Newton Public Schools Guide to Special Education Programs and

State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality NPDES Waste Discharge Permit Evaluation Report Pesticide General Permit 2300A 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204

PROPOSED ACTION: 2300A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pesticide general permit renewal PERMIT WRITERS: Beth Moore, [email protected], 503-229-6402

Duane Smith, [email protected], 541-278-4607 PERMIT CATEGORY: 2300A General Permit

SOURCE LOCATION: Statewide ACTIVITIES COVERED UNDER THIS PERMIT: A pesticide application that results in a point source discharge to surface waters of the state from the use of a (i) biological pesticide or (ii) a chemical pesticide that leaves a residue for five pest control categories identified below. The decision in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009) and EPA regulations found that point source discharges of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue to waters of the U.S. are pollutants under the Clean Water Act and therefore require NPDES permits. The five categories include the majority of pesticide applications that would result in point source discharges to surface waters of state. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control for the protection of public health and prevention of nuisance. Coverage extends to mosquitoes, black flies and other flying insect pests that develop or are present during a portion of their life cycle in or above standing or flowing water. Weed and Algae Control for invasive or other nuisance weeds, algae and plant pathogens such as, fungi and bacteria, in water or at the water’s edge. The term “water’s edge” means within 3 feet of surface waters of the state. Measure the three-foot distance horizontally from the ordinary high water mark of the waterbody. Nuisance Animal Control for invasive or other nuisance animals and pathogens in water and at the water’s edge. Coverage extends to, but is not limited to, control of fish and mollusks, and fungi bacteria. The term “water’s edge” means within 3 feet of surface waters of the state. Measure the three-foot distance horizontally from the ordinary high water mark of the waterbody. Forest Canopy Pest Control for the control of pest species, including, but not limited to, an insect or pathogen, using aerial application of a pesticide over a forest environment or from the ground when in order to target pests effectively, a portion of the pesticide unavoidably will be applied over and deposited in surface waters of the state. Area-Wide Pest Control for the control of pest species by using aerial pesticide application to cover a large area to avoid substantial and widespread economic and social impact when, to target pests

of 49

effectively, a portion of the pesticide unavoidably will be applied over and deposited in surface water. The pest control under this category is not included in the above categories.

of 49

Table of Contents

Background ................................................................................................................................ 4 Summary of Major Changes ....................................................................................................... 5 Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 6 Discharges Not Authorized by This Permit ................................................................................. 6 Coverage and Eligibility .............................................................................................................. 7

Development of annual treatment area threshold for mosquito and other flying insect pest control .......................................................................................................................................10 Development of annual treatment area threshold for weed and algae control ...........................11 Development of annual treatment area for nuisance animal control ..........................................11 Development of annual treatment area for forest canopy pest control .......................................12 Development of annual treatment area threshold for area-wide pest control .............................12

Permit Limits .............................................................................................................................13

Existing Narrative Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits and Technology Based Effluent Limits .15 Technology-Based Effluent Limits .............................................................................................17 Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits for Acrolein-, Copper-, Xylene-based Aquatic Pesticides Within Irrigation Systems Boundaries ........................................................................................18 Antidegradation .........................................................................................................................19

Schedule A- Discharge Limitations ............................................................................................21

Minimization (condition nos. 1 through 4) ..................................................................................21 Pest management measures (conditions Nos. 1., 2. and 3.) .....................................................21 Identify the problem (condition Nos. 5.a., 6.a., 7.a., 8.a., and 9.a.) ............................................25 Pest management (condition nos. 5.b., 6.b., 7.b., 8.b. and 9.b.) ................................................28 Pesticide use (condition Nos. 5.c., 6.c., 7.c., 8.c. and 9.c.) ........................................................29

Schedule B –Minimum Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeeping (Conditions 1. through 11.) .33

Visual monitoring requirements (condition no. 1.) ......................................................................34 Notification requirements (condition nos. 2 through 5.) ..............................................................35 Recordkeeping (condition nos. 6. through 9.) ............................................................................35 Reporting (condition nos. 3.c., 10. and 11.) ...............................................................................36

Schedule D - Special Conditions ...............................................................................................37

Pesticide discharge management plan ......................................................................................37

Schedule E - Sector Requirements ...........................................................................................39

Numeric effluent limits ...............................................................................................................40

Schedule F- General Conditions ...............................................................................................49

of 49

Background DEQ is renewing this proposed general permit by order to continue permit coverage under the permit that expires on Sept. 30, 2016. (See OAR 340-045-0033(1) for information on general permits issued by department order.) The permit authorizes the discharge of pollutants, biological pesticides and chemical pesticide residuals applied from a point source. The permit assumes that all chemical pesticide applications will leave a residual and constitute the discharge of a pollutant once the product has performed its intended purpose. As early as 2001, DEQ regulated the discharge of chemical pesticide residue by issuing individual NPDES permits to a number of irrigation districts. These individual permits authorized discharge of chemical pesticide residue from the application of specified aquatic herbicides. DEQ also issued individual NPDES permits to authorize discharges from aerial pesticide applications used to control gypsy moths. In 2006, EPA issued a regulation that interpreted the Clean Water Act as not requiring NPDES permits for pesticide applications. In 2009, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule under a plain language reading of the Clean Water Act (National Cotton Council v. EPA, 553 F3d 297 (6th Cir, 2009)). The Sixth Circuit Court held that NPDES permits are required for all biological pesticide applications made in, over and near waters of the U.S., and chemical pesticide applications that leave a residue or excess pesticide in water when such applications are made in, over and near waters of the U.S. The Court of Appeals stayed the decision invalidating EPA’s regulation until April 9, 2011. Subsequently, EPA requested and received an extension of the stay until Oct. 31, 2011. EPA and most states, including Oregon issued NPDES pesticide general permits in October 2011 for pest control activities that result in a pesticide discharge to water. Detailed information relating to this matter can be found at 75 Federal Register 31775 (Jun. 4, 2010) and 76 Federal Register 68750 (Nov. 7, 2011). DEQ’s intends to renew its NPDES pesticide general permit for pesticide applications that include Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control, Weed and Algae Control, Nuisance Animal Control, Forest Canopy Pest Control, and Area-wide Pest Control. The pest control activities covered under the permit are used to manage vegetation, prevent adverse economic impacts, facilitate habitat conservation, control diseases, restore riparian areas, maintain watershed health, protect public health, retain aesthetics, and maintain areas of rights of way for safety and drainage. This permit may affect public and private entities with operational control over the decision to perform pesticide applications covered under this permit or have the day-to-day operational control of activities that are necessary to ensure compliance with the permit. These entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Government agencies (e.g. federal, state, county, city, municipal) • Vector control districts organized under ORS chapter 452 • Weed control districts subject to ORS chapter 570 • Public utilities • Irrigation systems drainage districts, cooperatives, etc. • Golf courses that manage or convey surface waters • Lake or marina managers conducting aquatic weed control • Commercial pest control operators

of 49

General permits may be developed for certain categories of minor discharge sources or minor activities that involve similar or substantially similar types of operations, similar types of wastes, similar monitoring conditions and the category of sources are more appropriately controlled under a general permit. See OAR 340-045-0033(2). This general permit meets the requirements of OAR 340-045-0033(2) and is appropriate for the pest control categories covered under this permit for the following reasons:

• Pesticide applications covered under this permit involve the same or substantially similar types of operations. The operations are required to minimize pesticide discharge by using pest management measures. These pest management measures are operational requirements commonly used in pest control and generally known as integrated pest management. Pest management measures include proper identification of the pest problem, alternative control methods and proper pesticide use that apply to each type of pest control under this permit.

• Pesticide applications have the potential to discharge or dispose of the same or similar types of

wastes. The types of waste discharged are from pesticide use. The definition for pesticides is the same for all pest control under the permit.

• The same or similar monitoring requirements, effluent limitations and operating conditions for

the categories are required in this permit. For all pesticide applications there are visual monitoring and pest management measure requirements. Additional monitoring and effluent limits are required for irrigation systems that use acrolein-, copper-, or xylene-based aquatic pesticides.

A NPDES general permit is an appropriate tool for regulating pesticide applications within irrigation system boundaries. General permit conditions include the same monitoring compliance points as the individual permits for chemical pesticide residue. Permit conditions have similar pest management measures for pesticide use. There are similar effluent limits appropriate for acrolein, copper and xylene. This general permit includes pest management practices and effluent limits for acrolein-, copper- and xylene- based aquatic pesticides consistent with the permit conditions in individual irrigation district permits issued in 2005 and 2006. Irrigation systems that use these pesticides have to meet the same general requirements and specific requirements for acrolein-, copper- and xylene- based aquatic pesticides. DEQ anticipates that the operators of the ten irrigation systems currently covered under individual permits and operators of other irrigation systems that use acrolein-, copper- and xylene- based aquatic pesticides will seek coverage under this general permit.

Summary of Major Changes New definitions for key terms and phrases in the permit conditions for irrigation systems. This general permit applies to pesticide applications that result in discharges of pesticides to surface waters of the state regardless of whether surface waters of the state are wet or dry at the time of the discharge. Calculation of the annual treatment area must include all pesticide applications to surface waters of the state even when dry at the time of application. Specific permit conditions are included for irrigation systems that use acrolein-, copper-, and xylene-based aquatic pesticides in treatment areas within irrigation system boundaries.

of 49

Ten permittees have individual permits for use of acrolein-based, copper-based, and xylene-based aquatic pesticides within irrigation system boundaries. These ten permittees currently operate under an administrative extension of their individual permits, which expired in 2007. When issued, the 2300A can replace these individual permits. Operators of the ten irrigation systems may elect to obtain permit coverage under this general permit or seek renewal of their individual permits. Operators that conduct mosquito and other flying insect pest control must now include pesticide applications of larvicides and adulticides in the calculation of total treatment area in a calendar year. This calculation can be used to determine if an operator must register for the permit.

Definitions This section contains definitions of the terms used throughout the permit. Most definitions are similar to the definitions used in EPA’s pesticide general permit and in other states’ pesticide general permits. Definitions of phrases or words are in the permit to ensure a common understanding. The current permit, issued in 2011, defines water’s edge as a 3-foot distance measured horizontally from surface waters of the state when water is present at the time of pesticide application. This proposed permit renewal will regulate pesticide applications from a point source discharge to surface waters of the state when wet or dry, so that, the 3-foot distance will be measured from the ordinary high water mark of a waterbody. DEQ selected a 3-foot (one yard) minimum buffer because that number is consistent with the minimum buffer established in the US District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle Case No. CO1-0132C, Washington Toxics Coalition vs. EPA, and it reasonably reflects the distance where a pesticide application is likely to reach surface waters of the state. EPA describes the ordinary high water mark as the landward limit of waters of the United States in its response to frequently asked questions regarding ‘How to determine whether a discharge occurs to waters of the U.S.’ EPA’s responses to frequently asked questions are available on its pesticide general permit web page: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-applications-5#requirements. Total treatment area includes surface water of the state when wet or dry. The phrase total treatment area reflects this change. This permit includes more detailed requirements for some irrigation systems. Additional definitions are included for implementation of permit limits and clarity.

Discharges Not Authorized by This Permit DEQ uses a general permit to establish statewide conditions to protect water quality standards. This broad coverage of commonly applicable requirements allows DEQ to administer timely, quality permits more efficiently. This general permit is explicit on which surface waters of the state are and are not eligible for permit coverage due to water pollution concerns.

Water Quality Limited Waters

of 49

The general permit does not authorize a discharge to a waterbody or segment that is identified as water quality limited for a relevant standard. A discharge to a water quality limited water body may be covered in some circumstances under an individual permit with more detailed site-specific evaluation that results in additional technology-based and/or water quality-based effluent limitations. This eligibility requirement is based on a list of water quality limited waterbodies established pursuant to OAR 340-041-0046 and includes waters on the 303(d) list for a pesticide and its chemical residual or degradates when a waste load allocation for the relevant pollutant parameter does not exist. This eligibility requirement is for current and future 303(d) lists approved or established by EPA and includes waterbodies listed in Categories 4 and 5 of DEQ’s Water Quality Assessment section of Oregon's 2010 Integrated Report Database. Impaired waterbodies are listed by EPA and restrictions take effect each year on Jan. 1. Future listings are available on DEQ’s web site at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/assessment/assessment.htm.

Exemptions There are other regulations in place that exempt certain discharges from the NPDES permit requirement. These exemptions include discharges composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural stormwater runoff. [Clean Water Act section §502(14); 40 CFR §122.2 and 40 CFR §122.3(f)]. However, discharges from the application of pesticides into irrigation ditches and canals – that are themselves surface waters of the state – are not exempt as irrigation return flows or agricultural stormwater. This permit does not cover terrestrial (land based) applications for the purpose of controlling pests on agricultural crops or forest floors because many of pesticide labels used for agricultural crops or forest floors do not allow for application to surface water. This is consistent with EPA’s 2011 and 2016 proposed pesticide general permit relating to spray drift, i.e., the airborne movement of pesticide sprays away from the target application. The permit does not apply to silviculture operations that do not result in a point source discharge of pesticides to surface waters of the state. However, this permit does apply to aerial applications for purpose of controlling pests on agricultural crops or forest floors that do result in a point source discharge to surface waters of the state whether wet or dry.

Coverage and Eligibility This section of the permit contains the requirements in OAR 340-045-0033 applicable to general permits.

