
1.6 Federally-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Designated
Critical Habitat.
1.6.1 Additional Requirements to Protect Listed Species and Critical Habitat.
[Procedures to assist in protecting listed species and critical habitat are
currently being considered by EPA in consultation with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
under section 7 of the ESA. Additional discussion of the nature of permit
4
Permit No. COG860000
conditions being discussed for incorporation into the final permit is provided
in Part II1.10.F of the permit fact sheet.]
1.6.2 Compliance with Any Pre-Existing ESA Actions. You must comply with
all conditions and/or requirements that address discharges from activities also
covered under this permit resulting from any pre-existing:
a. ESA Section 7 consultation that you have completed with FWS and/or
NMFS, and/or
b. ESA Section 10 permit issued to you by FWS and/or NMFS.
[The Division may include additional effluent limitations and/or
recommendations specific to protection offederally listed threatened and
endangered species and federally-designated critical habitat based on
ongoing consultation with FWS.]
2.0 Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
To meet the effluent limitations in Part 2, you must implement site-specific
control measures that minimize discharges of pesticides to surface waters of
the state.
The terms "minimize" and "control measure" are defined in Appendix A.
2.1. Minimize Pesticide Discharges to Surface Waters of the State. All
operators must minimize the discharge of pollutants resulting from the
application of pesticides. All operators must also do the following:
2.1.1. Use the lowest effective amount of pesticide product per application and
optimum frequency of pesticide applications necessary to control the target
pest, consistent with reducing the potential for development of pest resistance;
2.1.2. Perform regular maintenance activities to reduce leaks, spills, or other
unintended discharges of pesticides associated with the application of
pesticides covered under this permit; and
2.1.3. Maintain pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition by
adhering to any manufacturer's conditions and industry practices, and by
calibrating, cleaning, and repairing such equipment on a regular basis to
ensure effective pesticide application and pest control. You must ensure that
the equipment's rate of pesticide application is calibrated to deliver the precise
quantity of pesticide needed to achieve greatest efficacy against the target
pest.
5
Permit No. COG860000
2.2. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Practices
This Part applies to any entity that is required to submit a Certification of
Compliance, as required in Part 7.4, including any pesticide applicator hired
by such entity or any other employee, contractor, subcontractor or other agent.
If your discharge of pollutants results from the application of a pesticide that
is being used solely for the purpose of"pesticide research and development,"
as defined in Appendix A, you are not required to fully implement Part 2.2 for
such discharge, but you still must implement Part 2.2 to the extent that its
requirements do not compromise the research design.
Note: Part 5 of this permit requires any operator that is required to submit a
Certification of Compliance and comply with the provisions of Part 2.2 to also
develop a written Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP)to document
measures taken to meet the effluent limits.
2.2.1. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control
This part applies to discharges from the application of pesticides for mosquito
and other flying insect pest control as defined in Part 1.1.1.
2.2.1.1. Identify the Problem. Prior to the first pesticide application covered under
this permit that will result in a discharge to surface waters of the state and at
least once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application
for that calendar year, you must do the following for each pest management
area, as defined in Appendix A:
2.2.1.1.1 Establish densities for larval and adult mosquito or flying insect pest
populations to serve as action threshold(s) for implementing pest management
strategies;
2.2.1.1.2 Identify target mosquito or flying insect pest species to develop species-
specific pest management strategies based on developmental and behavioral
considerations for each species;
2.2.1.1.3 Identify known breeding sites for source reduction, larval control program,
and habitat management;
2.2.1.1.4 Analyze existing surveillance data to identify new or unidentified sources of
mosquito or flying insect pest problems as well as sites that have recurring
pest problems; and
2.2.1.1.5 In the event there are no data for your pest management area in the past
calendar year, see Part 5 for documentation requirements regarding why
current data are not available and the data you used to meet the permit
conditions in Part 2.2.1.1.
6
Permit No. COG860000
2.2.1.2 Pest Management. Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this
permit that will result in a discharge to surface waters of the stateand at least
once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for
that calendar year, you must select and implement, for each pest management
area, efficient and effective means of pest management that minimize
discharges resulting from application of pesticides to control mosquitoes or
other flying insect pests. In developing these pest management strategies, you
must evaluate the following management options, considering impact to water
quality, impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, and cost
effectiveness:
a. No action
b. Prevention
c. Mechanical or physical methods
d. Cultural methods
e. Biological control agents
f. Pesticides
2.2.1.3 Pesticide Use. If a pesticide is selected to manage mosquitoes or flying insect
pests and application of the pesticide will result in a discharge to a surface
waters of the state, you must:
2.2.1.3.1 Conduct larval and/or adult surveillance prior to each pesticide application to
assess the pest management area and to determine when action threshold(s)
are met that necessitate the need for pest management;
2.2.1.3.2 Assess environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, precipitation, and wind
speed) in the treatment area prior to each pesticide application to identify
whether existing environmental conditions support development of pest
populations and are suitable for control activities;
2.2.1.3.3 Reduce the impact on the environment and on non-target organisms by
applying the pesticide only when the action threshold has been met;
2.2.1.3.4 In situations or locations where practicable and feasible for efficacious
control, use larvicides as a preferred pesticide for mosquito or flying insect
pest control when larval action thresholds have been met; and
2.2.1.3.5 In situations or locations where larvicide use is not practicable or feasible for
efficacious control, use adulticides for mosquito or flying insect pest control
when adult action thresholds have been met.
2.2.2 Aquatic Weed and Algae Control
This part applies to discharges from the application of pesticides for aquatic
weed and algae control as defined in Part 1.1.1.
2.2.2.1 Identify the Problem. Prior to the first pesticide application covered under
this permit that will result in a discharge to surface waters of the stateand at
least once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application
7
Permit No. COG860000
for that calendar year you must do the following for each pest management
area, as defined in Appendix A:
2.2.2.1.1 Identify areas with aquatic weed or algae problems and characterize the extent
of the problems, including, for example,water use goals not attained (e.g.
wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, and recreation);
2.2.2.1.2 Identify target weed species;
2.2.2.1.3 Identify possible factors causing or contributing to the weed or algae problem
(e.g., nutrients, invasive species, etc);
2.2.2.1.4 Establish past or present aquatic weed or algae densities to serve as action
threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies; and
2.2.2.1.5 In the event there are no data for your pest management area in the past
calendar year, see Part 5 for documentation requirements regarding why
current data are not available and the data you used to meet the permit
conditions in Part 2.2.1.1.
2.2.2.2 Pest Management. Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this
permit that will result in a discharge to surface waters of the state, and at least
once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for
that calendar year, you must select and implement, for each pest management
area, efficient and effective means of pest management that minimize
discharges resulting from application of pesticides to control aquatic weeds or
algae. In developing these pest management strategies, you must evaluate the
following management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to
non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, and cost effectiveness:
a. No action
b. Prevention
c. Mechanical or physical methods
d. Cultural methods
e. Biological control agents
f. Pesticides
2.2.2.3 Pesticide Use. If a pesticide is selected to manage aquatic weeds or algae and
application of the pesticide will result in a discharge to surface waters of the
state, you must:
2.2.2.3.1 Conduct surveillance prior to each pesticide application to assess the pest
management area and to determine when the action threshold is met that
necessitates the need for pest management; and
2.2.2.3.2 Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by applying
the pesticide only when the action threshold has been met.
8
Permit No. COG860000
2.2.3 Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control
This part applies to discharges from the application of pesticides for aquatic
nuisance animal control as defined in Part 1.1.1.
2.2.3.1 Identify the Problem. Prior to the first pesticide application covered under
this permit that will result in a discharge to surface waters of the stateand at
least once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application
for that calendar year, you must do the following for each pest management
area, as defined in Appendix A:
2.2.3.1.1 Identify areas with aquatic nuisance animal problems and characterize the
extent of the problems, including, for example, water use goals not attained
(e.g. wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, and recreation);
2.2.3.1.2 Identify target aquatic nuisance animal species;
2.2.3.1.3 Identify possible factors causing or contributing to the problem (e.g.,
nutrients, invasive species);
2.2.3.1.4 Establish past or present aquatic nuisance animal densities to serve as action
threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies; and
2.2.3.1.5 In the event there are no data for your pest management area in the past
calendar year, see Part 5 for documentation requirements regarding why
current data are not available and the data you used to meet the permit
conditions in Part 2.2.1.1.
