### FW: [waterpests] Request for Pesticides Monitoring Data

Sylvester, Susan - DNR t

o

: Jordan Page 02/05/2010 09:44 AM

Jordan, not sure if we are suppose to send you information directly, but the attached list are the Wisconsin monitoring sites. Please let me know if you can use this information or if you need something else. Susan Sylvester

Susan L. Sylvester Chief, Permits Section Bureau of Watershed Management Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (*) phone: (608) 266-1099 (*) fax: (608) 267-2800 (*) e-mail: Susan.Sylvester@wi.gov

_/) ~~ _/) ~~ _/) ~ _/) ~~ _/) ~ _/)

~~ ~~ ~~

-----Original Message----- From: Schreiber, Kenneth W - DNR Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:25 AM To: Sylvester, Susan - DNR Cc: Masnado, Robert G - DNR Subject: RE: [waterpests] Request for Pesticides Monitoring Data

Susan,

My contact at DATCP has been Rick Graham and attached are the streams we plan to sample this summer. Also, following is a the web site of a report he put together for monitoring we did in 2008: http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/arm/ agriculture/land-water/environ_quality/monit_ proj.jsp

Let me know if you have any questions.

P Ken Schreiber TMDL Monitoring Coordinator >Water Evaluation Section >Bureau of Watershed Management >Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (() phone: (715) 839-3798 (() fax: (715) 839-6076 (+) e-mail: kenneth.schreiber@dnr.state.wi.us

-----Original Message----- From: Faulk.Jack@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Faulk.Jack@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 12:10 PMTo: Waterpests Mailing List Subject: [waterpests] Request for Pesticides Monitoring Data

All,

I am following up with you after our two-day face to face meeting in Dallas on January 20-21 to discuss the NPDES Pesticides General Permit. One of the items that we discussed at that meeting was to clarify our request for additional monitoring data to support our permit approach in addressing water quality and monitoring as necessary to effectively manage discharges from pesticide applications. Davis Daiker, from the Florida Department of Agriculture, and also the Committee Chair for the SFIREG Working Committee on Environmental Quality Issues, sent an email dated January 27 to many of his state co-regulators requesting that states submit any available water quality monitoring data to EPA (Jordan Page) for our use in building our record for our draft permit. I want to thank Davis for sending out the request and would like to clarify the type of information that would be most useful for us and to notify others of this request.

For those of you that did not receive Davis' email, here are excerpts of what was requested:

"The EPA is seeking data/information that demonstrates that the technology-based effluent limits (TBEL) actively employed today (i.e., FIFRA labels) are sufficient to protect surface water quality and meet many state requirements of "no toxics in toxic amounts". Further, the EPA hopes to be able to demonstrate, if needed, that the TBELs proposed in the draft permit (FIFRA-approved labels combined with IPM and various BMP requirements) will be increasingly sufficient to protect waters of the US."

"EPA is specifically interested in receiving any surface water monitoring data on pesticide active ingredients. Although, data from more controlled studies, where application rates, dates, etc. are known, are preferred, the EPA would be interested in any ambient monitoring data demonstrating protection of water resources. They did not specify whether they only want data from pesticide use scenarios covered under the permit (aquatic weed control), so I would see what data you have available and provide it to the Agency."

While this is an accurate representation of the type of data that would be helpful to us, we would also ask for your help in providing a summary of any submitted data, particularly with respect to:

- The purpose of the sampling - The timeframe of the sampling - How that sampling relates to the timing of pesticide applications (i.e., to address the fact that the permit regulates pesticide residues not pesticides when they are performing as intended) - Any assessment of the frequency of detections and the detections above water quality standards or other water quality benchmarks, if known - Identification of sources of pesticides in water, where available, to help delineate those activities covered under our permit and those that are not (e.g., stormwater runoff and irrigation return flow) - A summary of the results - Any conclusions and recommendations drawn by the state or others on the results.As such, monitoring data that focuses on the specific aspects of the activities we are covering (e.g., aquatic nuisance weeds) and the time at which our permit applies (e.g., dissipation of pesticide concentrations in waters over time) are much more valuable than merely monitoring data for pesticides present in waters of the U.S. That being said, if you have ambient water quality monitoring for pesticides that you think may help us better assess the discharges to be covered under our permit, we would very much like to receive that information. If the information is available on the Internet, feel free to just send us the URL of the site.

An example summary to include with the sampling data may look something like this:

In 2006, NAWQA released a 10-year (1992-2001) study of 51 major river basins and aquifer systems that account for more than 70 percent of total U.S. water use and more than 50 percent of the U.S. drinking water supply. Most NAWQA samples were analyzed for 75 pesticides and eight degradation products, including 20 of the 25 most commonly used herbicides and 16 of the 25 most commonly used insecticides. Water samples were collected at 186 stream sites for analysis of pesticides and degradates dissolved in water. The samples were collected from streams throughout the year, including high-flow and low-flow conditions. Sampling was most intensive during the time of highest pesticide use and runoff - generally weekly or twice monthly for a 4- to 9-month period.

For environmental effects, the USGS compared the concentrations found in the NAWQA sampling with two general types of aquatic life benchmarks (1) ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) for the pesticide and (2) benchmarks derived from the lowest acute and chronic ecological effects endpoint for the pesticide (OPP benchmarks). Acute AWQC and all acute OPP benchmarks were compared with each measured concentration for the most complete year of data for each NAWQA stream. Chronic AWQC were compared with 4-d moving average concentrations, chronic OPP benchmarks for invertebrates were compared to 21-d moving average concentrations, and chronic fish OPP benchmarks were compared to 60-d average moving concentrations. AWQC were available for 7 of the 83 pesticides and degradates analyzed by NAWQA. One or more OPP benchmarks were available for 60 of the 83 NAWQA analytes, including 5 of the 7 that had AWQC. A total of 62 of the pesticide compounds analyzed in water by NAWQA had one or more aquatic-life benchmarks.

Results

For aquatic life, 57 percent of agricultural streams and 83 percent of urban streams had one or more samples that exceeded one or more aquatic-life benchmark during the year when they were most intensively sampled. A total of 20 pesticides or degradate exceeded an EPA benchmark in agricultural streams and/or urban streams (see Table 1 for a complete list of pesticides/degradates that had exceedances). In agricultural streams, most concentrations greater than a benchmark involved chlorpyrifos, azinphos-methyl, atrazine, p,p'-DDE and alachlor. In urban streams most concentrations greater than a benchmark involved diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and malathion. The USGS report states that most concentrations that exceeded benchmarks, particularly by the greatest amounts, occurred during seasonal periods of high concentrations. The number, type, and degree of benchmark exceedances vary widely among sites, however, and meaningful generalization are difficult.

Finally, if you have, please send any data and summaries to Jordan Page (page.jordan@epa.gov). We would like to have this information within the nextthree weeks (by February 25th ) b ut please let use know if you need more time to compile the data. If you have questions or comments, feel free to call me (202-564-0768) or Jordan (202-564-2952).

Thank you very much.

Jack

Water Permits Division US Environmental Protection Agency EPA East (4203M) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

Telephone (202) 564-0768 Fax (202) 564-6431

------------------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to waterpests as: susan.sylvester@wisconsin.gov

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-1003141-903782.a996c900ec731c 37101a66f40d736271@lists.epa.gov
OR: Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/?forum=waterpests to manage your subscription.

For problems with this list, contact waterpests-Owner@lists.epa.gov

------------------------------------------