Section A. Section A.1. explains that there are different procedures for permit coverage. Table 1 identifies certain operators that are required to register in order to obtain permit coverage and which operators are subject to automatic coverage. Some operators are required to register for the permit to take advantage of coverage and others are not. Those subject to automatic coverage are subject to the applicable conditions of the permit.

Section B.

of 49

Section B. provides registration requirements. Operators identified in Table 1 are required to register under this permit by submitting an application and associated fees to DEQ. Section B. also informs a potential registrant about requirements for new and renewal applications to register. While DEQ has the authority to require that all operators submit an application for registration under the permit, DEQ has determined that an application to register is not required for the operators specified under (OAR) 340-340-045-0033(3)(a). DEQ determined that an application for registration is not necessary after evaluating the type of discharge, the volume, the availability of other means to identify the dischargers and estimated number of discharges DEQ anticipates the permit will cover. DEQ requires registration of operators whose responsibility for pest control is large scale. DEQ also requires federal and state agencies and some districts and operators of irrigation systems to register under the permit regardless of annual treatment area threshold. Table 1 identifies operators required to register by their organization or by total treatment area in a calendar year. Operators not identified in Table 1 are operators who conduct pesticide applications at or below the annual threshold. Operators who conduct pesticide applications at or below the annual treatment area threshold do not need to fill out a form or pay fees to register with Oregon DEQ but are still responsible for complying with certain basic permit requirements in Schedule A, Conditions 1., 2., 3. and 4., Schedule B, Conditions 1. through 8., and Schedule F when applicable. DEQ proposes to keep registration requirements in place for operators identified in Table 1. This approach focuses DEQ resources on the largest operators. This approach is consistent with EPA’s 2011 and 2016 proposed pesticide general permit, where some operators that conduct pesticide applications are not required to submit a notice of intent, the EPA equivalent of a registration form. In considering whether to require certain operators to register, DEQ established annual treatment area thresholds as a means to consider volume. DEQ has determined that when the responsibility for pest control is over a small area, the amount of discharge that will result from the treatment of these areas will be substantially less on a per application basis and cumulatively less than the volume of discharges from applications made to large areas. See the discussion of annual treatment area thresholds below. While the annual treatment area threshold remains the same for this permit renewal, more entities are expected to register for permit coverage for pesticide applications because pesticide applications to surface waters of the state, whether wet or dry, is included in this permit renewal in the calculation of total treatment area in a calendar year. This permit also regulates the discharge of biological pesticides and chemical pesticide residuals. The definition for pesticides is the same for all pest control under the permit. Currently, pesticides are used for various types of pesticide applications and, like EPA, DEQ does not expect the type of pesticide used in each pest control category to vary much because the potential for toxic and conventional pollutants is not expected to vary within each type of pest control covered under the permit.

Identifying other operators DEQ works closely with the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Department of Forestry (ODF) and has access to databases to identify discharges that are subject to this permit but not registered under the permit. ODA maintains a database for licensed public, commercial and private pesticide applicators for pesticide applications such as right of way, public health, aquatic and regulatory weed. ODF also requires pesticide applicators to keep record of pesticide application information. Recordkeeping similarities are presented in the table below.

of 49

O

DF1

OD

A2

USD

A3

DEQ

Records kept for ODF, ODA and USDA that are the same as recordkeeping requirements in the pesticide general permit. References to conditions in the pesticide general permit are provided in parenthesis ( ). These conditions are on pages 20-21 of the permit.

X X X X Number of acres treated (Schedule B.8.e. ) X X X Pesticide application rate (Schedule B.3.c.v. and Schedule B 9.d.ix.) X X Method of application (Schedule B.3.c.v.)

X X X X EPA registration number and name of the pesticide product (Schedule B.3.c.v. and Schedule B.9.d.viii.)

X X Name of the person for whom the pesticide was applied (Schedule B.8.f. and Schedule B 9 d.v.)

X X X X Description of the location of the land or property on which the pesticide was applied. (Schedule B.8.f. and Schedule B.9.d.vii.)

X X X X Date and time of the application (Schedule B.8.f. and Schedule B.9.d.vi.)

X X Person who supplied the pesticides (Schedule B.8.f.)

X X The trade name. (Schedule B 3c.v. and Schedule B.8.f.)

X X X X Applicator/Name of person applying the chemical (Schedule B.8.f. and Schedule B.9.d.v.)

X X amount X The amount and concentration (Schedule B.8.f., Schedule B.9.d.ix., Schedule

B.9.d.x. and Schedule B.9.d.xi.)

X X X The specific property, crop or crops to which the pesticide was applied. (Schedule B.8.f. and Schedule B. 9.d.ii.

X X Records as required by US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service (If licensed as a private pesticide applicator, Schedule B.8.g. )

X X X Keep records for three years. (ScheduleB.8.h. and Schedule F. C8.)

X X Assessment of environmental conditions related to pesticide use, e.g. wind, weather. (Schedule B.9.d.xiv.)

1 Oregon Department of Forestry requirements for all pesticide applicators 2 Oregon Department of Agriculture requirements for commercial and public applicators 3 U.S. Department of Agriculture requirements for private pesticide applicators using restricted use pesticides

(RUPs).

Other resources can be used to identify operators. The exact number and types of operations that may be subject to this permit is unknown. DEQ has access to data kept by the Secretary of State, ODA and ODF, as well as data from the Land Management Division of the Oregon Department of State Lands in areas pertaining to day-to-day management of publicly owned submerged and submersible land. Using this information DEQ estimates that there are over 1,500 public and private entities, such as parks and recreation departments, public utilities, golf courses, wharfs, marinas and districts for water, drainage, soil and water conservation and weed control, where pest control is a part of their operation.

of 49

Development of annual treatment area threshold for mosquito and other flying insect pest control Pest control for mosquitos and other flying insects includes the application, by any means, of chemical and biological insecticides into or over water to control insects that breed or live in, over, or near water. Oregon has 20 vector control districts established under ORS 452 that have mosquito control programs. These vector control programs are required to use Integrated Pest Management as defined in ORS 634.650. Mosquito control may also be performed by local governments, pest control companies and property owners. Under ORS 452.210, counties may contract with any incorporated city, any vector control district, or with another county on any matter incident to the eradication, prevention and control of public health vectors and vector habitats using integrated pest management methods and for the supervision of such work by county employees. ORS 452 establishes the responsibilities of the vector control districts and counties, which include operating requirements that relate to pesticide use such as:

• Using integrated pest management as defined in ORS 634.650(1); • Obtaining approval from the Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife Commission when waters

in the district are frequented by waterfowl or contain game fish; • Applying pesticides for public health vectors; • Receiving approval by the Oregon Health Authority prior to the use of pesticides. ORS

452.300(e). See ORS 452.140, 452.245 and 452.300.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and vector control districts work together to develop a pesticide use plan to document the pesticide products that will be used for the upcoming mosquito season. The plan includes a list of pesticide products that are intended to be used and what was used the previous year. The active ingredient of the pesticide product is reported. Pesticide product use in sensitive areas as set out in ORS 452.140(1) must be described. The integrated pest management practices (ORS 634.650(1)) that will be used to reduce the need for chemical control products while maintaining acceptable threshold levels is also provided in a pesticide use plan.

DEQ reviewed pesticide use plans for information on treatment area thresholds prior to permit issuance in 2011 and included a requirement for vector control districts to register for any amount of pesticide application used to control mosquitoes and other flying insects. Operators of vector control districts conduct pesticide applications using larvicides and adulticides. Similarly, other entities that conduct large-scale pesticide applications using a larvicide or an adulticide to suppress mosquitoes and other flying insects are required to register before their total treatment area in a calendar year goes over the annual treatment area threshold. The requirement for registration, as proposed, includes pesticide application using a larvicide in the calculation of total treatment area.

of 49

Development of annual treatment area threshold for weed and algae control Weed and algae control applies to the application, by any means, of contact or systemic herbicides to control vegetation and algae in the water and at the water’s edge, such as terrestrial plants that are close to water. This pest control category includes the control of pathogens such as fungi and bacteria in water and at the water’s edge. Invasive weeds displace and compete with native and desirable domestic plant species. Without diseases, insects and other environmental constraints that act as a natural control in their native regions, these invasive plants prosper and adversely affect resources such as fish, wildlife, recreation and overall watershed health. Abundant growth of native vegetation and algae can be a problem too. Overgrowth can damage the function and health of the aquatic ecosystems and degrade the beneficial uses (recreational, aesthetic enjoyment, fishery, irrigation, water supply, wildlife habitat). Weed and algae pest control may be used in the management of aquatic weed and algae in waterbodies such as lakes, ponds, rivers, streams and drainage ditches. This pest control category may include crops, such as cranberries, where pesticide treatment occurs in surface waters of the state. According to the National Hydrography Database there are about 36,600 lakes, ponds and reservoirs are in Oregon. Approximately 96 percent of these waterbodies are smaller than 10 acres and 3 percent of them range between 10 to 50 acres. Of the remaining 1 percent, 0.4 percent are between 50 and 100 acres and 0.6 percent are larger than 100 acres. There are 111,619 miles of streams and rivers, 9 major estuaries and over 360 miles of coastline. The annual treatment area threshold above 20 acres of surface water and 20 linear miles is expected to account for the largest pesticide applications. Federal and state agencies and districts responsible for weed and algae pest control seeking coverage under the permit are required to register, for any amount of pesticide used for weed and algae control.

Permit coverage is provided for irrigation systems under this general permit. Operators of irrigation systems previously covered under an individual permit and irrigation districts organized under ORS 545 are required to register in order to obtain permit coverage for any amount of acrolein-, copper- or xylene-based pesticide application. There are approximately 70 irrigation systems organized as districts in Secretary of State’s database located online at: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/muni/public.do . Registration requirements have changed and apply to more entities because irrigation systems are now included in the requirements for registration. Registration requirements will also include more entities because calculation of total treatment area in a calendar year will include surface waters of the state, whether wet or dry. For example, an aerial pesticide application to a treatment area over a wet or dry surface water of the state in excess of 20 linear miles in a calendar year will require registration. Development of annual treatment area for nuisance animal control Nuisance Animal Pest Control regulated under the permit includes the application, by any means, of chemicals into waters to control a range of animals in the course of invasive species eradication, fisheries management, watershed health, or equipment maintenance. Equipment maintenance includes for example boat launches and watercraft at recreational facilities, and fish ladders and screens for fish protection. Nuisance animal pest control includes pathogens such as fungi and bacteria in the water and at the water’s edge. Golf courses may control nematodes or insect populations at the water’s edge. As stated in EPA’s 2011 and 2016 proposed pesticide general permit fact sheet, the high mobility and prolific breeding ability that necessitate control of aquatic animals usually means that their treatment most

of 49

often occurs in the entire waterbody they inhabit or a large portion of it. DEQ requires registration for the largest pesticide applications. DEQ requires registration for responsible for this type of pesticide application. For these federal and state agencies and districts, registration is required regardless of total treatment area in a calendar year. The annual treatment area threshold above 20 acres of surface water and 20 linear miles will account for the largest pesticide applications. Registration requirements will include more entities because calculation of total treatment area in a calendar year will include surface waters of the state, whether wet or dry.

Development of annual treatment area for forest canopy pest control This includes pest control projects in, over, or to forest canopies that occur over surface waters of the state. Pesticide applications to a forest canopy can be applied aerially or from the ground. Applications of this nature usually occur over large tracts of land and are typically in response to specific pest outbreaks. The areas involved, together with the need for timely intervention and the inaccessible nature of the terrain often call for the selective use of aerial spraying. Pesticides will be unavoidably discharged into waters in the course of controlling pests that are present near or over waters as a result of the ground and aerial spraying in a forest environment. Large tracts of land can include surface waters of the state whether wet or dry. A canopy can include both mature and immature forests canopies, including canopies that may not be continuously connected where control of pests associated with the canopy, such as branches and leaves of the trees, may unavoidably involve point source discharges of pesticides to water. These pests are not necessarily aquatic and can be species such as the gypsy moth and the tussock moth that are detrimental to the forest, agriculture, the environment, and public health. Registration requirements in this permit are the same as EPA’s 2011 and 2016 proposed pesticide general permit. Federal and state agencies are required to register to this permit regardless of their annual treatment area threshold. Other operators who conduct large-scale operations are also required to register. A 6,400 acres (10 square miles) annual treatment area threshold is established for other operators. This annual treatment area threshold includes large forestlands. Large forestlands can range from 5000 acres to 123,552 acres [Oregon Department of Forestry http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/state_forests.shtml]. [Oregon Forest Facts and Figures,” authored by the Oregon Forest Resources Institute, http://www.oregonforests.org/assets/uploads/OR_Facts_Figures_2011_web.pdf ] By setting an annual treatment area threshold at 6,400 acres, this annual treatment area threshold captures most operators and continues to exclude only the smallest applications from registration requirements. Calculation of annual treatment area threshold includes repeated pesticide applications.

Development of annual treatment area threshold for area-wide pest control The Area-wide Pest Control category is for the control of pest species by using aerial pesticide application to cover a large area to avoid substantial and widespread economic and social impact. The aerial pesticide application will result in some of the pesticide unavoidably being applied over and deposited in water. The pest control under this category is not included in the other pest control categories covered under the permit. For example, while nuisance animal pest control can include insects, the pest management practices in this category do not include practices for aerial pesticide applications. This pest control category includes pest management practices necessary for aerial application. This category covers diverse habitat not included in the above categories. Areas that are vast and inaccessible may need aerial applications of pesticides that would come under this category. For example,

of 49

USDA conducted aerial spraying of pesticides to control grasshoppers over 13,000 acres of rangeland. Other scenarios may include ODA spraying for gypsy moths over a varied rural, urban and forest landscape.