2.2.3.2 Pest Management. Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this
permit that will result in a discharge to surface waters of the state, and at least
once each year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application during that
calendar year, you must select and implement, for each pest management area,
efficient and effective means of pest management that minimize discharges
resulting from application of pesticides to control aquatic nuisance animals.
In developing these pest management strategies, you must evaluate the
following management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to
non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, and cost effectiveness:
a. No action.
b. Prevention
c. Mechanical or physical methods
d. Biological control agents
e. Pesticides
2.2.3.3 Pesticide Use. If a pesticide is selected to manage aquatic nuisance animals
and application of the pesticide will result in a discharge to surface waters of
the state, you must:
9
Permit No. COG860000
2.2.3.3.1 Conduct surveillance prior to each application to assess the pest management
area and to determine when the action threshold is met that necessitates the
need for pest management; and
2.2.3.3.2 Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by
evaluating site restrictions, application timing, and application method in
addition to applying the pesticide only when the action threshold has been
met.
2.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control
This part applies to discharges from the application of pesticides for forest
canopy pest control as defined in Part 1.1.1.
2.2.4.1 Identify the Problem. Prior to the first pesticide application covered under
this permit that will result in a discharge to waters of the state, and at least
once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application in that
calendar year, you must do the following for each pest management area, as
defined in Appendix A:
2.2.4.1.1 Establish target pest densities to serve as action threshold(s)for implementing
pest management strategies;
2.2.4.1.2 Identify target species to develop a species-specific pest management strategy
based on developmental and behavioral considerations for each species;
2.2.4.1.3 Identify current distribution of the target pest and assess potential distribution
in the absence of control measures; and
2.2.4.1.4 In the event there are no data for your pest management area in the past
calendar year, see Part 5 for documentation requirements regarding why
current data are not available and the data you used to meet the permit
conditions in Part 2.2.1.1.
2.2.4.2 Pest Management. Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this
permit that will result in a discharge to surface waters of the stateand at least
once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for
that calendar year, you must select and implement for each pest management
area efficient and effective means of pest management that minimize
discharges resulting from application of pesticides to control forestry pests. In
developing these pest management strategies, you must evaluate the following
management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to non-
target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, and cost effectiveness:
a. No action
b. Prevention
c. Mechanical/physical methods
d. Cultural methods
e. Biological control agents
f. Pesticides
10
Permit No. COG860000
2.2.4.3 Pesticide Use. If a pesticide is selected to manage forestry pests and
application of the pesticide will result in a discharge to surface waters of the
state, you must:
2.2.4.3.1 Conduct surveillance prior to each application to assess the pest management
area and to determine when the pest action threshold is met that necessitates
the need for pest management;
2.2.4.3.2 Assess environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, precipitation, and wind
speed) in the treatment area to identify conditions that support target pest
development and are conducive for treatment activities;
2.2.4.3.3 Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by
evaluating the restrictions, application timing, and application methods in
addition to applying the pesticide only when the action thresholds have been
met; and
2.2.4.3.4 Evaluate using pesticides against the most susceptible developmental stage.
3.0 Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
Your discharge must be controlled as necessary to meet applicable numeric
and narrative state water quality standards.
If at any time you become aware, or the Division determines, that your
discharge causes or contributes to an excursion of applicable water quality
standards, you must take corrective action as required in Part 6.
4.0 Site Monitoring
4.1 Monitoring Requirements for Pesticide Applicators. You must monitor the
amount of pesticide applied to ensure that you are using the lowest amount to
effectively control the pest, consistent with reducing the potential for
development of pest resistance. You must also monitor your pesticide
application activities to ensure you are performing regular maintenance
activities and to ensure that your application equipment is in proper operating
condition to reduce the potential for leaks, spills, or other unintended
discharge of pesticides to surface waters of the state Additionally, you must
monitor your pesticide application activities to ensure that the application
equipment is in proper operating condition by adhering to any manufacturer's
conditions and industry practices, and by calibrating, cleaning, and repairing
equipment on a regular basis.
4.2 Visual Monitoring Requirements for all Operators. All operators covered
under this permit must conduct spot checks in the area to and around where
pesticides are applied for possible and observable adverse incidents, as
defined in Appendix A, caused by application of pesticides, including but not
limited to the unanticipated death or distress of non-target organisms and
II
Permit No. COG860000
disruption of wildlife habitat, recreational or municipal water use. Visual
assessments of the application site must be performed:
a. During any post-application surveillance or efficacy check that you
conduct, if surveillance or an efficacy check is conducted.
b. During any pesticide application, when considerations for safety and
feasibility allow.
5.0. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan
This Part applies to any operator required to submit a Certification of
Compliance, as required in Part 7.4. Some sections of the Pesticide
Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) will require input from the pesticide
applicator.
If you are required to submit a Certification of Compliance, you must prepare
a PDMP for your pest management area. You must keep the plan up-to-date
thereafter for the duration of coverage under this general permit, even if your
discharges subsequently fall below the applicable Certification of Compliance
threshold. You must develop a PDMP consistent with the deadline outlined in
Table 3 below.
Table 3. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan Deadline Category PDMP Deadline
Operators not required to submit a Certification of Not applicable
Compliance.
Operators who know or should have reasonably Prior to first pesticide application
known,prior to commencement of discharge,that they covered under this permit.
will exceed an annual treatment area threshold
identified in Part 7.4 for that year.
Operators who do not know or would reasonably not Prior to exceeding an annual
know until after commencement of discharge,that they treatment area threshold.
will exceed an annual treatment area threshold
identified in Part 7.4 for that year.
Operators commencing discharge in response to a No later than 90 days after
declared pest emergency situation as defined in responding to declared pest
Appendix A that will cause the operator to exceed an emergency situation.
annual treatment area threshold.
The PDMP does not contain effluent limitations; the limitations are contained
in Parts 2 and 3 of the permit. The PDMP documents how you will implement
the effluent limitations in Parts 2 and 3 of the permit, including your
evaluation and selection of control measures to meet those effluent limitations
and minimize discharges. In your PDMP, you may incorporate by reference
any procedures or plans in other documents that meet the requirements of this
12
Permit No. COG860000
permit. If you rely upon other documents to describe how you will comply
with the effluent limitations in this permit, such as a pre-existing integrated
pest management(IPM) plan, you must attach to your PDMP a copy of any
portions of any documents that you are using to document your
implementation of the effluent limitations. All operators subject to the
effluent limitations described above must implement control measures to
satisfy the effluent limitations in Parts 2 and 3. This includes the operator
who submitted the Certification of Compliance as well as any employees,
contractors, subcontractors, or other agents. The control measures
implemented must be documented and the documentation must be kept up-to-
date.
5.1 Contents of Your Pesticide Discharge Management Plan
Your PDMP must include the following elements:
a. Pesticide Discharge Management Team
b. Pest Management Area Description
c. Control Measure Description
d. Schedules and Procedures
1. Pertaining to Control Measures Used to Comply with the Effluent
Limitations in Part 2
a. Application Rate and Frequency Procedures
b. Spill Prevention Procedures
c. Pesticide Application Equipment Procedures
d. Pest Surveillance Procedures
e. Assessing Environmental Conditions Procedures
2. Pertaining to Other Actions Necessary to Minimize Discharges
a. Spill Response Procedures
b. Adverse Incident Response Procedures
c. Pesticide Monitoring Schedules and Procedures
e. Documentation to Support Eligibility Considerations under Other Federal
Laws
f. Signature Requirements.
5.1.1 PDMP Team. You must identify all the persons (by name and contact
information) that compose the team as well as each person's individual
responsibilities, including:
a. Person(s) responsible for managing pests in relation to the pest
management area
b. Person(s) responsible for developing and revising the PDMP;
c. Person(s) responsible for developing, revising, and implementing
corrective actions and other effluent limitation requirements ; and
d. Person(s) responsible for pesticide applications. If the pesticide applicator
is unknown at the time of plan development, indicate whether or not a for-
13
Permit No. COG860000
hire applicator will be used and when you anticipate that you will identify
the applicator.
Identification of team members must include any written agreement(s)
between you and any other operator(s), such as a for-hire pesticide applicator,
that specify the division of responsibilities between operators as necessary to
comply with the provisions of this permit.
5.1.2 Pest Management Area Description. You must document the following:
a. Pest problem description. Document a description of the pest problem at
your pest management area, including identification of the target pest(s),
source of the pest problem, and source of data used to identify the problem
in Parts 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4.
b. Action Threshold(s). Describe the action threshold(s) for your pest
management area, including a description of how they were determined.
c. General location map. In the plan, include a general location map (e.g.,
USGS quadrangle map, a portion of a city or county map, or other map)
that identifies the geographic boundaries of the area to which the plan
applies and location of the waters of the U.S.; and
d. Water quality standards. Document the water quality standards applicable
to waters to which there may be a discharge, including the list of
pesticide(s) or any degradates for which the water is impaired.
5.1.3 Control Measure Description. You must document your evaluation of
control measures for your pest management area. You must document the
control measures you will implement to comply with the effluent limitations
required in Parts 2 and 3. Include in the description the active ingredient(s)
evaluated.
5.1.4 Schedules and Procedures. You must document the following schedules and
procedures in your PDMP:
5.1.4.1 Pertaining to Control Measures Used to Comply with the Effluent Limitations
in Part 2. The following must be documented in your PDMP:
a. Application Rate and Frequency. (Part 2.1.1) Procedures for determining
the lowest effective amount of pesticide product per application and the
optimum frequency of pesticide applications necessary to control the
target pest, consistent with reducing the potential for development of pest
resistance;
b. Spill Prevention. (Part 2.1.2) Procedures and schedule of maintenance
activities for preventing spills and leaks of pesticides associated with the
application of pesticides covered under this permit.
14
Permit No. COG860000
c. Pesticide Application Equipment. (Part 2.1.3) Schedules and procedures
for maintaining the pesticide application equipment in proper operating
condition, including calibrating, cleaning, and repairing the equipment.
d. Pest Surveillance. (Parts 2.2.1.3, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.3.3, and 2.2.4.3) Procedures
and methods for conducting pre- application pest surveillance.
e. Assessing Environmental Conditions. (Parts 2.2.1.3.2 and 2.2.4.3.3)
Procedures and methods for assessing environmental conditions in the
treatment area.
5.1.4.2 Pertaining to Other Actions Necessary to Minimize Discharges. The
following must be documented in your PDMP:
a. Spill Response Procedures—At a minimum you must have:
1. Procedures for expeditiously stopping, containing, and cleaning up
leaks, spills, and other releases. Employees who may cause, detect, or
respond to a spill or leak must be trained in these procedures and have
necessary spill response equipment available. If possible, one of these
individuals should be a member of your PDMP team.
2. Procedures for notification of appropriate facility personnel,
emergency response agencies, and regulatory agencies.
b. Adverse Incident Response Procedures—At a minimum you must have:
1. Procedures for responding to any incident resulting from pesticide
applications;
2. Procedures for notification of the incident, both internal to your
agency/organization and external. Contact information for the
Division nearest emergency medical facility, and nearest hazardous
chemical responder must be in locations that are readily accessible and
available.
c. Pesticide Monitoring Schedules and Procedures—You must document
procedures for monitoring consistent with the requirements in Part 4
including:
1. The process for determining the location of any monitoring;
2. A schedule for monitoring;
3. The person (or position) responsible for conducting monitoring; and
4. Procedures for documenting any observed impacts to non-target
organisms resulting from your pesticide discharge.
5.1.5 Signature Requirements. You must sign, date and certify your PDMP in
accordance with Appendix B, Subsection B.11.
15
Permit No. COG860000
5.2 Pesticide Discharge Management Plan Modifications. You must modify
your PDMP whenever necessary to address any of the triggering conditions
for corrective action in Part 6.1 or when a change in pest control activities
significantly changes the type or quantity of pollutants discharged. Changes
to your PDMP must be made before the next pesticide application that results
in a discharge, if practicable, or if not, as soon as possible thereafter. The
revised PDMP must be signed and dated in accordance with Appendix B,
Subsection B.l1.
You must review your PDMP at a minimum once per calendar year and
whenever necessary to update the pest problem identified and pest
management strategies evaluated for your pest management area.
5.3 Pesticide Discharge Management Plan Availability. You must retain a
copy of the current PDMP, along with all supporting maps and documents, at
the address provided in Section 111.3 of the Certification of Compliance. The
PDMP and all supporting documents must be readily available, upon request,
and copies of any of these documents provided, upon request, to the Division
and representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The
Division may provide copies of your PDMP or other information related to
this permit that is in its possession to members of the public. Any Confidential
Business Information (CBI), as defined in 40 CFR Part 2, may be withheld
from the public provided that a claim of confidentiality is properly asserted
and documented in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2; however, CBI must be
submitted to the Division, if requested, and may not be withheld from those
staff within the Division or FWS cleared for CBI review.
6.0 Corrective Action
6.1 Situations Requiring Revision of Control Measures. If any of the
following situations occur, you must review and, as necessary, revise the
evaluation and selection of your control measures to ensure that the situation
is eliminated and will not be repeated in the future:
a. An unauthorized release or discharge associated with the application of
pesticides (e.g., spill, leak, or discharge not authorized by this or another
CDPS permit) occurs;
b. You become aware, or the Division concludes, that your control measures
are not adequate/sufficient for the discharge to meet applicable water
quality standards;
c. Any monitoring activities indicate that you failed to:
1. Use the lowest amount of pesticide produce per application and
optimum frequency of pesticide applications necessary to control the
16
Permit No. COG860000
target pest, consistent with reducing the potential for development of
pest resistance;
2. Perform regular maintenance activities to reduce leaks, spills, or other
unintended discharges of pesticides associated with the application of
pesticides covered under this permit; or
3. Maintain pesticide application equipment in proper operating
condition by adhering to any manufacturer's conditions and industry
practices, and by calibrating, cleaning, and repairing such equipment
on a regular basis to ensure effective pesticide application and pest
control. You must ensure that the equipment's rate of pesticide
application is calibrated to deliver the precise minimum quantity of
pesticide needed to achieve greatest efficacy against the target pest.
d. An inspection or evaluation of your activities by a Division official reveals
that modifications to the control measures are necessary to meet the non-
numeric effluent limits in this permit, or
e. You observe, for example, during visual monitoring that is required in Part
4.2, or are otherwise made aware of, an adverse incident, as defined in
Appendix A.
6.2. Corrective Action Deadlines. If you determine that changes to your control
measures are necessary to eliminate any situation identified in Part 6.1, such
changes must be made before the next pesticide application that results in a
discharge if practicable, or if not, as soon as possible thereafter.
6.3 Effect of Corrective Action. The occurrence of a situation identified in Part
6.1 may constitute a violation of the permit. Correcting the situation according to
Part 6.1 does not absolve you of liability for any original violation. However,
failure to comply with Part 6.1 constitutes an additional permit violation. The
Division will consider the appropriateness and promptness of corrective action in
determining enforcement responses to permit violations.
The Division or a court may impose additional requirements and schedules of
compliance, including requirements to submit additional information
concerning the condition(s) triggering corrective action or schedules and
requirements more stringent than specified in this permit. Those requirements
and schedules will supersede those of Part 6.1 if such requirements conflict.
6.4 Adverse Incident Documentation and Reporting
6.4.1 Twenty-Four (24) Hour Adverse Incident Notification
If you observe or are otherwise made aware of an adverse incident, as defined
in Appendix A, that may have resulted from a discharge from your pesticide
application, you must immediately notify the Division's Incident Reporting
Contact, as identified at
17
Permit No. COG860000
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/WhatsNew/SpillGuidanceDocument.pdf
This notification must be made by telephone within 24 hours of you becoming
aware of the adverse incident and must include at least the following
information:
a. The caller's name and telephone number;
b. Operator name and mailing address;
c. The name and telephone number of a contact person, if different than the
person providing the 24-hour notice;
d. How and when you became aware of the adverse incident;
e. Description of the location of the adverse incident;
f. Description of the adverse incident identified and the EPA pesticide
registration number for each product you applied in the area of the adverse
incident; and
g. Description of any steps you have taken or will take to correct, repair,
remedy, cleanup, or otherwise address any adverse effects.
If you are unable to notify the Division within 24 hours, you must do so as
soon as possible and also provide your rationale for why you were unable to
provide such notification within 24 hours.
The adverse incident notification and reporting requirements are in addition to
what the registrant is required to submit under FIFRA section 6(a)(2) and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 159.
Reporting of adverse incidents is not required under this permit in the
following situations:
(1) You are aware of facts that clearly establish that the adverse incident was
not related to toxic effects or exposure from the pesticide application.
(2) You have been notified in writing by the Division that the reporting
requirement has been waived for this incident or category of incidents.
(3) You receive information notifying you of an adverse incident but that
information is clearly erroneous.
(4) An adverse incident occurs to pests that are similar in kind to pests
identified as potential targets on the FIFRA label.