DEQ requires registration for the largest pesticide applications and federal and state agencies. The annual treatment area threshold above 6400 acres will account for the largest operators. Repeated pesticide applications are included in the calculation for annual treatment area threshold. Section C. This section provides a summary of permit requirements for operators who conduct pesticide applications at or below the annual treatment area thresholds in section B, Table 1. These operators are required to keep a copy of the permit and follow applicable permit conditions to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of the receiving water. The permit holder must meet the same effluent limitations in Schedule A, Condition Nos. 1, 2 and corrective action required in Condition 3 for all pesticide applications covered under this permit. The effluent limits in Schedule A, Condition No. 4 will minimize the discharge of pesticides by requiring an environmentally protective common sense approach to pest management. All operators are required to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Schedule B, Conditions 1. through 8. Schedule F of the permit includes recordkeeping requirements for three years.

Section D. This section summarizes circumstances in OAR 340-045-0033 to explain when coverage under this permit is not available. One circumstance precluding permit coverage under this permit is when pesticide applications are approved and regulated under a separate NPDES permit. DEQ’s existing stormwater permits for construction, industrial activity, and regulated municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) already include best management practices for pesticide applications. Thus, stormwater is in some cases already subject to NPDES permit requirements for pesticides; however, these stormwater permits do not regulate the application of a pesticide as a point source. The annual treatment area threshold set in this permit will most likely avoid the need for a source to register for both a stormwater permit and a pesticide general permit. Operators of small-scale pest control are not required to register and pay a fee for this pesticide general permit.

Permit Limits There are two categories of effluent limits for NPDES permits: 1) Technology-based effluent limits (TBEL) and 2) Water quality-based effluent limits (WQBEL). TBELs define a minimum level of control using available technology. EPA establishes technology-based effluent limits through Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) specific to industrial categories. If there are no applicable ELGs, best professional judgment may be used. EPA explains in their proposed fact sheet for the 2016 pesticide general permit on page 78:

“Permit writers are to assess whether the TBELs 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 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

of 49

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.”

When renewing a permit, a permit writer typically evaluates the existing limits in the permit against changes to technology based standards and water quality standards that may have occurred during the permit term. With few exceptions, the anti-backsliding provisions (described in CWA Section 402(o) and CFR 122.44(l)) do not allow relaxation of effluent limits in renewed permits. The most stringent of the existing or new limits must be included in the new permit. Similar to EPA’s 2011 pesticide general permit and 2016 proposed pesticide general permit, this permit retains technology based effluent limits and narrative water quality-based effluent limits for most pest control categories. The non-numeric technology-based effluent limitations and narrative water quality-based effluent limits in this general permit will protect the existing beneficial uses in the receiving surface waters of the state. These beneficial uses are:

Public Domestic Water Supply Resident Fish and Aquatic life

Salmonid Fish Rearing Aesthetic Quality

Boating Livestock Water

Industrial Water Supply Wildlife and Hunting

Salmonid Fish Spawning Hydro Power

Water Contact Recreation Anadromous Fish Passage Irrigation Fishing Transportation Commercial Navigation

This permit includes requirements for irrigation systems use of acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based aquatic pesticides in Schedule E. With the addition of irrigation systems in this general permit, management practices for acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based pesticides are also included. DEQ issued individual permits for irrigation systems beginning in 2001. A review of these individual permit conditions and evaluation reports shows that regulation of these aquatic herbicide applications in irrigation systems are substantially similar in each individual permit and to the requirements in this pesticide general permit. Management practices for acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based pesticides are consistent with the permit conditions that are in individual irrigation district permits issued in 2005 and 2006. The individual permits include numeric effluent limits for acrolein, copper and xylene. The effluent limits for acrolein and xylene are lower in this general permit than the effluent limits in the individual permits. The copper limit in this general permit is the same as the copper permit limit in the individual irrigation district permits. The effluent limit for acrolein is lower because DEQ incorporated new human health water quality criteria for acrolein. The effluent limit for xylene is lower based on new

of 49

information from EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs in the Sept. 26, 2005 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for xylene. More information on timing, amount, type and location of pesticide use for acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based aquatic pesticides used to control weeds and algae within treatment areas in irrigation systems is included in Schedule E.

Existing Narrative Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits and Technology Based Effluent Limits

Narrative Water Quality-Based Effluent limits Similar to EPA’s 2011 pesticide general permit and 2016 proposed pesticide general permit, this permit retains technology-based effluent limits and narrative water quality-based effluent limits for most pest control categories. DEQ is in agreement with EPA’s approach to regulate most pest control categories using technology-based effluent limits and narrative water quality-based effluent limits to protect water quality. EPA noted in their 2011 pesticide general permit and their 2016 proposed pesticide general permit fact sheet that national scale monitoring data is not well suited to identify whether a point source discharge of a specific pesticide may adversely affect water quality. National scale monitoring data such as USGS’s studies contained in The Quality of Our Nation’s Water – Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001 :USGS Circular (Gilliom et al. 2006) are earlier studies that did not focus on point source discharge. These studies

• capture the transport of pesticides to surface water from runoff; • capture more diffuse non-point transport of pesticides in watersheds, • do not focus on the practices in place during pesticide use and • may not have captured pesticide residues with the timing and location of sample collection.

Similarly, the results of many studies with water quality toxic monitoring data in Oregon are not coincident with a point source discharge of biological pesticide or chemical pesticide excess or residual. The possible sources of the pesticides detected in ambient water are associated with the common pesticide use and other known land uses in that area. In 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey began sampling for pesticides in the Clackamas River basin as part of a cooperative study with the Clackamas Watershed Management Group. The study did not focus on point sources, the study did associate the pesticides found in surface water with various pesticide uses:

“Of the 51 current-use pesticides detected in the basin, 47 have uses associated with nursery and floriculture crops (29 herbicides, 12 insecticides, and 6 fungicides). About one-half of the pesticides detected in the Clackamas River basin also are commonly used on lawns and landscaping in urban areas (57 percent), on golf courses (49 percent), applied along fences, roads, and other rights-of-way (45 percent). Although not specifically examined in this study, 14 percent of the pesticides may be used on forestland, and considering the large amount of forest acreage in the basin, applications to state or private forestland also may be important. Pesticide use on federal land in the basin is rare, although applications have been done in the past.” [USGS Pesticide Occurrence and Distribution in the Lower Clackamas River Basin, Oregon, 2000-2005]

of 49

Most of the sampling events are during storm events. The sampling events target stormwater runoff and seasonal fluctuations. The study results are compared to pesticide benchmarks, which are helpful in interpreting monitoring data, but not for establishing numeric effluent limits for a point source discharge. As DEQ notes in the December 2009 Willamette Basin and Streams Assessment summary report, pesticide-specific water quality standards do not exist for the vast majority of pesticides. The report states:

“Herbicides were the most frequently detected class of pesticides measured in water samples from the Willamette River Basin. Diuron and atrazine were the most commonly detected herbicides in surface water sampled at 20 sites in September and December 2008. At least half of the surface water samples collected during September and December contained detectable concentrations of the herbicide diuron and at least a quarter of the samples contained detectible concentrations of atrazine, another widely used herbicide. No pesticides were detected in water at concentrations that exceeded federal or Oregon water quality criteria although few criteria exist for current-use pesticides.”

A discharge from most pesticide applications is not typical of a point source discharge that can easily be characterized to establish a numeric effluent limitation. Chemical pesticide products applied directly to water are not considered pollutants until sometime after the pesticide will have performed its intended function for pest control under Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); therefore, the point in time for which a numeric effluent limitation would apply is not easily determined. The discharges are intermittent. The pesticide product will have varying rates of degradation, the compounds of degradation vary and the discharge will have combined with other discharges in the water, so that it is not easily distinguishable from the pesticide application of the product. For most pesticide applications the approach on how and when to measure for a numeric limit is not clear. NPDES permits are usually written for continuous discharges that have a discrete discharge location and a characterized discharge. Most discharges from the application of pesticides are different. Pesticides applications often occur over a short duration. The discharges are highly variable and over many different locations, an approach to setting numerical limits at each location would be difficult. Pesticide use is dependent upon formulation changes and practices that keep ahead of pest resistance. The active ingredients are known and regulated under FIFRA. The inerts and adjuvants are not known. While numerical WQBEL are not part of the permit, for most discharges the non-numerical technology-based control limits are an effective regulatory requirement that takes into account the variability in location and pesticide use. Studies that focus on pesticide use over a period of time can follow the trend in pesticide use. On the USGS web site, http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/herbicide_decline.html, USGS noted that after monitoring 50 Midwestern streams in 1989, 1990, 1994, 1995, and 1998:

• Certain herbicides declined because they were not being used: alachlor showed a downward trend because of the decrease in the total application amount; and

• A pesticide showed a downward trend suggesting that changes in farming and best management practices, or other factors, are affecting the concentration.

Studies have shown that pesticides in the water decrease when management practices that focus on improving water quality are adopted. As part of the Pesticide Stewardship Program at DEQ, projects in the Columbia Gorge, Hood River and The Dalles, have shown substantial improvements in water quality associated with measurable changes in pesticide management practices. [DEQ Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships Fact Sheet 2012]

of 49

Technology-Based Effluent Limits Effluent limit guidelines are not established for pesticide applications into, over or near the water’s edge. For point sources not covered by an effluent limit guideline, permit writers develop technology-based effluent limits using best professional judgment (40 CFR Part 125.3). Permits must contain technology-based effluent limits (40 CFR Part 122.44(a)(1) and 125.3) and any additional limits needed to ensure the permitted activity does not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. For most pesticide applications, information needed to develop numeric effluent limits is not available at this time. For pesticide applications other than acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based aquatic pesticides used to control weeds and algae in irrigation systems, this permit is using EPA’s and other states’ technology-based effluent limits. The non-numerical, technology-based effluent limits reduce pollutants by using appropriate pest management measures, also known as best management practices. It is important to note that EPA generally expects that compliance with the technology-based effluent limit in the permit will meet the applicable water quality-based effluent limitations and DEQ’s permit is in keeping with this assumption. However, the extent of the reduction cannot be determined, so the permit contains a narrative water quality-based effluent limit that prohibits any discharge that violates water quality standards. This permit renewal continues to use pest management measures to minimize the impacts of pesticide use. These pest management measures are the most environmentally sound way to control the discharge of pesticide pollutants to meet the water quality-based effluent limitation. Requiring all operators to minimize their discharge through using the proper amount of pesticide, using the proper equipment, maintenance, spill prevention, corrective action and pest management measures goes beyond the current practice of following the FIFRA label. (Schedule A, Condition Nos. 2. through 4.) The reduction in the discharge will serve to protect water quality and beneficial uses. The permit requires more than the conventional “follow the FIFRA label” pest control and management practices for pesticides. Not all FIFRA labels contain management practices to protect water quality. Conventional pest control is typically reactive, intended to kill the target pest, but ignoring the reasons why the pests are present. Conventional pest control may be used to ward off the onset of the pest before it is even detected or does damage. Conventional pest control is a short term solution that can become dependent upon repeated pesticide use that may cause water quality problems. Federal or state label requirements may not include local considerations. Inherent in the pest management measures in this permit is an understanding of the species involved, an evaluation of the threat at that site and a combination of control methods that results in minimizing the use of pesticides. The evaluation is not static. Continued evaluations and improvements are expected as part of the practice. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was an encouraged practice for some, but now IPM type procedures or Pest Management Measures are now a requirement under the permit. In Schedule A. Condition Nos. 1.a. and 3. through 4., all operators are required to meet water quality standards, take corrective action if water quality standards are not met and practice pest management measures on some level. For those operators not identified in Table 1, the general pest management measures required in Schedule A, Condition Nos. 2 through 4 are an effective and environmentally sensitive approach that relies on a combination of common-sense practices. The pest management measures rely on current, comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interactions with the environment. This information in combination with available pest control methods will be used to manage pest damage with the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment while taking into consideration the most economical means. For those operators identified in Table 1, pest management in Schedule A, Condition Nos. 5 through 9 takes a more detailed structural approach toward minimizing the discharge of pesticides.

of 49

The general permit does authorize a discharge to a waterbody identified as water quality limited on the 303(d) list for a pesticide, its chemical residual or degradates when a waste load allocation for the relevant pollutant parameter does not exist. 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. An operator will have to choose between using mechanical means, a different pesticide product or an individual permit. A discharge of impairment pollutants to water quality limited waterbody would require an individual permit which may include a more detailed site specific evaluation that results in additional technology-based or water quality-based effluent limitations. DEQ has tools to identify categories 4 and 5, 303(d) listed waterbody segments as an additional permit resource. There are waterbodies that are on DEQ’s 2010 303(d) list for chlorpyrifos and copper as well as other pesticides.

Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits for Acrolein-, Copper-, Xylene-based Aquatic Pesticides Within Irrigation Systems Boundaries Irrigation systems provide farmers and ranchers with water for irrigation of their crops and pastures. However, irrigation systems are sometimes interconnected with natural systems and valid concerns about off-site effects can arise over the application of pesticides into these irrigation systems. This permit has effluent limits and management practices to prevent residues from pesticide-treated irrigation waters from affecting natural waterways. Residues are the aquatic herbicide itself or by-product resulting from the application of the aquatic herbicide. Residues are found outside of the treatment area during application or persist after the specified treatment period. The permit assumes that all pesticides leave a residue. For chemical pesticide residues in Schedule A., DEQ requires compliance with water quality standards within the irrigation system outside of the treatment area during the treatment period, and within the irrigation system and treatment area after the treatment period has elapsed. Compliance with water quality standards is required within the irrigation system for biological pesticides. Effluent limits are at set at water quality criteria or set at levels of protection without mixing. In keeping with prior individual permits, compliance is monitored at a discernible compliance point closest to natural water. Acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based pesticide residues will continue to be sampled at a location that is closest to natural water. A definition of natural water, to describe this sampling point, is provided in the definition section. Surface waters of the state includes canals, creeks, impounding reservoirs, natural or artificial, public or private surface water. An exception to surface waters of the state is private water that does not combine or connect with a natural surface or underground water. An irrigation ditch or canal can be a surface water of the state with applicable beneficial uses that are listed by basin in Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 340-041 Tables 101A to 340A. With a few exceptions for hydro-power, industrial water supply and commercial navigation and transport, most basins have the following beneficial uses:

Public and Private Domestic Water Supply1

Aesthetic Quality

Salmonid Fish Rearing Livestock Water Boating1 Wildlife and Hunting Industrial Water Supply Hydro Power Salmonid Fish Spawning Anadromous Fish Passage Water Contact Recreation Fishing2

of 49

Irrigation Commercial Navigation & Transportation1

Fish and Aquatic life2

1 Beneficial uses in Umatilla Basin applicable to West Division Main Canal constructed channel and over flow channels do not include public or private domestic water supply, boating or commercial navigation & transportation. 2 Beneficial uses in Umatilla Basin applicable to West Division Main Canal overflow channels do not include fish and aquatic life or fishing. Water quality standards applicable to West Division Main Canal constructed channel and over flow channels that are part of West Extension Irrigation District are contained in OAR 340-041-0315. Irrigation system’s primary beneficial use is to supply water for irrigation and the permit will protect the beneficial uses, in addition to irrigation, in the natural waterways. Human health and aquatic life criteria are appropriate criteria to apply in each basin in the state. A use attainability analysis is required to change a beneficial use established in DEQ’s water quality standards for a surface water of the state. See Schedule E for further explanation of water quality-based effluent limits.

Antidegradation The pest control covered under this permit and the discharges from pesticide applications existed prior to DEQ’s issuance and coverage granted under the permit in October 2011. Federal and state agencies and others have used pesticides to achieve conservation management goals, restore water quality and maintain infrastructure. Vector control agencies are established to monitor flying insect populations to protect public health and use pest control when necessary. Pesticide applicators are licensed for pesticide use in categories such as right of ways, regulatory weed, public health and aquatic. Pesticide application is expected to be consistent with past usage in that it will follow FIFRA label requirements and fluctuate with the severity of a pest infestation. As such, the existing discharges do not constitute new or increased “point source” discharges that would foreseeably degrade water quality. This NPDES permit has a term of five years. The permit as it is renewed must include limits and other conditions necessary to implement water quality standards developed to protect the most sensitive beneficial uses. This general permit contains limits based on the most recent water quality criteria for acrolein. The limits are set to protect the most sensitive beneficial use, human health. This permit also contains a numeric limit for xylene that will be protective of aquatic life. DEQ’s water quality criteria for copper will change based on EPA’s consultation with NMFS. A permit can be reopened to include a new water quality criteria, however there are many considerations before doing so, such as the remaining time in a permit term and staffing resources.

The water quality-based effluent limits and pest management measures in this permit will be protective of water quality standards and existing beneficial uses. Chemical pesticides are applied as a product and are intended to be toxic to the target species. The discharges covered under this permit are for the chemical pesticide residues after the pesticide has performed its intended purpose. Therefore, the residue will be no higher than, and in many instances, lower than, the concentration of the pesticide as applied. The permit assumes that all pesticide applications leave a residue. Biological pesticides are certain microorganisms including bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa that are effective in controlling target pests. Biological pesticides do not by regulatory definition work through a toxic mode of action. [EPA 2011 and 2016 proposed Pesticide General Permit Fact Sheet]

of 49

Permit renewals with the same discharge loadings as the previous permit, as in this case, are not considered to lower water quality from the existing condition. DEQ’s renewal of the pesticide general permit will continue to protect water quality as operators responsible for the pest control carry out the permit’s technology-based requirements for minimization and follow pest management measures. This permit includes additional limits for acrolein- ,copper- and xylene-based pesticide use in irrigation systems. Operators of irrigation systems that use theses aquatic chemical pesticides will be required to register and allow DEQ to monitor its’ use. The effluent limits for acrolein and xylene are lower in this general permit than the effluent limits in the individual permits and as such do not result in an increased discharge of a pollutant or degradation of water quality.

The permit requires the protection of existing uses and limits when new or increased pollutants may be allowed. This permit contains water quality-based limits to prevent degrading water quality and “that prohibit increased discharge of the limited water quality parameter (or parameter related to the limited parameter) in a water quality limited water. The conditions in this permit implement the antidegradation rules consistent with EPA’s August 2013 comments on DEQ’s antidegradation approach for general permits. These comments can be found online at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/EPAreviewAntiDeg.pdf

of 49

Schedule A- Discharge Limitations Minimization (condition nos. 1 through 4) For many pesticide applications, minimization of the discharge can be achieved without using highly engineered, complex treatment systems. The specific limits included in Schedule A. emphasize effective “low-tech” approaches, including following mandatory label requirements, using the optimal 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. These effluent limits are generally preventative in nature, and are designed to minimize the discharge of pollutants from pesticide use. Operators are ultimately responsible for ensuring that all required effluent limits are met.

Pest management measures (conditions Nos. 1., 2. and 3.) Condition 1.a. contains a general requirement that all operators must manage their discharge so that it does not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Operators must take corrective action in response to a discharge that does not meet this requirement. In Condition 1.b, operators of irrigation systems must meet the narrative water quality-based effluent limits in Condition 1.a., as well as, water quality based limits and technology based effluent limits in Schedule E. To meet these limits the permit requires operators to implement site-specific pest management measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the application of pesticides. Minimize means to reduce or eliminate pesticide discharges to surface waters of the state using achievable pest management measures to the extent technologically available and economically practicable and achievable. Exact pest management measures are not listed because there is variability in the best way to achieve these pest management measures. Pest management measures can be actions, such as processes, procedures, schedules of activities, prohibitions on practices and other management practices, or structural, or installed devices to prevent or reduce water pollution. The appropriate pest management measures need to be adapted for each site. Basic pest management measures are required of operators whose smaller scale pesticide applications are below the annual treatment area thresholds in Table 1. More detailed pest management measures are required of operators that trigger registration requirements. Both the basic and more detailed pest management measures are protective of water quality. The more detailed pest management measures are required of operators whose pesticide applications have a greater potential to affect water quality. In Condition 2.a., DEQ requires operators to follow mandatory Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act label requirement (e.g. directions) that can protect water quality. This information can be found in several sections of a label, including sections with the following headings: Directions for Use, Environmental Hazards, Spray Drift Management, Endangered Species Protection, and Buffers (Vegetative and “No Spray” Buffers). Examples of mandatory requirement language in the label that can protect water quality include:

• “This product must not be mixed or loaded within ___ feet of intermittent streams or rivers” • “The following drift management requirements must be followed to avoid off-target drift

movement from aerial applications…..” • “Any use of this product in an area where use is prohibited is a violation of federal law.” • “Do not exceed ___ pounds per acre per calendar year.”

of 49

Generally a pesticide product label contains both mandatory actions and advisory statements related to practices that can prevent pesticide residues from reaching surface waters. This information can be found in several sections of a label, including sections with the following headings: Directions for Use, Environmental Hazards, Spray Drift Management, Endangered Species Protection, and Buffers (Vegetative and “No Spray” Buffers). The mandatory requirements are typically identifiable by language that includes the words “must” or “must not.” Using the pesticide product as intended and following the label will result in the efficient use of the pesticide and minimize or prevent a pesticide or pesticide residue from discharging to water. Using the optimal amount of pesticide, as required in Condition 2.b, reduces the amount of pesticide that is not performing a specific pest-control function. Using only the amount and frequency of applications necessary will save the user time and money. [EPA 2011 and 2016 proposed Pesticide General Permit Fact Sheet]. In Condition 2.c., operators are required by DEQ to minimize discharge through equipment maintenance, proper mixing and loading activities. Common sense and good housekeeping practices enable pesticide users to save time and money and reduce the potential for unintended discharges. Some basic practices to consider to make sure equipment is in proper operating condition and how to avoid improper pesticide mixing and equipment loading are provided below:

• Inspect pesticide containers at purchase to ensure proper containment; • Maintain and clean storage facilities for pesticides; • Regularly monitor containers for leaks; • Make sure gaskets are tight and connections are secure to prevent spills and leaks; • Ensure the proper handling and storage of the equipment at the treatment site; • Use leak proof Containers for storage and mixing on site need to be leak proof; • Avoid storage and mixing in areas that will drain or leach any accidental spillage into water; and • Promptly deal with spills following the manufacturer’s recommendations.

For example, when water is taken from a stream for mixing pesticides or to clean equipment, there are ways to prevent the pesticide from getting into the stream. A backflow-preventer or an air gap on the device used for siphoning or a clean reservoir between the water source and the mixing container will prevent the pesticide from getting into the water. In Condition 2.d, DEQ expects operators to maintain the application equipment and calibrate it to have the necessary control: otherwise too little or too much will be applied. Apply too little, the frequency of application increases, apply too much and excess pesticide may lead to water quality problems and could be a violation of pesticide laws (FIFRA and ORS 634). 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 [EPA 2011 and 2016 proposed Pesticide General Permit Fact Sheet]. Spray application equipment must be equipped to deliver at the correct pressure, with the right orifice size or tip to dispense the proper amount of product. Any pumps for spraying need maintenance to deliver the pesticide at sufficient pressure to apply a uniform and adequate rate of pesticide. Pesticide application efficiency and precision can be adversely affected by a variety of mechanical problems and can be addressed through regular calibration. Sound calibration practices to consider are:

• Choosing the right spray equipment for the application; • Ensuring the proper regulation of pressure and choice of nozzle to ensure the desired application

rate; • Calibrating spray equipment prior to use to ensure the rate applied is that required for effective

control of the target pest;

of 49

• Cleaning all equipment after each use and prior to using another pesticide; • 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; and

• Replacing all worn components of pesticide application equipment prior to application. Pesticide application equipment is generally sold with manufacturer’s instructions so that the manufacturer’s conditions can be followed on how to use the equipment properly. If the equipment is not new, operators should get access to the manufacturer’s information to make sure the instructions are followed, the equipment is used properly to maximize efficiency and accuracy of delivery and pesticide use is minimized. Condition 2.e contains a requirement to assess environmental conditions in the treatment area, which applies to all operators covered under this permit. DEQ expects that the weather conditions will be assessed to determine that the conditions are appropriate for an effective application in instances when the label dictates certain requirements. Documentation of weather conditions is an additional requirement for operators that are required to register. For example, aerial applications are affected by environmental conditions such as temperature, wind or other factors that contribute to the optimal use of the pesticide. Environmental conditions, such as temperature, precipitation and wind speed in the treatment area need to be assessed so that the aerial applications of chemical and biological sprays are optimized and the effects on non-target species are minimized. The operator should consider which weather conditions have an increased potential for drift and runoff and avoid aerial applications under those unfavorable conditions. Among other requirements, during aerial or ground based applications the air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction should be recorded because these weather conditions may strongly effect the deposition and area of coverage. (Forest Practices Act OAR 629-620-0600 Daily Records for Chemical Applications) Environmental conditions such as temperature, precipitation and wind speed affect the results of an adulticide pesticide application and need to be considered. Equipment performance and the ability to target the desired species are affected by environmental conditions. For example, when using ultra low volume (ULV) spraying equipment, light wind conditions of less than 10 miles per hour are the most desirable for the material through the treatment area. Thermal fogs also perform best under very light wind conditions. Certain species of mosquito are active during the daytime, and application needs to be made at the period of highest activity. In order to prevent poor site coverage, a guidance system (GPS), when economically feasible, or site flagging may be necessary to increase accuracy of the treatment coverage while minimizing the amount of pesticides being applied. Site restrictions such as water use and water movement need to be considered. The efficacy of the pesticide may be dependent upon the waterbody conditions such as temperature or water movement for proper mixing and the least impact on non-target species. For example, proper mixing is used to achieve the necessary pesticide concentration. In an aquatic plant management study on Mason Lake in the state of Washington, an innovative approach was used to reduce the area of pesticide application. The desired mixing was not achieved and resulted in a concentration that was too high and likely ineffective because the plants shut down and did not translocate the herbicide so that a repeated application at a lower concentration was necessary. [WDOE Aquatic Plant Management Mason Lake Project http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/MasonLakeProject.html] Using site-specific pest management measures will minimize the discharge of pesticides to surface water. If site-specific pest management measures are not being met or water quality standards are not being met as required by Condition 1, then corrective action is required.

of 49

Schedule A pest management measures (condition nos. 4 through 10) As provided in Condition 4, all operators are still required to use pest management measures to minimize the discharge of pesticides. There are elements of integrated pest management in pest management measures and a comparison to Oregon’s requirement for integrated pest management under Oregon revised statutes is provided below.