6.4.2 Five (5) Day Adverse Incident Written Report. Within five (5) days of a
reportable adverse incident pursuant to Part 6.4.1, you must provide a written
report of the adverse incident to the Division at the address listed in Part 8.
Your adverse incident report must include at least the following information:
18
Permit No. COG860000
a. Information required to be provided in Part 6.4.1;
b. Date and time you contacted and notified the Division of the adverse
incident and who you spoke with at the Division and any instructions you
received from the Division;
c. Location of incident, including the names of any waters affected and
appearance of those waters (sheen, color, clarity, etc);
d. A description of the circumstances of the adverse incident including
species affected, estimated number of individual and approximate size of
dead or distressed organisms;
e. Magnitude and scope of the effected area (e.g. aquatic square area or total
stream distance affected);
f. Pesticide application rate, intended use site (e.g., banks, above, or direct to
water), method of application, and name of pesticide product, description
of pesticide ingredients, and EPA registration number;
g. Description of the habitat and the circumstances under which the adverse
incident occurred (including any available ambient water data for
pesticides applied);
h. If laboratory tests were performed, indicate what test(s) were performed,
and when, and provide a summary of the test results within 5 days after
they become available;
i. If applicable, explain why you believe the adverse incident could not have
been caused by exposure to the pesticide;
j. Actions to be taken to prevent recurrence of adverse incidents; and
k. Signed and dated in accordance with Appendix B, Subsection B.l l.
You must report adverse incidents even for those instances when the pesticide
labeling states that adverse effects may occur.
6.4.3 Adverse Incident to Threatened or Endangered Species or Critical
Habitat
Notwithstanding any of the other adverse incident notification requirements of
this section, if you become aware of an adverse incident to a federally-listed
threatened or endangered species or its federally-designated critical habitat,
that may have resulted from a discharge from your pesticide application, you
must immediately notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) at XXX-
XXX-XXXX in the case of a terrestrial or freshwater species. This
notification must be made by telephone immediately upon your becoming
aware of the adverse incident and must include at least the following
information:
• The caller's name and telephone number;
• Operator name and mailing address;
• The name of the affected species;
• How and when you became aware of the adverse incident;
19
Permit No. COG860000
• Description of the location of the adverse incident;
• Description of the adverse incident, including the EPA pesticide
registration number for each product you applied in the area of the adverse
incident; and
• Description of any steps you have taken or will take to alleviate the
adverse impact to the species.
Additional information on federally-listed threatened or endangered species
and federally-designated critical habitat is available from FWS
(www.fws.eov) for terrestrial or freshwater species.
6.5 Reportable Spills and Leaks
6.5.1 Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge Notification
Where a leak, spill, or other release containing a hazardous substance or oil in an
amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity established under either 40
CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, or 40 CFR Part 302 occurs in any 24-hour
period,you must notify the National Response Center(NRC) immediately at
(800)424-8802 or, in the Washington,DC, metropolitan area, call (202) 267-
2675 in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117,
and 40 CFR Part 302 as soon as you have knowledge of the release. Contact
information must be in locations that are readily accessible and available in the
area where the spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge may occur.
State or local requirements may necessitate also reporting spills or leaks to local
emergency response,public health, or drinking water supply agencies.
6.5.2 Five-Day Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge Documentation
Within 5 days of you becoming aware of a spill, leak, or other unpermitted
discharge triggering the notification in Part 6.5.1,you must document and retain
the following information:
a. Information required to be provided in Part 6.5.1
b. Summary of corrective action taken or to be taken including date initiated and
date completed or expected to be completed;
c. Any measures to prevent recurrence of such a spill or leak or other
discharge, including notice of whether PDMP modifications are required
as a result of the spill or leak.
6.6 Other Corrective Action Documentation. For situations identified in Part
6.1, other than for adverse incidents (addressed in Part 6.4), or reportable
spills or leaks (addressed in Part 6.5), you must document the situation
triggering corrective action and your planned corrective action within five (5)
days of you becoming aware of that situation and retain a copy of this
documentation. This documentation must include the following information:
20
Permit No. COG860000
a. Identification of the condition triggering the need for corrective action
review, including any ambient water quality monitoring that assisted in
determining that discharges did not meet water quality standards;
b. Brief description of the situation;
c. Date the problem was identified.
d. Brief description of how the problem was identified and how the operator
learned of the situation and date the operator learned of the situation;
e. Summary of corrective action taken or to be taken including date initiated
and date completed or expected to be completed; and
f. Any measures to prevent reoccurrence of such an incident, including
notice of whether PDMP modifications are required as a result of the
incident.
7.0 Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting
You must keep written records as required in this permit. These records must
be accurate and complete and sufficient to demonstrate your compliance with
the conditions of this permit. You can rely on records and documents
developed for other obligations, such as requirements under FIFRA, and state
or local pesticide programs, provided all requirements of this permit are
satisfied.
The Division recommends that all operators covered under this permit keep
records of acres or linear miles treated for all applicable use patterns covered
under this general permit. The records should be kept up-to-date to help you
determine if you will meet the annual treatment area threshold during any
calendar year, as identified in Part 7.4.
7.1. All operators must keep the following records:
a. A copy of this permit(an electronic copy is also acceptable)
b. A copy of any Adverse Incident Reports (See Part 6.4.2)
c. Your rationale for any determination that reporting of an identified
adverse incident is not required consistent with allowances identified in
Part 6.4.1.
d. A copy of any corrective action documentation (See Part 6.6)
7.2. This part applies to any entity required to submit a Certification of
Compliance and to any pesticide applicator hired by such entity to perform
activities covered under this permit. Records listed below are required to be
kept at the address provided on the Certification of Compliance as identified
in Part 7.4. Records of equipment maintenance and calibration are to be
maintained only by the entity performing the pest application activity (on
behalf of self or client).
21
Permit No. COG860000
a. Any correspondence exchanged between you and the Division specific to
coverage under this permit,;
b. The date on which you knew or reasonably should have known that you
would exceed an annual treatment area threshold during any calendar year,
as identified in Part7.4;
c. Surveillance method(s) used, date(s) of surveillance activities, and
findings of surveillance;
d. Target pest(s);
e. Pest density prior to pesticide application;
f. Company name and contact information for pesticide applicator
g. Pesticide application date(s);
h. Description of treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear
feet) of treatment area and identification of any waters, either by name or
by location, to which you discharged any pesticide(s);
i. Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration
number;
j. Quantity of pesticide applied (and specify if quantities are for the pesticide
product as packaged or as formulated and applied)
k. Concentration (%) of active ingredient in formulation;
1. For pesticide applications directly to waters, the effective concentration of
active ingredient required for control;
m. Any unusual or unexpected effects identified to non-target organisms
n. Documentation of any equipment cleaning, calibration, and repair(to be
kept by pesticide application equipment operator);
o. A copy of your PDMP, including any modifications made to the PDMP
during the term of this permit.
7.3. All required records must be documented as soon as possible but no later than
14 days following completion of such activity. You must retain any records
required under this permit for at least 3 years from the date that your coverage
under this permit expires or is terminated. You must make available to the
Division, including an authorized representative of the Division, all records
kept under this permit upon request and provide copies of such records, upon
request.
7.4 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.
The following operators are required to submit a Certification of Compliance
to certify that they are operating in accordance with this general permit for
discharges to surface waters of the state resulting from the application of
pesticides:
a. If you are in control over the financing for, or over the decision to perform
pest control activities that will result in a discharge and know or reasonably
should have known that those activities will exceed one or more of the annual
22
Permit No. COG860000
(i.e., calendar year) treatment area thresholds listed in Table I below for the
"treatment area," as defined in Appendix A, or
If you apply pesticides that result in a discharge and know or reasonably
should have known that those activities will exceed one or more of the
pesticide application annual (i.e., calendar year) treatment area thresholds
listed in Table I below for the "treatment area," as defined in Appendix A.
To determine whether an entity's activities will exceed one or more of the
annual treatment area thresholds, the entity should exclude from its
calculation any pesticide application activities conducted under another
entity's permit coverage required under (a) above.