Monitor and identify pests Not all insects, weeds, and other living organisms require control. Many organisms are innocuous, and some are even beneficial. This permit condition emphasizes the need to monitor for pests and identify them accurately, so that appropriate control decisions can be made in conjunction with action thresholds. This monitoring and identification reduces the possibility that pesticides will be used when they are not really needed.

Set action thresholds Before taking any pest control action, consider an action threshold, a point at which pest populations or environmental conditions indicate that pest control action must be taken. Detecting a single pest does not always mean control is needed. The level at which pests will become an economic threat is critical to guide future pest control decisions.

Pest management Work to prevent pests from becoming a threat as a first line of pest control. This may mean using cultural methods, mechanical or physical methods, biological control methods, or other preventative or pest reduction activities. These control methods can be effective and cost-efficient and present little to no risk to people or the environment. Once monitoring, identification, and action thresholds indicate that pest control is required, and preventive methods are no longer effective or available, then evaluate the proper control method both for effectiveness and risk. Most federal and state agencies already use some form of integrated pest management. Integrated pest management is defined under FIFRA (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C 136r-1) for federal agencies that are expected to follow integrated pest management (USC 136r-1). Under 136r–1., Integrated Pest Management is a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks. USC 136r-1 contains this statement:

“The Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator shall make information on Integrated Pest Management widely available to pesticide users, including Federal agencies. Federal agencies shall use Integrated Pest Management techniques in carrying out pest management activities and shall promote Integrated Pest Management through procurement and regulatory policies, and other activities.”

Under ORS 634.655, state policy requires all state agencies that have pest control responsibilities to follow the principles of integrated pest management. As of 2013, ORS 634.657 requires the formation of an integrated pest management coordinating committee, which is required to submit reports on activities related to integrated pest management. An integrated pest management coordinator is also provided for in this rule. ORS 634.650(1) defines integrated pest management for state agencies that have pest control responsibilities in Oregon:

of 49

(1) Integrated pest management means a science-based decision-making process that:

(a) Identifies and reduces risks from pests and from pest management-related strategies; (b) Coordinates the use of pest biology, environmental information and comprehensive

technology to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by economical means and poses the least possible risk to people, property, resources and the environment; and

(c) Uses a pest management approach that focuses on the prevention of pests through a combination of techniques that may include, but need not be limited to: (A) Surveillance and monitoring; (B) Early detection and rapid response; (C) Mechanical control; (D) The selective use of pesticides; (E) Cultural practices; (F) Modified land management; (G) Biological controls; (H) Evaluation of the effects and efficacy of pest treatments; and (I) Control practices selected and applied to achieve desired pest management

objectives in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, nontarget organisms, native fish and wildlife habitat, watersheds and the environment.

The permit requires the operator to follow appropriate pest management measures for pesticide use if pesticide use is part of the pest control. This permit also extends the requirement to use pest management measures to operators not regulated under state and federal statutes for integrated pest management and provides a mechanism for DEQ to enforce the reduction of pesticide discharges and better protect water quality. Pest management measures are more defined and structured for the operators identified in Table 1. Condition Nos. 5. through 9. require pest management measures for each type of pest control covered under the permit. This permit provides coverage for operators whose discharges of pesticides to surface waters of the state are solely from pesticide research and development activities, but consistent with EPA’s pesticide general permit, these operators implement pest management measures in the permit to the extent that implementation of the pest management measure does not compromise the research design. (See Schedule A, Condition Nos. 4.e. and 10.)

Identify the problem (condition Nos. 5.a., 6.a., 7.a., 8.a., and 9.a.) 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 and in developing an action threshold. An action threshold is a pre-established criterion, 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 for those actions. Action thresholds can vary by pest, by site and by season. Establishing the action threshold can be dependent upon the health, public safety, economics, aesthetics, and habitat management goals. Control for each specific pest is also predicated on the status of the pest as native recurring, quarantine restricted, or invasive species. Knowledge of the pest problem is an important step to developing pest management strategies. While numerous similar pests may be present in any given location, only a few of the representative species may constitute a threat that requires control activities. Through proper pest identification, informed pesticide

of 49

management decisions can be made based on the development biology of the pest (susceptible development stage), pest mobility (potential rate of spread), timing to act on the selected pest management measures, applicable control techniques, and most effective chemical pesticides for the target species. Failure to identify pests can lead to unwarranted control activities or the need for chemical application with potential for discharge into water, or both. Operators are required to identify the pest problem in their pest management area prior to the first application covered under this permit. 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.

Identifying the pest problem for mosquito and other flying insect pest control Monitoring for mosquitoes can begin before the presence of the flying insect. The ecology of this varied species is not tackled in this fact sheet, but in general, the ideal place for mosquitoes to breed is quiet, stagnant, sunlit water. Habitat and climate determine which mosquito species will be present in any area. Adult females lay their eggs in standing water, which can be a salt-marsh, a lake, a puddle, a natural reservoir on a plant, or an artificial water container such as a plastic bucket. The first three stages are aquatic and last 5 to 14 days, depending on the species and the ambient temperature; eggs hatch to become larvae, then pupae. The adult mosquito emerges from the pupa as it floats at the water surface. Adults live for 4 to 8 weeks. All mosquitoes need to have water to complete their cycle. Natural and artificial containers can consist of holes in a tree, rain puddles, catch basins, wood piles, bird baths and discarded tires. Mosquitos create a floating raft of between 100 and 400 eggs on top of stagnant water. The eggs can lie dormant in a tire, bucket or roof gutter until water and temperatures are ideal for hatching. A small water filled bucket can house 1,000 mosquitoes. During warm weather it takes only 7 days to go from egg to adult mosquito. “A comprehensive program will include sampling of known breeding locations, seasonally and conducive weather conditions.” [Best Management Practices in Mosquito Control-Oregon Mosquito and Vector Control Association] Dipping is a method of sampling the breeding areas. The dipping survey can be used to determine the species composition and population densities, the stage the larvae are in for optimal times of application of larval pest management measures. The surveys will help to predict the type of adult mosquito that will emerge and need for adult control. Post pesticide application surveys help to assess the effectiveness of the pesticide management method. “For example, if larval surveys indicate 95-100% control by larvicides and yet the number of adults does not decline, one can suspect, in the absence of reinfestation, that an important larval concentration was missed. A system for the detection of insecticide resistance is also provided through a larval surveillance program.” [Wing Beats, O'Malley, C. 1995. Seven ways to a successful dipping career. Wing Beats, vol. 6(4): 23-24. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/dipping.htm]

Adult surveillance methods include trapping methods: (CO2 baited trap, Gravid trap, New Jersey light trap). Public health concerns, such as, viruses that are transmitted by arthropod vectors (arbovirus), can be identified by testing adult mosquitoes and using sentinels and suspected infected animals cases. Having a program in place for early detection allows for proper planning and management, which will reduce pesticide use.

of 49

Identifying the pest problem for weed and algae pest control and nuisance animal pest control Knowledge of the pest problem is important to keeping the natural balance of plant and animal species in Oregon. Proper identification of the species, its growth patterns, how it spreads and keeping track of its density are the first steps to take in order to develop pest management measures. Familiarity with the watershed and beneficial uses of a watershed is key to controlling the pest species that is present. Intended use goals for the waterbodies that are being impeded because of nuisance pest infestation must also be considered. Below are examples of efforts in identifying the problem, how the pest may spread, the growth pattern and development in these pest control categories. Identifying the problem will result in targeting the proper pest and using effective pest management. For example, Diamond Lake was on DEQ’s 1998 303(d) list of impaired waters for pH and chlorophyll a because the lake experienced excessive algae blooms in the summer. It was determined that the excess algae in the lake resulted from a shift in the trophic levels caused by the introduction of tui chub, a non-native fish species. After successful eradication of the fish, water conditions improved in the lake.

Identifying the problem includes understanding how a pest spreads. In September 2006, OR Governor Kulongoski, CA Governor Schwarzenegger, and WA Governor Gregoire signed the West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health. The agreement includes a three-state effort to eradicate Spartina from the west coast by 2018. “Without diligent control, non-native Spartina is known to alter the hydrology of estuaries by modification of tidal creeks and navigational channels, dominate newly restored tidal marshes, displace thousands of acres of shorebird habitat, and drastically reduce biodiversity. Drift card studies have shown that Spartina can rapidly spread throughout the West Coast of the US and Canada through dispersal of seeds on ocean currents.” www.westcoastoceans.gov/Docs/WCGA_Executive_Overview_Final.pdf How a pest can be controlled involves knowing the susceptible development stage. In Northwest estuaries, mud shrimp play an important ecological role, filtering as much as 80 percent of the water in some estuaries each day during their feeding. They are also valuable prey for birds, fish, and other estuarine animals, and some ecologists believe they have played a historically important role in the health of salmon runs by providing a steady food source for ocean-bound juvenile coho and Chinook. But in 2005, scientists reported that mud shrimp populations were rapidly declining, and they identified Orthione griffenis, an invasive parasitic isopod, as the cause. Researchers are studying the parasite's complex life history and its use of copepods (zooplankton) as temporary hosts before settling in on the mud shrimp. [Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, “Aquatic Invasive Species News in a Nutshell: issue 24 March-May 2009]

Identifying the pest problem forest canopy pest control and area-wide pest control Identifying the problem consists of identifying the species, its development and behavior, identifying the extent and range of the pest problem both in the past and in the present, and making a determination of the potential for pest problem expansion and assessing the impacts for failure to provide pest control. As forest canopy pest and area-wide pest control can involve treating large expanses, mapping is also an important component in identification of the problem. The distribution of the pest 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 or 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.

of 49

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. Problem identification includes determining the potential economic impact of not controlling the pest. By establishing economic thresholds, it is possible to determine pest density action thresholds that 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. For example, grids of pheromone traps and visual egg mass counts are monitoring techniques used to determine where a breeding insect population of gypsy moths is located. The Oregon Department of Agriculture conducts an extensive detection program for gypsy moth, setting over 19,000 gypsy moth traps in 2004. When a gypsy moth is captured, ODA then sets additional traps around the site to determine whether there is a reproducing gypsy moth infestation, and if so, identifies the approximate geographical area of the infestation. The detection program the ODA has in place is an important tool in keeping gypsy moths in check. ODA has reduced the number of acres of gypsy moth infestation. Populations are small and treatable due to the detection program. In 2010, ODA in cooperation with the US Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS), conducted grasshopper surveys. Nymphal surveys were used to locate potential outbreak areas. Adult surveys were used to make predictions for the following year and develop an estimate of the acreage with economic levels of grasshopper infestation (economic density).

Pest management (condition nos. 5.b., 6.b., 7.b., 8.b. and 9.b.) Operators are required to implement efficient and effective means of pest management over the long term that minimize discharges to surface waters of the state resulting from the application of pesticides. Alternatives to pesticide use must be considered but can be considered in combination with other pest management options. 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. The management strategy chosen must take into consideration the impacts to water quality, minimizing impacts to non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility and cost effectiveness. The strategies to be evaluated include: no action, prevention, mechanical or physical methods, cultural methods, biological control agents and pesticides. A combination of the management strategies used over the long term is usually the most effective to prevent resistance. Below are examples of pest management options. Additional information is available in the EPA 2011 and 2016 proposed pesticide general permit fact sheet. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides/aquaticpesticides.cfm

Examples of Pest

Management Mosquito Control Weed and Algae

Control Animal Control Forest Canopy Area-wide

No Action

Mosquito-borne disease is not a concern to human or animals, control methods may cause secondary or non-target impacts and there is not a large human or animal population affected.

Available control methods may cause secondary or non-target impacts that are not justified, no available control exists, or weeds are at a level that do not impair water body uses.

Available control methods may cause secondary or non-target impacts that are not justified, no available control exists .

Available control methods may cause secondary or non-target impacts that are not justified, or aesthetic or economic losses are not anticipated.

Available control methods may cause secondary or non-target impacts that are not justified, or economic or social impacts are not anticipated.

of 49

Examples of Pest

Management Mosquito Control Weed and Algae

Control Animal Control Forest Canopy Area-wide

Prevention Public education and outreach.

Increased public awareness, better design of water holding sites, early detection, following the laws in place.

Increased public awareness, better design of water holding sites, early detection, and following the laws in place.

Increased public awareness of the origin of firewood.

Emphasis on education and early detection.

Mechanical/ Physical Methods

Habitat modification, i.e. cutting grass, remove stagnant water, etc.

Remove weeds by hand or machine.

Fishing, dewatering, netting, electro fishing, electric fences, removing by hand or machine.

Egg mass removal, trapping. Habitat modification.

Cultural Methods Remove standing water.

Pond dyes, water-level draw down.

Eliminate food supply. Species diversity.

Grazing Management.

Biological Control Agents

Introduce diseases, predators or parasites. Predators can include: mosquito fish, bats, birds

Introduce diseases, predators or parasites

Introduce diseases, predators or parasites

Introduce/ enhance diseases, predators or parasites, sterile insect release and mating disruption

Introduce/ enhance predators

Pesticides Chemical and biological pesticides Chemical pesticides Chemical and

Biological Pesticides

Chemical and biological pesticides

Chemical and biological pesticides

All pest management measures must be conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to non-target species. In some instances, the need for chemical pesticide use in and adjacent to the treatment area can be reduced or virtually eliminated with proper execution of alternative strategies and proper best management practices, including routine evaluation. Operators must reevaluate every year prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year. Pesticide use (condition Nos. 5.c., 6.c., 7.c., 8.c. and 9.c.) Pest management measures take into consideration the pest management area and the pest management strategy for that area. By using pest management measures, consideration is given to other treatment alternatives or the combination of treatment alternatives (mechanical, cultural, biological) under pest management. Choosing a pesticide that is more selective for the target species is part of that consideration. 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.

If pesticides are used, they must only be used as needed as determined by an action threshold. Pesticide use must follow the appropriate best management practices including use of the minimum effective application rate. Operators should consider a pesticide that minimizes the movement of material off-site. The choice of a pellet or granular formulation over liquid or a pesticide with additives that causes the pesticide to stick in order to minimize the potential for movement of the material off-site are possible considerations. Operators are required to conduct pest surveillance prior to the application of pesticides to determine when the action threshold is met. Pest surveillance is necessary for pest control in order to reduce the impact on the environment. Pest surveillance is important to properly time the need for pest control taking into account such things as local environmental conditions, the possible spreading, due to environmental conditions and conditions that limit the choice or effectiveness of the control activity. The action

of 49

threshold was established when the problem was identified. Surveillance confirms that the action threshold has been achieved and the conditions for pesticide application in the treatment area are appropriate. Mosquito and other flying insect pest control In mosquito and other flying insect pest control, surveillance is used for timing pest control properly and to evaluate the potential need for pesticide use for mosquito control. Understanding surveillance enables 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 the pest’s presence and abundance but also serves to evaluate the effectiveness of source reduction and chemical control activities. Furthermore, surveillance should be used as an indicator of the need for additional pesticide 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 genera are a calibrated dip cup and/or a bulb syringe for inaccessible areas such as treeholes. The counts can 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 pest management 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 pest management measure as well as to its effectiveness and also serve to identify new sources of mosquitoes or identify recurring problem sites. Disease surveillance, when 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 sero conversions 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. 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.

of 49

In many communities, the larvicides are the primary form of pesticide used to control mosquitoes. The application of pesticides to kill immature mosquitoes by ground or aerial application is typically more effective and target specific than aerial spraying with an adulticide. (Best Management Practices in Mosquito Control provided by the Oregon Mosquito and Vector Control Association.) The permit requires the use of larvicides where and when they would be most effective. In situations where larvicides are not practicable or feasible, the permit requires adult action thresholds be met before the use of adulticides to control the flying stage of the insect’s life cycle.

Weed and algae control The density of the pest population that can be tolerated can differ for non-native species and overgrown native plant species. Management goals for nuisance native plants emphasize reduction of problem growth, not elimination of the species from the system, which is different from what may be required for non-native weed control. Surveillance needs to be conducted to determine when the conditions are right for the application of the pesticide. [Reference Guide for Developing Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans in Oregon, Gibbons, Maribeth V., Rosenkranz, Mark G., Gibbons, Harry L., Sytsma, Mark D., Center for Lakes and Reservoirs, Portland State University, Portland OR, 1999.] In selecting the right pesticide, there are considerations for submersed and emergent applications and contact versus systemic herbicides to name a few. The efficacy of the pesticide may be dependent upon the waterbody conditions such as temperature, water movement for proper mixing and the least impact on non-target species or the stage of the plant growth.

Nuisance animal control In working through pest management measures, the combination or sole control of the pest may be through the use of a pesticide. If pesticides are used, they must only be used as needed, which is determined by an action threshold. In some cases, that action threshold may be based on the presence of an invasive species, where pest identification alone may be sufficient to satisfy the surveillance requirement. Surveillance must consist of pest counts, or an area survey to determine that the action threshold is met, the application timing is appropriate, the treatment area has been evaluated for any site restrictions, and the appropriate application method is selected before the pesticide is applied. 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.

Forest canopy pest control and area-wide pest control Aerial applications are considered the preferred application method for large areas and areas that are inaccessible for ground application. For forest canopy pest control, surveillance involves observations of pest numbers, detecting the presence or confirming the absence of the pest population, knowing the magnitude of pest populations in a given location and identifying the zones of infestation. For example, the Oregon Department of Agriculture conducts an extensive detection program for the detection of gypsy moths. When a gypsy moth is captured, ODA then sets additional traps around the site to determine whether there is a reproducing gypsy moth infestation, and if so, identifies the approximate geographical area of the infestation. Surveillance for pesticide use involves knowing the developmental stage of the current infestation, and biotic factors that enhance development and spreading of pest populations, such as, weather, crowding, predators, pathogens, etc. The biological pesticide used by ODA and commonly used in the U.S for gypsy moth control efforts has the active ingredient Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki or “Btk”. For the

of 49

pesticide to be effective, the ODA must treat the infested area in the late spring, when gypsy moths hatch from eggs into the caterpillar stage, and start eating foliage. Selection of the appropriate pesticide is important when considering the non-target species that may be in the area and affected by the pesticide. Btk has been widely used for over 40 years in U.S. forests and private lands to control gypsy moth and other lepidopteran pests. This subspecies of bacteria specifically targets susceptible caterpillars of butterflies and moths (Order Lepidoptera). However, in selecting for a pesticide in an area where an endangered or threatened butterfly or moth exists, a viral insecticide that specifically targets gypsy moth larvae can be used. 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.

of 49

Schedule B –Minimum Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeeping (Conditions 1. through 11.) The monitoring conditions in this permit are narrative. DEQ agrees with the EPA’s conclusions that establishing numerical limits for most pesticide applications is not practicable, in part because there are no discrete sampling locations. The DEQ also agrees with EPA’s conclusions that establishing a sampling regime to determine compliance with the permit effluent limits is not practicable. The issues are related. As the EPA 2011 and 2016 proposed Pesticide General Permit Fact Sheet states, 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 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 is not 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: Uncertainty: Ambient water quality monitoring undertaken by an individual operator 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. 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 pesticide general permit. 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. Difficulty of residue sampling for chemical pesticides: For chemical pesticides, the “pollutant” regulated by the pesticide general permit 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 discernible at this time for all pesticides. Usefulness of data: Trend data from ambient sampling programs designed to capture a sole pest control activity are more useful in determining compliance with ambient criteria or benchmarks. The Pesticide Stewardship Partnership ambient data are an example of such sampling because the same type of pest control occurs in the area of the water being studied. The same difficulties arise when considering a requirement for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing. The WET test is a measure of a source of toxicity. A sample from a receiving stream cannot be attributed to or used to identify a single source of toxicity.

of 49

Pursuant to CWA sections 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable implementing regulations, monitoring requirements have been included in the permit and are discussed below. The permit will concentrate monitoring efforts in areas where practices and activities have the greatest potential for degrading surface water to maintain the desired beneficial uses. Operators who are subject to the permit but not registered under the permit are required to keep records for three years and subject to monitoring. DEQ can request the records to monitor for compliance and use the recordkeeping to gather information on pesticide use in a watershed. Additional recordkeeping and annual reporting is required for operators identified in Table 1, which includes pesticide applications within a treatment area in an irrigation system when acrolein-,copper- and xylene-based pesticides are used. Typically aquatic herbicide applications are made in sections of irrigation systems at specific points and that application flows through an irrigation canal for a certain distance before it is no longer present at effective concentrations due to dilution or degradation. If an irrigation system returns tail water or overflows to natural waters following aquatic herbicide application, monitoring is required to assure that required management practices are effective in keeping aquatic herbicides from entering natural water. See the section on Schedule E. in this permit evaluation report for more detail on irrigation system monitoring, recordkeeping and notification requirements.

Visual monitoring requirements (condition no. 1.) 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 assessments 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 assessment is not required during the course of treatment when that treatment is performed in darkness as it is infeasible for the inspector to note adverse effects under these circumstances. Additionally, the following scenarios often rule out visual monitoring during pesticide application:

• Applications made from an aircraft; • Applications made from a moving road vehicle when the applicator is the driver; • Applications made from moving watercraft when the applicator is the driver; • 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 assessment of this type is only required if the operator performs post application surveillance in the normal course of business. Visual assessments may reasonably be conducted during applications and efficacy inspections may be conducted on foot or from a stationary vehicle. For instance, the permit requires routine visual inspections 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. In ORS 634.650(1)(c)(H), post surveillance monitoring is required of State agencies using integrated pest management in order to evaluate the effects and efficacy of pest treatments. 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. It is

of 49

important to continue surveillance after the pest management measures are taken in order to assess treatment efficacy and to monitor for new pests. Surveillance can be used to determine if the current techniques are effective and whether additional pest management measures are required, particularly pesticide application. Based on follow up surveillance activity, operators can make informed decisions. These decisions serve to increase the effectiveness of their control programs and minimize the potential for pesticide discharge to water. The monitoring requirements of the permit reflect reasonable measures for good pest management practice and ODA licensed operators are currently using these practices to ensure environmental health and safety and optimal control of pest organisms. Under the pesticide general permit, all operators subject to the permit will be required to use these practices.

Notification requirements (condition nos. 2 through 5.) Notification to Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS) is required for adverse incidents. The adverse incident notification requirements do not relieve the operator from the notification and reporting requirements under FIFRA. The adverse effects reporting requirement under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) requires pesticide registrants and their agents to notify the EPA of additional factual information regarding unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment from the use of a registered pesticide. (Condition Nos. 3. and 4.) OERS must be notified if there is a reportable spill or threat of a reportable spill or other unpermitted discharge to water. Operators are required to report specific information within 24 hours of becoming aware of the adverse incident. (Condition No. 5.) If a pesticide has a potable water use restriction on the label, then the operator must notify private and domestic water users who withdraw drinking water from the waterbody. (Condition No. 2.) This condition applies to impacts to known drinking water with intakes from surface water: for example, the set-back distances were not observed, or the sample result is higher than the FIFRA label indicates is safe, or the water supply intake needs to be shut off for 24 hours. While the FIFRA label does not require that notification be made to the drinking water supplier, it implies that there is the need for contact with the drinking water supplier. The notification requirement is not triggered if the FIFRA label requires setbacks and these setbacks are satisfied. Drinking water source information tools to identify downstream intake locations are provided by the DEQ Drinking Water Protection Program and the Oregon Department of Water Resources.

Recordkeeping (condition nos. 6. through 9.) Recordkeeping includes documentation of the monitoring required by the permit. All operators must maintain a copy of the current permit and other minimum recordkeeping requirements, such as records on the number of acres or linear miles treated on an annual basis. Pertaining to Schedule B. Condition No. 2., the name of the public or private drinking water supplier is recorded when a pesticide with potable water use restrictions is used. All pesticide application records required by licensed pesticide applicators or pesticide consultants must be kept in accordance with ORS 634.146 and OAR 603-057-0130. Licensed private applicators must keep records in accordance with US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. (Condition No. 8.) Documentation that supports the rationale for not reporting an adverse incident is required (Schedule B, Condition No. 8). Documentation is required to be kept when OERS is notified of a reportable spill or threat of a reportable spill or other unpermitted discharge to water. Documentation is required for corrective actions for all operators. (Condition Nos. 6. & 7.) Recordkeeping requirements are more detailed for operators who are registered under the permit. Additional recordkeeping requirements for those registered under the permit are provided in Schedule B.

of 49

9. For example, Condition 9. includes a requirement for assessing environmental conditions related to pesticide use. Recordkeeping and reporting may be different for an operator based on the annual treatment area for each pest control category. For example, if an operator does not meet the annual treatment area threshold under mosquito and other flying insect pest control, but meets the threshold in the weed control category, then the operator is required to register under the permit and submit an annual report only for the weed control category. Under the requirements in Schedule F. records are required to be kept for 3 years. The records are available to DEQ upon request.