Table 1. Annual Treatment Area Thresholds
Permit
Pesticide Use Annual Threshold
2.2.1 Mosquitoes and Other Flying Insect Pests 640 acres of treatment area
Aquatic Weed and Algae Control:
2.2.2 - In Water 20 acres of treatment area'
- At Water's Edge: 20 linear miles of treatment area
at water's edge'
Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control:
2 2 3 - In Water 20 acres of treatment areal
20 linear miles of treatment area
- At Water's Edge at water's edge
2.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control 640 acres of treatment area
Calculations should include the area of the applications made to: (I)surface waters of the
state and(2)conveyances with a hydrologic surface connection to surface waters of the state
at the time of pesticide application. For calculating annual treatment area totals,count each
pesticide application activity as a separate activity. For example,applying pesticides twice a
year to a ten acre site should be counted as twenty acres of treatment area.
Calculations should include the linear extent of the application made at water's edge adjacent
to:(1)surface waters of the state and(2)conveyances with a hydrologic surface connection to
surface waters of the state at the time of pesticide application. For calculating annual
treatment totals,count each pesticide application activity and each side of a linear water body
as a separate activity or area. For example,treating both sides of a ten mile ditch is equal to
twenty miles of water treatment area.
Information required to be included in a Certification of Compliance is
provided in Appendix C. Operators must submit a Certification of
Compliance to the Division. Certification of Compliance submissions must be
in accordance with the deadlines below.
Category Certification of Compliance Submittal Deadline
Operators who know or should have reasonably At least 10 days prior to commencement of
known,prior to commencement of discharge,that discharge.
they will exceed an annual treatment area threshold
23
Permit No. COG860000
identified in Part 7.4 for that year.
Operators who do not know or would reasonably At least 10 days prior to exceeding an annual
not know until after commencement of discharge, treatment area threshold.
that they will exceed an annual treatment area
threshold identified in Part 7.4 for that year.
Operators commencing discharge in response to a No later than 30 days after commencement of
declared pest emergency situation as defined in discharge.'
Appendix A.
In the event that a discharge occurs prior to your submitting an Certification of Compliance,you must comply with all
other requirements of this permit immediately.
Timing for Certification of Compliance submittal is based on when an
operator is aware or reasonably should be aware through consideration of past
experience, planned activities, planning, and other analyses, that it will exceed
an annual treatment area threshold during the calendar year, not on the time
when the threshold is actually exceeded. For example, many large operators
have exceeded the threshold the last several years and have no reason to
believe activities will change such that they will not exceed these thresholds in
the future. For those operators, Certifications of Compliance are due prior to
commencement of any discharge under this permit.
8.0 Division Contact Information and Mailing Addresses
All Incident Reports under Part 6.4 must be sent within five(5) days of you
becoming aware of the adverse incident to the Division.
All other written correspondence concerning discharges covered under this
permit and directed to the Division, including individual permit applications,
must be sent to the address of the listed below in Part 8.1.
Note: If the Division notifies dischargers (either directly, by public notice, or
by making information available on the Internet) of other reporting options
that become available at a later date(e.g., electronic submission), operators
may take advantage of those options, in accordance with the instructions
provided by the Division to satisfy the reporting requirements of this permit.
8.1 Division Notifications
a. Oral Notifications, during normal business hours shall be to:
Compliance Assurance Section—Industrial Compliance Program
Water Quality Control Division
Telephone: (303) 692-3500
b. Written notification shall be to:
Compliance Assurance Section— Industrial Compliance Program
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
WQCD-WQP-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246-1530
24
Permit No. COG860000
Appendix A
Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms
A.1. DEFINITIONS
Action Threshold —The point at which pest populations or environmental conditions can
no longer be tolerated necessitating that pest control action be taken based on economic,
human health, aesthetic, or other effects. Sighting a single pest does not always mean
control is needed. Action thresholds help determine both the need for control actions and
the proper timing of such actions.
Active Ingredient—any substance (or group of structurally similar substances if
specified by the Agency)that will prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any pest, or that
functions as a plant regulator, desiccant, or defoliant within the meaning of FIFRA sec.
2(a). [40 CFR 152.3] Active ingredient also means a pesticidal substance that is
intended to be produced and used in a living plant, or in the produce thereof, and the
genetic material necessary for the production of such a pesticidal substance. [40 CFR
174.3]
Adverse Incident—means an incident that you have observed upon inspection or of
which you otherwise become aware, in which:
(1) A person or non-target organism may have been exposed to a pesticide
residue, and
(2) The person or non-target organism suffered a toxic or adverse effect.
The phrase "toxic or adverse effects" includes effects that occur within surface waters of
the state on non-target plants, fish or wildlife that are unusual or unexpected (e.g., effects
are to organisms not otherwise described on the pesticide product label or otherwise not
expected to be present) as a result of exposure to a pesticide residue, and may include:
- Distressed or dead juvenile and small fishes
- Washed up or floating fish
- Fish swimming abnormally or erratically
- Fish lying lethargically at water surface or in shallow water
- Fish that are listless or nonresponsive to disturbance
- Stunting, wilting, or desiccation of non-target submerged or emergent aquatic
plants
- Other dead or visibly distressed non-target aquatic organisms (amphibians, turtles,
invertebrates, etc.)
The phrase, "toxic or adverse effects," also includes any adverse effects to humans (e.g.,
skin rashes) or domesticated animals that occur either directly or indirectly from a
25
Permit No. COG860000
discharge to surface waters of the state that are temporally and spatially related to
exposure to a pesticide residue (e.g., vomiting, lethargy).
Best Management Practices (BMPs) —are examples of control measures that may be
implemented to meet effluent limitations. These include schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to
minimize the discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the state BMPs also include
treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control spillage or leaks,
waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. [40 CFR 122.2]
Biological Control Agents—These agents are organisms that can be introduced to your
sites, such as herbivores, predators, parasites, and hyperparasites. [Source: US FWS IPM
Guidance, 2004]
Biological Pesticides (also called biopesticides) - include microbial pesticides,
biochemical pesticides and plant-incorporated protectants (PIP). Microbial pesticide
means a microbial agent intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any
pest, or intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or dessicant,that(1) is a
eucaryotic microorganism including, but not limited to, protozoa, algae, and fungi; (2) is
a procaryotic microorganism, including,but not limited to, Eubacteria and
Archaebacteria; or(3) is a parasitically replicating microscopic element, including but not
limited to, viruses. [40 CFR 158.2100(b)] Biochemical pesticide mean a pesticide that
(1) is a naturally-occurring substance or structurally-similar and functionally identical to
a naturally-occurring substance; (2) has a history of exposure to humans and the
environment demonstrating minimal toxicity, or in the case of a synthetically-derived
biochemical pesticides, is equivalent to a naturally-occurring substance that has such a
history; and (3) Has a non-toxic mode of action to the target pest(s). [40 CFR
I58.2000(a)(1)] Plant-incorporated protectant means a pesticidal substance that is
intended to be produced and used in a living plant, or in the produce thereof, and the
genetic material necessary for production of such a pesticidal substance. It also includes
any inert ingredient contained in the plant, or produce thereof. [40 CFR 174.3]
Chemical Pesticides—all pesticides not otherwise classified as biological pesticides.
Control Measure—refers to any BMP or other method used to meet the effluent
limitations. Control measures must comply with manufacturer specifications, industry
standards and recommended industry practices related to the application of pesticides,
and relevant legal requirements. Additionally, control measures could include other
actions that a prudent operator would implement to reduce and/or eliminate pesticide
discharges to surface waters of the state to comply with the effluent limitations in Parts 2
and 3 of this permit.
Cultural Methods - manipulation of the habitat to increase pest mortality by making the
habitat less suitable to the pest.
26
Permit No. COG860000
Declared Pest Emergency Situation —An event defined by a public declaration by a
federal agency, state, or local government of a pest problem determined to require control
through application of a pesticide beginning less than ten days after identification of the
need for pest control. This public declaration may be based on:
(1) Significant risk to human health;
(2) Significant economic loss; or
(3) Significant risk to:
(i) Endangered species,
(ii) Threatened species,
(iii) Beneficial organisms, or
(iv) The environment.
[40 CFR 166]
Director—Director of the Water Quality Control Divison.
Discharge—when used without qualification, means the "discharge of a pollutant." [40
CFR 122.2]
Discharge of a pollutant—any addition of any "pollutant" or combination of pollutants
to "surface waters of the state" from any "point source," or any addition of any pollutant
or combination of pollutants to the water of the "contiguous zone". This includes
additions of pollutants into surface waters of the state. from: surface runoff that is
collected or channeled by man; discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances,
leading into privately owned treatment works. [excerpted from 40 CFR 122.2]
EPA Approved or Established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)—"EPA
Approved TMDLs" are those that are developed by a State and approved by EPA. "EPA
Established TMDLs" are those that are issued by the state.