Reporting (condition nos. 3.c., 10. and 11.) A written report is required to be submitted to the local DEQ regional field office within 30 days after reporting an adverse incident to OERS. Condition 3.c. explains the contents for the written report. Annual reporting is required for all operators who are required to register under the permit. (Condition No. 10.) Other monitoring and record retention requirements are contained in the Schedule F of the General Conditions, Schedule D, Section C, Monitoring and Records; where the provisions in Schedule F conflict with Schedule B those in the Schedule B are to be followed. Electronic reporting requirements are included in Condition. 11. EPA’s new federal electronic reporting requirements are not yet implemented.

of 49

Schedule D - Special Conditions Pesticide discharge management plan Operators required to register under the permit must keep a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) available on site. The PDMP is distinct from the technology-based or water quality-based effluent limitation provisions in the permit. The PDMP is not a limitation and does not itself impose requirements on discharges. These are already imposed by the limitations in Schedule A. The PDMP is a tool for operators to document, among other things, how pest management measures will be implemented to comply with the permit’s effluent limitations. In general, Schedule D requires that the following be documented in the PDMP: (Condition 2.a) Pesticide discharge management team information; (Condition 2.b) Pest problem identification; (Condition 2.c) Pest management options evaluation; (Condition 2.d) Schedules and procedures pertaining to minimization of effluent limitations in Schedule A (e.g., application rate and frequency for a proposed pesticide, spill prevention, pesticide application equipment and assessing environmental conditions); (Condition 2.e) Response procedures (e.g., spill response procedures, adverse incident response procedures, and pesticide monitoring schedules and procedures); (Condition 2.f) Supporting Documents (including a copy of any portions of any documents that document the implementation); and (Condition 2.g) Signature Requirement. The PDMP must be kept up-to-date and modified whenever necessary to document any corrective actions required to comply with the effluent limitations in this permit. (Schedule D Condition No.1) DEQ is following the reasoning developed in support of the proposed EPA pesticide general permit. EPA’s 2011 Pesticide General Permit Fact Sheet explains this more fully. An excerpt from the EPA Permit Fact Sheet is provided below. “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 (1) 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

1 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.

of 49

While Part 2 of the permit requires the operator to select pest management measures to meet the effluent limitations in this permit, the pest management 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 pest management 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 recordkeeping condition that requires that the PDMP be updated with any such changes in the operator’s practices. 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.”

of 49

Schedule E - Sector Requirements DEQ determined that pesticide applications to irrigation systems meet the criteria for regulation through general rather than individual NPDES permits. General permits are typically developed for similar activities with comparable discharges that can be adequately controlled with a standard set of requirements. A sector specific section in this NPDES general permit is appropriate for regulating acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based aquatic pesticide applications in irrigation systems. Aquatic chemical pesticide applications in irrigation systems for these pesticides are substantially similar due to compliance with FIFRA label requirements. “Treatment area” and “treatment period” definitions are constrained through the FIFRA application requirements, which specify the effective treatment area and period of an application. This general permit requires that FIFRA pesticide application requirements be followed. These requirements include effective target application concentrations for the aquatic herbicides for specific areas and durations that vary depending on the situations encountered within the irrigation system. The permit further requires implementation of specific pesticide use management practices to protect water quality. Regulation of these chemical pesticide residues via permit conditions and effluent limits are similar to requirements in initial Mutual Agreement and Orders and ten individual permits issued for irrigation systems. The similarity of the permit conditions in the Mutual Agreement and Orders and individual permits show that these systems can be regulated with similar requirements. Following the 2001 Headwaters Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District decision, DEQ developed and issued Mutual Agreement and Orders to regulate the application of aquatic herbicide into irrigation systems until an NPDES permit was available. DEQ issued individual NPDES permits to the following irrigation districts beginning in 2002 with subsequent modifications based on challenges to the permits:

File Number Common Name Permit Number

38215 HERMISTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT 102565

84410 STANFIELD IRRIGATION DISTRICT 102566

111807 KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT 102541

111835 WEST EXTENSION IRRIGATION DISTRICT 102567

111836 WESTLAND IRRIGATION DISTRICT 102568

111848 VALE OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT 102605

111849 OWYHEE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 102606

111875 OCHOCO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 102627

111876 NORTH UNIT IRRIGATION DISTRICT 102628

111877 OLD OWYHEE DITCH IMPROVEMENT COMPANY 102607

The modified permits issued in 2005 and 2006 contain conditions that satisfied the challenges. This permit requires registration to obtain coverage for the following operators of irrigation systems:

of 49

• Irrigation districts formed under ORS 545 that use acrolein-, copper or xylene-based aquatic pesticides,

• Irrigation districts or companies previously covered by an individual permit for the application of aquatic pesticides in irrigation systems, or

An irrigation systems formed under ORS 545 does not have to apply for this permit if a pesticide application does not result in a point source discharge to surface waters of the state. An operator of an irrigation system that retains coverage under their individual NPDES permit does not need coverage under this general permit. Management practices for acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based pesticides that are consistent with the permit conditions in individual irrigation district permits issued in 2005 and 2006 are included in this general permit. Individual permits issued in 2005 and 2006 do not have a mixing zone. Compliance points for this general permit are the same as the individual permits for chemical pesticide residue. As in the individual permits, compliance with an effluent limit is after a product has completed its intended use, which is why compliance with water quality standards are outside of the treatment area during treatment or within the treatment system and treatment area after the treatment period elapsed. Permit conditions in Schedule E., properly control residue from treatment. Sampling requirements can be conducted at discrete locations. Sampling requirements for acrolein, copper and xylene are the same in this general permit as in the individual permit to confirm compliance for a residue upon discharge to natural water.

Schedule E .1. Operators applying chemical pesticides within irrigation systems must apply to defined treatment areas and for specified treatment periods in accordance with FIFRA labels and measures in this permit. This permit condition requires that discharge of aquatic chemical pesticide residuals and degradates meet water quality after a pesticide application provides its pesticidal benefit. Treatment area and treatment period are defined to make it clear that water quality compliance is expected outside the treatment area during application activities and after the treatment period has elapsed. Aquatic chemical pesticides must not be applied to natural waters. There are numeric effluent limits for acrolein, copper and xylene. The numeric effluent limits for acrolein and xylene are lower than the effluent limits in the individual permits. The numeric effluent limit for acrolein is lower because DEQ incorporated newly adopted human health water quality criteria for acrolein. The effluent limit for xylene is lower based on new information from EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs in the September 26, 2005 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for xylene.

Numeric effluent limits This permit includes the recently approved human health water quality limits for acrolein, new information on protection of endangered species in EPA Office of Pesticide Programs’ registration eligibility decision for xylene and a copper limit based on revised hardness data. A comparison of previous individual permit effluent limits with proposed effluent limits for irrigation systems that use acrolein-,copper- and xylene-based pesticide are provided below.

Parameter Individual Permits Proposed General Permit

Acrolein within Klamath basin 2.3 µg/L* 0.9 µg/L** Acrolein outside Klamath basin 3 µg/L 0.9 µg/L**

of 49

Parameter Individual Permits Proposed General Permit

Copper 12 µg/L 12 µg/L Xylene 1.3 mg/L 0.04 mg/L *Exception is the individual permit for North Unit which has an acrolein limit of 6 µg/L ** Compliance is based on the Quantitation limit of 5 µg/L

Effluent limitations in reissued permits generally cannot be relaxed because of the prohibitions on backsliding established under CWA Section 402(o) and 40 CFR 122.44(l). Consequently, water quality-based permit limits included in the individual permits related to the acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based pesticides are in this section for irrigation systems. A mixing zone and amount of routine sampling affect a permit limit. Mixing zones were removed from individual permits in 2005/2006 and sampling is once per month. In keeping with individual permits, a mixing zone is not provided which is why Schedule E requires compliance for acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based pesticides within the irrigation system but outside of the treatment area during the treatment period, or within the irrigation system and treatment area after the treatment period has elapsed The proposed numeric limit for acrolein is lower than the individual permits to comply with DEQ’s 2011 water quality criteria for human health. The numeric limit for xylene is lower based on EPA Office of Pesticide Programs’ reregistration eligibility decision. The copper limit is unchanged. The water quality limits apply outside the treatment area during the treatment period, and within the irrigation system and treatment area after the treatment period has elapsed, with monitoring at a point that is nearest the re-opened gate or natural water. Natural water is defined in the permit as surface waters outside of the irrigation system.

Schedule E. 2.a. Acrolein is a water-soluble aldehyde that is colorless, pungent, and a highly volatile liquid. It is found throughout the environment in very small amounts and is a natural product of incomplete combustion. Acrolein is the active ingredient in the aquatic herbicide Magnacide H (EPA Registration #:10707-9), which contains 95% acrolein. As an herbicide, acrolein is injected directly below the surface of moving water and moves with the flow of water, killing weeds on contact in irrigation canals and holding ponds. The individual permit evaluation reports describe acrolein as an aquatic chemical pesticide that degrades quickly and is relatively non-persistent depending on the temperature, abundance of aquatic vegetation, and processes of hydration and volatilization. DEQ does not expect the inert ingredients or product degradates to be present at levels that would violate water quality standards in the irrigation system prior to discharges to natural waters. The inert ingredients and degradates are expected to be less toxic to aquatic organisms than the active ingredients. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs provides the following information about acrolein in the September 2008 reregistration eligibility decision for acrolein, “Acrolein forms several degradates (acrylic acid, allyl alcohol, propanol, propionic acid, oxalic acid, and ultimately carbon dioxide) in the environment.” EPA Office of Pesticide Program reregistration eligibility decision states that for herbicidal use in irrigation canals, the maximum single application concentration of acrolein is 15 mg/L. The typical application rate is 8 mg/L. FIFRA labels for acrolein-based pesticides specify a maximum of eight applications per year and a minimum of two weeks between applications. During the irrigation season when temperatures are warmer, weed growth is excessive and water velocities in treatment areas are higher, acrolein is not expected to be present at levels EPA Office of

of 49

Pesticide Programs established as acceptable after six days of label application of Magnacide H. The current FIFRA label reads: “Water treated with Magnacide H herbicide must be used for the irrigation of fields, either crop-bearing, fallow or pasture, where the treated water remains on the field OR must be held for 6 days before being released into fish bearing waters or where it will drain into them.” Pest management practices for acrolein-based pesticide use include meeting the FIFRA requirements for holding, turnover or irrigating crops directly with treated water. Jacobson and Smith (1990) studied the dissipation of acrolein, applied at the highest recommended rate according to the label, to achieve a 15 ppm concentration for a 2-hour duration in an irrigation canal and a lateral of the canal, which was infested with aquatic plants. The dissipation half-lives for acrolein in the irrigation and lateral canals were 275 and 64 minutes, respectively. No acrolein residues were detected (detection limit, 0.01 ppm).2 Through the use of theoretical decay calculations as shown in the table below, it can be shown that after the FIFRA required holding time of 6 days a sample from the treatment area within the irrigation system will reduce an acrolein residual to an amount that meets 0.9 ug/L, but these theoretical results may vary based on plant growth and other conditions in a treatment area.

Theoretical Decay Calculations of Acrolein in Irrigation Systems

Equation Ct = Coe-kt Ct = Coe-kt A(t) = Ao(2.718 -0.0678t)* Ct = Co ( ½) t/t½

Ct and A(t)= Amount remaining (µg/L)

1.47893x10-6 0.9 0.9 0.8

Co and Ao= Initial amount (µg/L) 15000 1000 15000 15000

t = Time (hrs) 144 (6 days) 44 144 (6 days) 144 k = Decay Rate (hr-1)*** 0.16 0.16 ---------- 10.2**

*FIFRA product label for Magnicide® H in Washington State **Half-life in a Weedy Irrigation Canal, Webwiser, National Library of Medicine, http://webwiser.nlm.nih.gov/getSubstanceData.do;jsessionid=01B7CF898D975249B4123C3EE76D9E7C?substanceID=138&displaySubstanceName=Acquinite&UNNAID=&STCCID=&selectedDataMenuItemID=76, accessed Feb. 25, 2013. *** Management of Aquatic Plants with Acrolein, Bowmer, Kathleen H., and Sainty, G.R., 1977,

Water quality criteria The maximum daily limit for acrolein is 0.9 µg/L (0.0009 mg/L). Only one sample is required in a 30 day period that is associated with a discharge to natural water, so that the maximum daily limit is the average monthly limit with no dilution. The discharge limit applies outside the treatment area during a pesticide application and after the specified treatment period. The permit limits for acrolein are based on recently approved EPA human health criteria in Oregon Administrative Rule 340 Division 041, Table 40: 0.88 µg/L for water and fish ingestion, and 0.93 µg/L for fish consumption only. Because the effluent limit is below the analytic range of most laboratories, a quantitation limit of 5 ug/L (0.005 mg/L) becomes the default compliance level. This approach is in keeping with standardizing results of analytical measurements.

2 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp124-c6.pdf accessed 3/27/2013

of 49

When establishing the water quality limits in a permit to protect beneficial uses, the most stringent of the water quality criteria apply. DEQ does not have freshwater aquatic life-criteria for acrolein. EPA recommends 3.0 µg/L for both the acute and chronic freshwater aquatic criteria. Beneficial uses in basins statewide include drinking water and fish consumption, therefore the human health criteria apply to acrolein-based pesticide residual. The permit limits for acrolein are based on recently approved EPA human health criteria in Oregon Administrative Rule 340 Division 041, Table 40: 0.88 µg/L for water and fish ingestion, and 0.93 µg/L for fish consumption only. Beneficial uses in basins statewide include drinking water and fish consumption, therefore the human health criteria apply.

Parameter Individual Permits

Proposed General Permit

Acrolein within Klamath basin 2.3 µg/L* 0.9 µg/L** Acrolein outside Klamath basin 3 µg/L 0.9 µg/L** *Exception is the individual permit for North Unit which has an acrolein limit of 6 µg/L ** Compliance is based on the quantitation limit of 5 µg/L

There is not a lot of data from irrigation systems. Acrolein data for Klamath Irrigation District is typically non-detect, at 1 µg/L, but the laboratory analysis was not standardized. DEQ is specifying that a non-detect value needs to meet a laboratory standard called a ‘Quantitation Limit” in order for a non-detect to be interpreted correctly for compliance. The quantitation limit for acrolein is 5 µg/L. DEQ does not have current data using a quantitation limit for compliance, but expects the 5 µg/L to be achievable Based upon the provisions in 40 CFR§136. Any sample analyzed in accordance with the specified method and found to be at or below the quantitation limit complies with the permit limit as long as the best management practices associated with acrolein-based pesticide use are being followed. Along with the quantitation limit, the permit has best management practices that have to be followed for acrolein based pesticide use so that an effluent limit established at the quantitation limit will be protective of water quality.

With no mixing zone, current water quality criteria are applied at the “end of pipe,” which, for irrigation systems, is designated as outside the treatment area during a pesticide application and after the specified treatment period. Concentration and time are considered in treatment. The pesticide label dictates when treated water can be released to natural water. Again with rapid decay of acrolein in the irrigation system and use of treated water to irrigate crops compliance is expected.

Schedule E.2.b. Copper is widely used to control algae and aquatic plants and different formulations of copper compounds are used in irrigation systems. Copper sulfate and chelated copper formulations are examples of products that are currently being used. Chelated formulations of copper are less toxic to fish than copper sulfate products: chelated copper is combined with other compounds to help prevent the loss of active copper from the water. Under FIFRA pesticide registrations, water treated with most copper compounds can be used for swimming, drinking, fishing, livestock watering or irrigating turf, ornamental plants or crops immediately after treatment.

Water quality criteria Oregon’s water quality criteria for the protection of human health were approved by EPA in October 2011. The human health criterion for copper is equivalent to EPA’s maximum contaminant level of 1300 µg/L (1.3 mg/L) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is much higher than the criterion for the protection of aquatic life.

of 49

Oregon’s water quality criteria for copper for the protection of freshwater aquatic life are hardness dependent: 18 µg/L (0.018 mg/L) for acute exposure and 12 µg/L (0.012 mg/L) for chronic exposure are based on a water hardness of 100 mg/L (OAR 340-41, Table 20). With a decrease in water hardness (measured as CaCO3), copper toxicity increases. The 12 µg/L maximum daily copper limit is the same as the previous permit limits for the individual irrigation district permits, and is based on a hardness of 100 mg/L. This limit is still appropriate based on an evaluation of hardness. Copper criteria cannot be based on a hardness that is less than 25 or greater than 400 mg/L. Laboratory Analytical Storage and Retrieval (LASAR) database (www.deq.state.or.us/news/databases.htm) for statewide hardness values in ditches, drains, culverts and canals ranged from 11 to 580 mg/L. 2002 hardness data for West Extension Irrigation District indicates that hardness in the canal on average was 106 mg/L. Washington state provided the average hardness results in their 2011 irrigation pesticide general permit fact sheet. The fact sheet provided the average hardness from the sampling conducted in irrigation systems. Out of 782 samples, the average hardness was 122 mg/L. Their samples results ranged from 10 to 440 mg/L. Permit limits are statistically based to assure compliance, if more sampling were conducted a limit could be higher. Sampling is required once in a 30 day period so the average monthly limit of 12 µg/l in the permit becomes the maximum daily limit in the permit. An average monthly limit is associated with chronic concentration for a 4 hour exposure. In any case, DEQ cannot relax effluent limits established for a copper discharge in a previous permit due to anti-backsliding regulations, so that an effluent limit of 12 µg/L is still appropriate for irrigation systems that use a copper-based aquatic pesticide.

DEQ copper criteria will change in the future due to EPA’s consultation during review of the copper standard and resulting biological opinion from the consultation. The permit can be reopened to include new effluent limits based on a new approved copper criteria in the future.

Schedule E.2.c. Xylene is an insoluble aromatic, colorless liquid solvent that must be applied with an emulsifier to disperse it in the canal flow. Xylene readily dissipates from water by degradation, volatilization, and sorption. Xylene is used as an aquatic herbicide. Its use as a pesticide is restricted to four states: Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Montana. According to EPA Office of Pesticide Programs 2005 reregistration eligibility decision for xylene, there is only one registered pesticide product containing xylene as the active ingredient. The current label for this end-use product clearly indicates that it is only for use in programs of the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior, and for its cooperating water user organizations.

Water Quality Criteria DEQ and EPA have not established numeric criteria for xylene. The Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant level is 10 mg/L. Under the toxics substances rule OAR 340-041-0033(4), DEQ can establish permit or other regulatory limits for toxic substances for which criteria are not included in Tables 20, 33A, or 33B, using the guidance values in Table 33C, public health advisories, and other published scientific literature. When DEQ first began issuing permits to irrigation districts for the use of xylene, the EPA-approved FIFRA label included a restriction for the discharge of xylene into natural surface waters that was no more than 10 mg/L. 10 mg/L is the maximum contaminant level set by EPA under the Safe Drinking

of 49

Water Act for xylene residues in drinking water. Individual permit limits for xylene were 1.3 mg/L. Since this time, a level established by EPA Office of Pesticides for the FIFRA label has been reduced to a concentration of 1 mg/L in the canal system in order to reach a safe concentration of 0.04 mg/L (40 µ/L) in the receiving water. The rationale for this reduction is documented in EPA’s Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Xylene (Case No. 3020) dated September 26, 2005 and is based on the freshwater invertebrate 24-hour LC50 value of 1.0 mg/L and the target risk quotient for endangered species of 0.05 mg/L. To be protective of endangered species, DEQ is using the safe concentration established by EPA Office of Pesticides of 0.04 mg/L for xylene. EPA Office of Pesticide anticipated that the dilution would provide for a safe concentration of 0.04 mg/L. A mixing zone was not provided in an individual permit and is not included in this general permit. EPA office of Pesticide does not have to consider beneficial use of a waterbody when administering FIFRA in the same way that DEQ is required to consider a beneficial use of a waterbody when implementing CWA Section 402. Limits for this permit are set in the irrigation system outside the treatment area during treatment and inside the treatment area after treatment. Measurement is upon discharge to natural water, so that a 0.04 mg/L limit established to be protective of aquatic organisms is appropriate and achievable.

Parameter Individual Permits Proposed General Permit Xylene 1.3 mg/L 0.04 mg/L

Annual reports from three of ten irrigation systems indicate that a xylene-based pesticide was used. Limited data is available but the highest sample result from Ochoco Irrigation District for total xylene was 0.34 µg/L (0.0003 mg/L), which is roughly 100 times lower than the limit in the permit.

Schedule E.3. Water quality standards applicable to West Division Main Canal constructed channel and over flow channels for copper that apply to the constructed channel segment of the West Division Main Canal, which is part of West Extension Irrigation District are contained in OAR 340-041-0315.

Parameter Permit Limit for constructed channel segment Copper 200 µg/L

of 49

Schedule E. 4. through 8 The permit contains several pesticide use practices that are consistent with practices in irrigation systems for the use of acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based pesticides contained in individual permits, which include:

• Where pesticide applications occur • Management of irrigation flows • Plant growth action levels • Gate management for irrigation systems with gates • Inspection requirements • Requirement to use a licensed applicator • Employee knowledge of a spill plan

Specific pesticide use practices are applicable to irrigations systems in Owhyee Irrigation District, Old Owhyee Ditch Improvement District, Ochoco Irrigation District and Klamath Irrigation District are also included here. Schedule E. 9. This permit condition ensures inspections that are conducted on gates or fish control structures, as applicable, are recorded prior to application, a permit registrant must assure that all gates in the treatment area are in working order. Inspections and repairs must be documented in an inspection log. At least once a day during the period when pesticide levels in the irrigation system are likely to be above the discharge limitation for acrolein-, copper- or xylene-based pesticides, each locked gate within the treatment area and water user delivery point that has been closed as requested by the water user must be inspected. The permit registrant must document this inspection in an inspection log. If the irrigation system returns tail water or overflows to natural waters following aquatic pesticide application, monitoring is required in Condition 9 to assure that the required management practices are effective in keeping aquatic pesticide residues from entering natural waters. The permit requires collection of a grab sample of the first aquatic pesticide application in a 30 day period in which an application of acrolein-, copper-, or xylene-based pesticide is made. Monitoring is dependent upon release to natural water. Using the calendar below, the 30 day period begins with the application of acrolein on June 4. The irrigation water is held and later applied as irrigation water. In this example acrolein is not discharged so no sample is required within the irrigation system. In another part of the irrigation system downstream of the acrolein treatment area, the first copper- based pesticide application is made on June 20. A discharge to natural water occurs on June 29 after treatment with a copper-based pesticide is complete. In this example, monitoring is required on June 29 for acrolein and copper because it is the first acrolein and copper-based pesticide application in a 30 day period that requires a sample when a discharge occurs to natural water. In the same irrigation system, acrolein-based pesticide is applied on July 1, a xylene-based pesticide is applied on July 8, and a discharge to natural water occurs on July 16. In this example, only sampling for xylene is required, because the first acrolein pesticide application was already sampled in the first 30 day period.

of 49

JUNE JULY S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 31

Acrolein, xylene, and copper must be analyzed using EPA-approved test methods specified in 40 CFR §136 (not field test kits). Acrolein and xylene analysis may also be conducted using Solid Waste Method 8260. When discharging treated water, samples for compliance monitoring must be obtained at the location nearest to where the treated water would enter natural waters. Monitoring is not required if the irrigation system does not overflow or return flow to natural waters following pesticide applications. There is not a lot of data from the individual permits. Monitoring requirements in this permit will result in more data. Quantitation levels established in this permit provide consistency for data analysis.

Schedule E.10. Recordkeeping includes documentation of the monitoring required by the permit. Documentation associated with the use of acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based pesticide includes information such as the flow calculations used to determine when gates are closed and reopened, inspection and repair of gates, daily inspections, application logs, and public notice. Information on pesticide use in the treatment area is also required.

Schedule E. 11. The proposed public notice requirements give notice of intended use prior to the first aquatic pesticide application of each calendar year to each water user (by general newsletter, notice, etc.), general public in the area served by the irrigation system (by publication in newspaper(s), notice, website, etc), and DEQ. Prior to application, an operator is required to provide notice to farmers with dairy animals within its irrigation district so that farmers will have an opportunity to move animals away from irrigation ditches.

Schedule E. 12. and 13. Monthly monitoring reports will be submitted to the DEQ regional office. The monthly monitoring reports will provide the sample results for the first aquatic pesticide application of the month for every month during which acrolein-, copper- or xylene-based pesticide applications are made. Monitoring results must be reported on an approved DEQ monitoring form. Monthly reporting to DEQ will be required based on the anticipated pesticide applications timeframe provided in the notice. If a notice indicates that a pesticide application is expected to occur June through August, then DEQ requires a monthly report by July 15th, August 15th and September 15th even if a pesticide is not used. A more precise time period or more frequent notices of intended use with shorter projected time periods will lessen the monthly reporting requirement. Monthly reporting can be reduced but not to a single annual report.

of 49

Schedule E. 14., 15., and 16. Pest management measures in Schedule E. will be included as additional elements to the pesticide discharge management plan in Schedule D. The plan is used document practices associated with acrolein-, copper- and xylene-based pesticides, such as a description of employee orientation and education to ensure proper action in the event of a spill or accident. Some, but not all, irrigation systems with individual permits were required to conduct an evaluation to determine if fish in the irrigation system were being affected by aquatic pesticide application. For irrigation systems that were required under their individual permit to conduct a fish evaluation, Condition 15. requires the evaluation be kept with supporting documentation in their pesticide discharge management plan. DEQ has not required fish screen installation. ORS 498.301 to 498.346 is in place to determine when fish screens are necessary for diverting water. This statute is carried out through the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Under the statute, minor maintenance which includes periodic inspection, cleaning and servicing is the responsibility of the water user. In Condition 16, a time of travel study to minimize pesticide use and support the decisions on turnover time is required to be completed prior to the first application of acrolein-, copper- or xylene- based pesticide application. Knowing the flow or travel time in the irrigation system is important for meeting an effective concentration and in that way minimizing pesticide use. A dye study, measurements or a combination of these two methods can be used in the travel time study. For example, acrolein-based pesticides are applied at specific points in the system that provide for good mixing. The acrolein-based pesticide application forms a wave of treated water that flows through the irrigation canal for a certain distance before it is no longer present at effective concentrations due to dilution and degradation. Recommended application rates are based on one gallon of the product per cubic feet per second of flow in the canal. Knowing the flow in the canal will result in meeting the effective concentration where it is needed. The same is true of copper- and xylene- based pesticides. The drip rate for continuous feed of liquid copper pesticide is based on an accurate determination of the water flow in cubic feet per second or gallons per minute. Xylene is an insoluble aromatic, colorless liquid solvent that must be applied with an emulsifier to disperse it in the canal flow. Applications are based on gallons per cubic foot per second of flow.

of 49

Schedule F- General Conditions The general conditions that are applicable to all NPDES permits are included in Schedule F. The general conditions address operation and maintenance, monitoring and recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Schedule F, Section C., Condition 8 requires records for the permit to be kept at least 3 years. The Department recognizes that some of these conditions do not readily apply to pesticide applications covered under the permit. For example, in Schedule F, Section A. Standard Conditions, 4. Duty to Reapply: Section B. contains information on when to renew a permit, which is already found in the Coverage and Eligibility section of this permit. Another example is in Schedule F, Section B. Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls, 6. Public Notification of Effluent Violation and 7. Emergency Response and Public Notification Plan, these are requirements for sanitary sewer overflows that satisfies EPA’s Model NPDES Permit Language for Sanitary Sewer Overflows and are not applicable to the pesticide applications. In this permit, Schedule B contains the reporting requirements for spills and adverse incidents and documentation for corrective action necessary for reporting non compliance so that Section D. Reporting Requirements, 6. Other Compliance is not a requirement of the pesticide general permit. The pesticide applications are subject to NPDES permits, and Schedule F is a standard requirement for all such permits. When a conflict exists, follow the conditions in Schedules A, B and D.

Newton Public Schools Guide to Special Education Programs and

Documents

Transcript of Newton Public Schools Guide to Special Education Programs and