Establishment—generally a single physical location where business is conducted or
where services or industrial operations are performed (e.g., factory, mill, store, hotel,
movie theater, mine, farm, airline terminal, sales office, warehouse, or central
administrative office).
Facility or Activity—any CDPS"point source" (including land or appurtenances
thereto) that is subject to regulation under the CDPS program.
Federal Facility—any buildings, installations, structures, land, public works, equipment,
aircraft, vessels, and other vehicles and property, owned, operated, or leased by, or
constructed or manufactured for the purpose of leasing to, the federal government.
For-Hire Applicator- Includes persons who make contractual pesticide applications for
which they or their employer receives compensation (e.g., lawn care firms, pest control
companies).
27
Permit No. COG860000
Impaired Water (or"Water Quality Impaired Water" or"Water Quality Limited
Segment")—A water is impaired for purposes of this permit if it has been identified by
the State pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as not meeting applicable
water quality standards (these waters are called "water quality limited segments" under
40 CFR 130.2W). Impaired waters include both waters with approved or established
TMDLs, and those for which a TMDL has not yet been approved or established.
Indian Country—(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent,
and including rights-of-way running through the reservation; (b) all dependent Indian
communities within the borders of the United States, whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a
State, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished,
including rights-of-way running through the same. This definition includes all land held
in trust for an Indian tribe. [18 U.S.C. 1151; 40 CFR 122.2]
Inert Ingredient- any substance (or group of structurally similar substances if
designated by the Agency), other than an active ingredient,that is intentionally included
in a pesticide product,. [40 CFR 152.3] Inert ingredient also means any substance, such
as a selectable marker, other than the active ingredient, where the substance is used to
confirm or ensure the presence of the active ingredient, and includes the genetic material
necessary for the production of the substance, provided that genetic material is
intentionally introduced into a living plant in addition to the active ingredient. [40 CFR
174.3]
Integrated Pest Management— is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach
to pest management that relies on a combination of common-sense practices. 1PM uses
current, comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with
the environment. This information, in combination with available pest control methods,
is used to manage pest damage by the most economical means, and with the least possible
hazard to people, property, and the environment.
Mechanical/Physical Methods - mechanical tools or physical alterations of the
environment, for pest prevention or removal.
Minimize-to reduce and/or eliminate pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. through
the use of"control measures" to the extent technologically available and economically
practicable and achievable.
Non-target Organisms— includes the plant and animal hosts of the target species, the
natural enemies of the target species living in the community, and other plants and
animals, including vertebrates, living in or near the community that are not the target of
the pesticide.
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)—developed under the
direction and guidance of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget(OMB) as the
28
Permit No. COG860000
standard for use by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for
the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of statistical data describing the U.S.
economy. NAICS is scheduled to be reviewed every 5 years for potential revisions with
the most recent version being completed in 2007. Under NAICS, an establishment is
generally a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or
industrial operations are performed (e.g., factory, mill, store, hotel, movie theater, mine,
farm, airline terminal, sales office, warehouse, or central administrative office). An
enterprise, on the other hand, may consist of more than one location performing the same
or different types of economic activities. Each establishment of that enterprise is assigned
a NAICS code based on its own primary business activity. Ideally, the primary business
activity of an establishment is determined by relative share of production costs and/or
capital investment. In practice, other variables, such as revenue, value of shipments, or
employment, are used as proxies. For this permit, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency uses revenue or value of shipments to determine an establishment's primary
business activity. Details of NAICS are available on the Internet at
http://www.census.eov/eos/www/naics/index.html.
Operator—any entity involved in the application of a pesticide that results in a discharge
to waters of the U.S. that meets either or both of the following two criteria:
(i) The entity has control over the financing for, or the decision to perform pesticide
applications that result in discharges, including the ability to modify those decisions; or
(ii) The entity has day-to-day control of or performs activities that are necessary to ensure
compliance with the permit (e.g., they are authorized to direct workers to carry out
activities required by the permit or perform such activities themselves).
Person—an individual, association, partnership, corporation, municipality, State or
Federal agency, or an agent or employee thereof.
Pest—Consistent with 40 CFR 152.5, any organism under circumstances that make it
deleterious to man or the environment, if it is:
(a)Any vertebrate animal other than man;
(b)Any invertebrate animal, including but not limited to, any insect, other arthropod,
nematode, or mollusk such as a slug and snail, but excluding any internal parasite of
living man or other living animals;
(c)Any plant growing where not wanted, including any moss, alga, liverwort, or other
plant of any higher order, and any plant part such as a root; or
(d) Any fungus, bacterium, virus, or other microorganism, except for those on or in living
man or other living animals and those on or in processed food or processed animal feed,
beverages, drugs (as defined in FFDCA sec. 201(g)(l)) and cosmetics (as defined in
FFDCA sec. 201(i)).
Pest Management Area—The area of land, including any water, for which you are
conducting pest management activities covered by this permit.
29
Permit No. COG860000
Pesticide—means (1) any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing,
destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, (2) any substance or mixture of substances
intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant, and (3) any nitrogen
stabilizer, except that the term "pesticide" shall not include any article that is a "new
animal drug"within the meaning of section 201(w) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(w)), that has been determined by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services not to be a new animal drug by a regulation establishing conditions
of use for the article, or that is an animal feed within the meaning of section 201(x) of
such Act(21 U.S.C. 321(x)) bearing or containing a new animal drug. The term
"pesticide" does not include liquid chemical sterilant products (including any sterilant or
subordinate disinfectant claims on such products) for use on a critical or semi-critical
device, as defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
321). For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term "critical device" includes any
device that introduced directly into the human body, either into or in contact with the
bloodstream or normally sterile areas of the body and the term "semi-critical device"
includes any device that contacts intact mucous membranes but which does not ordinarily
penetrate the blood barrier or otherwise enter normally sterile areas of the body. [FIFRA
Section 2(u)]
The term "pesticide" applies to insecticides, herbicides,fungicides, rodenticides, and
various other substances used to control pests. The definition encompasses all uses of
pesticides authorized under FIFRA including uses authorized under sections 3
(registration), 5 (experimental use permits), 18 (emergency exemptions), 24(c) (special
local needs registrations), and 25(b) (exemptions from FIFRA).
Note: drugs used to control diseases of humans or animals (such as livestock and pets)
are not considered pesticides; such drugs are regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration. Fertilizers, nutrients, and other substances used to promote plant
survival and health are not considered plant growth regulators and thus are not pesticides.
Biological control agents, except for certain microorganisms, are exempted from
regulation under FIFRA. (Biological control agents include beneficial predators such as
birds or ladybugs that eat insect pests, parasitic wasps, fish, etc).
This permit uses the term "pesticide" when referring to the "pesticide, as applied." When
referring to the chemical in the pesticide product with pesticidal qualities, the permit uses
the term "active ingredient."
Pesticide Product—a pesticide in the particular form (including composition, packaging,
and labeling) in which the pesticide is, or is intended to be, distributed or sold. The term
includes any physical apparatus used to deliver or apply the pesticide if distributed or
sold with the pesticide.
Pesticide Research and Development—Activities undertaken on a systematic basis to
gain new knowledge (research) and/or the application of research findings or other
scientific knowledge for the creation of new or significantly improved products or
30
Permit No. COG860000
processes (experimental development). These types of activities are generally
categorized under the four-digit code of 5417 under the 2007 NAICS.
Pesticide Residue—includes that portion of a pesticide application that is discharged
from a point source to waters of the US and no longer provides pesticidal benefits. It also
includes any degradates of the pesticide.
Point source—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, landfill leachate collection system,
vessel, or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term
does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural stormwater runoff.
[40 CFR 122.2]
Pollutant—dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage,
garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, heat, wrecked
or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural
waste discharged into water. For purposes of this definition, a"biological pesticide" is
considered a"biological material," and any "pesticide residue" resulting from use of a
"chemical pesticide" is considered a"chemical waste." [excerpted from 40 CFR 122.2]
Target Pest—the organism toward which pest control measures are being directed.
Outstanding Waters—For antidegradation purposes, pursuant to 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3),
Outstanding Waters are identified by the state as having high quality waters constituting
an Outstanding National Resource Water(ONRW), such as waters of National Parks and
State Parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological
significance. That high water quality shall be maintained and protected.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) —A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards,
and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources. A TMDL includes wasteload
allocations (WLAs) for point source discharges; load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint
sources and/or natural background, and must include a margin of safety (MOS) and
account for seasonal variations. [See section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR
130.2 and 130.7]
Treatment Area—The area of land including any waters, or the linear distance along
water's edge, to which pesticides are being applied. Multiple treatment areas may be
located within a single "pest management area."
The "treatment area" includes the entire area, whether over land or water, where the
pesticide application is intended to provide pesticidal benefits. In some instances, the
treatment area will be larger than the area where pesticides are actually applied. For
example, the treatment area for a stationary drip treatment into a canal should be
calculated by multiplying the width of the canal by the length over which the pesticide is
31
Permit No. COG860000
intended to control weeds. The treatment area for a lake or marine area is the water
surface area where the application is intended to provide pesticidal benefits.
Treatment area calculations for pesticide applications that occur"at water's edge", where
the discharge of pesticides directly to waters is unavoidable, are determined by the linear
distance over which pesticides are applied. For example, treating both sides of a five
mile long river, stream, or ditch is equal to ten miles of treatment area. Treating five
miles of shoreline or coast would equal a five mile treatment area.
Surface waters of the state- Surface waters of the state of Colorado means any and all
surface and subsurface waters which are contained in or flow in or through this State, but
does not include waters in sewage systems, waters in treatment works of disposal
systems, waters in potable water distribution systems, and all water withdrawn for use
until use and treatment have been completed.
Waters of the United States—Waters of the United States or waters of the U.S. means:
(a)All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to
use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tide;
(b) All interstate waters, including interstate "wetlands;"
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent
streams), mudflats, sandflats, "wetlands," sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa
lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could
affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other
purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign
commerce; or
(3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate
commerce;
(d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under
this definition;
(e)Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition;
(f) The territorial sea; and
(g) "Wetlands" adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands)
identified in paragraphs (a)through (f) of this definition.
32
Permit No. COG860000
Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the
requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which
also meet the criteria of this definition) are not surface waters of the state. Surface waters
of the state do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination
of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the
purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act
jurisdiction remains with EPA. [40 CFR 122.2.]
Water Quality Impaired — See `Impaired Water'.
Water Quality Standards—A water quality standard defines the water quality goals of a
water body, or portion thereof, by designating the use or uses to be made of the water and
by setting criteria necessary to protect the uses. Water quality standards also include an
antidegradation policy and implementation procedures. See P.U.D. o. 1 of Jefferson
County et al v. Wash Dept of Ecology et al, 511 US 701, 705 (1994). States, Territories,
Tribes and EPA adopt water quality standards to protect public health or welfare, enhance
the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act(See CWA sections
101(a)2 and 303(c)). Where necessary, the state has the authority to promulgate federal
water quality standards.
Wetlands - means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. [40 CFR 122.2]
"You" and "Your"—as used in this permit are intended to refer to the operator as the
context indicates and that party's activities or responsibilities.
33
Permit No. COG860000
A.2. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BAT—Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
BMP—Best Management Practice
BPJ—Best Professional Judgment
BPT—Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
CERCLA—Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CWA—Clean Water Act (or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et
seq)
EPA—U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA—Endangered Species Act
FIFRA—Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 USC 136 et seq.
FWS - U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
IPM —Integrated Pest Management
NAICS —North American Industry Classification System
NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA—National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS -U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service
NOI—Notice of Intent
NOT—Notice of Termination
CDPS—Colorado Discharge Permit System
NRC—National Response Center
NRHP—National Register of Historic Places
ONRW—Outstanding National Resource Water
PDMP—Pesticide Discharge Management Plan
SARA— Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SHPO-State Historic Preservation Officer
THPO—Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
TMDL—Total Maximum Daily Load
WQS—Water Quality Standard
34
Permit No. COG860000
Appendix B
Standard Permit Conditions
Standard permit conditions in Appendix B generally are consistent with the permit
provisions required in 40 CFR 122.41 but are modified to reflect the nature of discharges
covered under this general permit.
B.1 Duty to Comply.
You must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for
permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit
renewal application.
A. You must comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under
section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time
provided in the regulations that establish these standards, even if the permit has
not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement.
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions: The Director will adjust the civil
and administrative penalties listed below in accordance with the Civil Monetary
Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule (61 FR 252, December 31, 1996, pp. 69359-
69366, as corrected in 62 FR 54, March 20, 1997, pp.13514-13517) as mandated
by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 for inflation on a periodic basis.
This rule allows EPA's penalties to keep pace with inflation. The Agency is
required to review its penalties at least once every 4 years thereafter and to adjust
them as necessary for inflation according to a specified formula. The civil and
administrative penalties following were adjusted for inflation starting in 1996.
1. Criminal Penalties.
1.1 Negligent Violations. The CWA provides that any person who negligently
violates permit conditions implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308,
318, or 405 of the Act is subject to criminal penalties of not less than
$2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not
more than one year, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent
conviction for a negligent violation, a person shall be subject to criminal
penalties of not more than $50,000 per day of violation or by
imprisonment of not more than two years, or both.
1.2. Knowing Violations. The CWA provides that any person who knowingly
violates permit conditions implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308,
318, or 405 of the Act is subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more
than $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 3
35
Permit No. COG860000
years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a
knowing violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not
more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more
than 6 years, or both.
1.3 Knowing Endangerment. The CWA provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions implementing Sections 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act and who knows at that time that he
or she is placing another person in imminent danger of death or serious
bodily injury shall upon conviction be subject to a fine of not more than
$250,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or both. In the
case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing endangerment
violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500,000 or
by imprisonment of not more than 30 years, or both. An organization, as
defined in section 309(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, shall, upon conviction of
violating the imminent danger provision be subject to a fine of not more
than $1,000,000 and can fined up to $2,000,000 for second or subsequent
convictions.
1.4. False Statement. The CWA provides that any person who falsifies,
tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or
method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction,
be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for
not more than 2 years, or both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation
committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph,
punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both. The Act further provides
that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation,
or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to
be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of
compliance or non-compliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 6 months per violation, or by both.
2. Civil Penalties. The CWA provides that any person who violates a permit
condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act
is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by
Section 309(d) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
(28 U.S.C. § 2461 note) as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act(31
U.S.C. § 3701 note) (currently $37,500 per day for each violation).
3. Administrative Penalties. The CWA provides that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of
the Act is subject to an administrative penalty, as follows
36
Permit No. COG860000
3.1. Class I Penalty. Not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by
Section 309(g)(2)(A) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act(28 U.S.C. § 2461 note) as amended by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. § 3701 note) (currently $11,000
per violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed
not to exceed $37,500).
3.2 Class II Penalty. Not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by
Section 309(g)(2)(B) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act(28 U.S.C. § 2461 note) as amended by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act(31 U.S.C. § 3701 note) (currently $11,000
per day for each day during which the violation continues, with the
maximum amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed $157,500).
B.2 Duty to Reapply.
Except as otherwise provided for in Part 1.2.4 of the permit, if you wish to continue an
activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, you must apply
for and obtain authorization as required by the new permit once the state issues it.
B.3 Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not a Defense.
It shall not be a defense for you in an enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
B.4 Duty to Mitigate.
You must take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in violation of
this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
B.5 Proper Operation and Maintenance.
You must at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment
and control (and related appurtenances)which are installed or used by you to achieve
compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This
provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which
are installed by you only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
B.6 Permit Actions.
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. Your filing
of a request for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a
37
Permit No. COG860000
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit
condition.
B.7 Property Rights.
This permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges.
B.8 Duty to Provide Information.
You must furnish to the Division or an authorized representative, within a reasonable
time, any information which the Division may request to determine whether cause exists
for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit or to determine
compliance with this permit. You must also furnish to the Division or an authorized
representative upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
B.9 Inspection and Entry.
You must allow the Division or an authorized representative (including an authorized
contractor acting as a representative of the state), upon presentation of credentials and
other documents as may be required by law,to:
A. Enter upon your premises where a regulated activity is located or conducted, or
where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
B. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under
the conditions of this permit;
C. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment(including monitoring and
control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this
permit; and
D. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit
compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
B.10 Monitoring and Records.
A. You must retain records of all reports required by this permit, and records of all
data used to complete the Notice of Intent for this permit, for a period of at least
three years from the date the permit expires or the date the operator's
authorization is terminated. This period may be extended by request of the
Division at any time.
[As written, this permit does not require most operators to perform the type of sample
collection and monitoring described in the following sections of this appendix, B.10.B
through B.I0.F. However, when required, the sample collection and monitoring
38
Permit No. COG860000
requirements in B.10.B -B.10.F of this appendix apply to those operators that collect
samples.]
B. Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring must be
representative of the volume and nature of the monitored activity.
C. You must retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration
and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous
monitoring instrumentation, for a period of at least three years from the date the
permit expires or the date the operator's authorization is terminated. This period
may be extended by request of the Division at any time.
D. Records of monitoring information must include:
l. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
2. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
3. The date(s) analyses were performed
4. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
5. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
6. The results of such analyses.
E. Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40
CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in the permit.
F. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or
knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be
maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both. If a
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such
person under this paragraph, punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per
day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both.
B.11 Signatory Requirements.
A. All applications, including NOIs, and the Certification of Compliance must be
signed as follows:
1. For a corporation: By a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of
this subsection, a responsible corporate officer means: (i) a president,
secretary,treasurer, or vice-president 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(ii)the
39
Permit No. COG860000
manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities,
provided, the manager is authorized to make management decisions which
govern the operation of the regulated activity including having the explicit
or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations, and
initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long term
environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the
manager can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions
taken to gather complete and accurate information for permit application
requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures.
2. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: By a general partner or the
proprietor, respectively; or
3. For a municipality, state,federal, or other public agency: By either a
principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For purposes of this
subsection, a principal executive officer of a federal agency includes (i)
the chief executive officer of the agency, or(ii) a senior executive officer
having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic
unit or the state.
B. Your Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP), including changes to your
PDMP to document any corrective actions taken as required by Part 6, and all
reports submitted to the Division, must be signed by a person described in
Appendix B, Subsection B.11.A above or by a duly authorized representative of
that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
1. The authorization is made in writing by a person described in Appendix B,
Subsection B.11.A;
2. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated activity such as the
position of superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an
individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental
matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be
either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position);
and
3. The signed and dated written authorization is included in the PDMP. A
copy must be submitted to the Division, if requested.
C. All other changes to your PDMP, and other compliance documentation required
under this permit, must be signed and dated by the person preparing the change or
documentation.
D. Any person signing documents in accordance with Appendix B, Subsections
B.11.A or B.1 1.B above must include the following certification:
40
Permit No. COG860000
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were
prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and
evaluated the information contained therein. Based on my inquiry of the
person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information contained is, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations."
E. The CWA provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or
required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or
reports of compliance or non-compliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than
6 months per violation, or by both.
B.12 Reporting Requirements.
A. Anticipated noncompliance. You must give advance notice to the Division of any
planned changes in the permitted activity which may result in noncompliance
with permit requirements.
B. Transfers. This permit is not transferable to any person except after submittal of a
Certification of Compliance to the Division by the new operator, for those
operators who are required to submit a Certification of Compliance.
C. Pesticide Monitoring Reports. This permit does not require operators to report
monitoring results on a routine basis; however,the Division may, pursuant to Part
1.2.3, require certain operators to monitor and report such results.
1. When required, monitoring data must be submitted to the Division should
be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form.
2. If you monitor any pollutant more frequently than required using test
procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136 or as otherwise specified by
the Division, the results of this monitoring must be included in the
calculation and reporting of the data submitted to the Division.
3. Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements
must use an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the Division.
D. Compliance schedules. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any
progress reports on, interim and final requirements contained in any compliance
41
Permit No. COG860000
schedule of this permit must be submitted no later than 14 days following each
schedule date.
E. Twenty-four hour reporting.
1. In addition to adverse incident and spill reporting requirements in Parts 6.4
and 6.5, respectively, you must report any noncompliance which may
endanger health or the environment. Any information must be provided
orally within 24 hours from the time you become aware of the
circumstances. A written submission must also be provided within five
days of the time you become aware of the circumstances. The written
submission must contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause;
the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the
noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected
to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
2. For purposes of this permit,you must submit a 24-hour report under this
section for any upset, as defined in Appendix B, Subsection B.13, which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
3. The Division may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis for
reports under Appendix B, Subsection B.12.E.2 if the oral report has been
received within 24 hours.
F. Other noncompliance. You must report all instances of noncompliance not
reported under Appendix B, Subsections 12.A, 12.D, and I 2.E, at the time any
applicable annual or monitoring reports are submitted. The reports must contain
the information listed in Appendix B, Subsection 12.E.I.
G. Other information. Where you become aware that you failed to submit any
relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a
permit application or in any report to the Permitting Authority, you must promptly
submit such facts or information.
B.13 Upset.
A. Definition. Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations
because of factors beyond your reasonable control. An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation. See 40 CFR 122.41(n)(I).
B. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action
brought for noncompliance with such technology based permit effluent limitations
42
Permit No. COG860000
if the requirements of Appendix B, Subsection B.13.C are met. No determination
made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by
upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action
subject to judicial review. See 40 CFR 122.41(n)(2).
C. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. See 40 CFR 122.41(n)(3). An
operator who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset must
demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other
relevant evidence that:
1. An upset occurred and that you can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
2. The permitted activity was at the time being properly operated; and
3. You submitted notice of the upset as required in Appendix B, Subsection
B.12.E.2 (24 hour notice).
4. You complied with any remedial measures required under Appendix B,
Subsection B.4.
D. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, you, as the one seeking to
establish the occurrence of an upset, have the burden of proof. See 40 CFR
122.41(n)(4).
43
Permit No. COG860000
Appendix C - Certification of Compliance Form
Certification of Compliance with the Terms of CDPS General Permit for
Discharges of Aquatic Pesticides to Surface Waters of the State
Operator Status:
Please mark whether this is the first time requesting coverage under this General Permit or if this is a change of
information for a discharge already covered under this General Permit.
(Mark only one item) 1. Li New Operator
2. Cl Change of Information:
Former Operator Name
II. Operator Information:
Operator Name:
IRS Employer Identification Number(EIN):_ -__
Mailing address
Street:
City: State: Zip Code:
Telephone: E-mail
Contact Name:
44
Permit No. COG860000
Please complete this page for each establishment for which coverage under the State's
permit is certified for your operation.
III. Operator Information:
Establishment# of##
1. Establishment Name:
2. Mailing address:
a. Street:
b. City: c. State: d. Zip Code:
e. Contact Name:
f. Telephone: g. E-mail
h. Check all that apply: o Federal facility ❑ Indian country land
i. 6-digit NAICS code for primary industry activity of this establishment:
3. Location of CDPS Permit Records for this establishment(check one):
o Same as operator address o Same as Establishment address
o Other: Street:
City: State: Zip Code:
4. Pesticide Use Patterns for this establishment(check all that apply):
a. o Mosquitoes and Other Flying Insect Pests
b. o Aquatic Weeds and Algae
c. o Aquatic Nuisance Animals
d.o Forest Canopy Pests
5. For each use pattern checked above,provide the following: (attach additional pages if necessary)
[Use pattern# of## for which coverage is requested for this establishment]
a.Use pattern(check one): o a ❑b ❑c ❑d
Location(check one):
o Map provided of location of pesticide application for this use,or
o Description of location of pesticide application for this use:
b.Receiving Waters(check one):
o Coverage requested for all waters within location identified above
o Coverage requested for all waters within location identified above except for:
o Coverage requested specifically for the following waters within location identified above:
c. Federally-Listed Threatened or Endangered Species(i.e.,"Species)and/or Federally-Designated Critical
Habitat(i.e.,"Habitat") (check one):
o 1. Pesticide application activities for which permit coverage is being requested will not overlap with the
distribution map locations of any Species or Habitat.
o 2.Pesticide application activities for which permit coverage is being requested will overlap with the distribution
of any Species or Habitat but you have consulted with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National
Marine Fisheries Service under ESA Section 7 already or already have an ESA Section 10 permit issued to you
by FWS and/or NMFS)for all these activities for which you are requesting coverage under this permit.
o 3.Pesticide application activities for which permit coverage is being requested will overlap with the distribution
of any Species or Habitat.
If you checked item 5.c.3 above,please list all Species or Habitat identified within the area for which permit
coverage is being requested:
45
Permit No. COG860000
IV.Certification:
I certify that application of pesticides will be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of
CDPS Permit COG860000.
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,the information submitted is,to the best
of my knowledge and belief,true,accurate,and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties
for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
I further certify that the operator has sufficient title,right or interest in the property where the proposed
activity occurs.
Signature/Responsible Official: Date:
Printed Name:
Title:
E-Mail:
46
Hello