## E CONOMIC 

## A NALYSIS OF THE 

## P ESTICIDE 

## G ENERAL 

## P ERMIT 

## (PGP)

FOR 

## P OINT 

## S OURCE 

## D ISCHARGES FROM THE 

## A PPLICATION OF 

## P ESTICIDES

May 26, 2010

United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460i May 2010 

# Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. V

1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1

1.1. Background..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. States, Territories, and Federa l Facilities to be Covered ................................................ 2 1.3. Organization of the Analysis .......................................................................................... 2


### 2. OVERVIEW OF PESTICIDES GENERAL PERMIT..........................................4

2.1. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations......................................................................... 4 2.1.1. Minimize Pesticide Discharges to Waters of the United States................................ 4 2.1.2. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Practices........................................................... 4 2.1.2.1 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control ................................................ 4 2.1.2.2 Aquatic Weed and Algae Control...................................................................... 5 2.1.2.3 Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control .................................................................... 6 2.1.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control............................................................................... 7 2.2. Administrative Requirements ......................................................................................... 7 2.2.1. Notice of Intent ......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan..................................................................... 8 2.2.3. Annual Reporting...................................................................................................... 8 2.2.4. Recordkeeping .......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.5. Site Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 9 2.2.6. Summary................................................................................................................... 9


### 3. IDENTIFICATION OF LIKELY AFFECTED ENTITIES................................10

3.1. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control ........................................................... 10 3.2. Aquatic Weed and Algae Control................................................................................. 14 3.2.1. Public Entities ......................................................................................................... 14 3.2.2. Private Entities........................................................................................................ 16 3.2.3. Summary................................................................................................................. 18 3.3. Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control................................................................................ 19 3.4. Forest Canopy Pest Control .......................................................................................... 22 3.5. Summary....................................................................................................................... 2 4


### 4. OVERLAP WITH EXISTING REQUIREMENTS .............................................25

4.1. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control ........................................................... 25 4.2. Aquatic Weed and Algae Control................................................................................. 27 4.3. Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control................................................................................ 29 4.4. Forest Canopy Pest Control .......................................................................................... 30


### 5. ANALYSIS OF COSTS...........................................................................................31

5.1. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations....................................................................... 31 5.1.1. Minimizing Pesticide Discharges into Waters of the United States ....................... 31 5.1.2. Integrated Pest Management Practices ................................................................... 32 5.1.2.1 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control .............................................. 32 5.1.2.2 Aquatic Weed and Algae Control.................................................................... 40 5.1.2.3 Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control .................................................................. 47ii May 2010 5.1.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control............................................................................. 50 5.1.3. Summary of Technology-Based E ffluent Limitation Costs.................................... 53 5.2. Administrative and Monitoring .................................................................................... 54 5.2.1. Notice of Intent ....................................................................................................... 55 5.2.2. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan................................................................... 55 5.2.3. Recordkeeping ........................................................................................................ 56 5.2.4. Reporting................................................................................................................. 57 5.2.5. Site Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 57 5.2.6. Total Annual Costs ................................................................................................. 57 5.3. Summary of Costs......................................................................................................... 60


### 6. SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS................................................................................65

6.1. Identification of Small Entities..................................................................................... 65 6.2. Evaluating Potential Economic Impact......................................................................... 66 6.3. Summary....................................................................................................................... 6 9


### 7. QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFITS ..................................................70

7.1. Potential for Reduced Loadings.................................................................................... 70 7.2. Potential Adverse Effects Asso ciated with Pesticides.................................................. 70 7.3. Environmental Benefits ................................................................................................ 72 7.3.1. Ecological Benefits ................................................................................................. 72 7.3.2. Ecological Benefit Values....................................................................................... 73


### REFERENCES ................................................................................................................74

APPENDIX A...................................................................................................................80iii May 2010 

# List of Tables and Figures

Table 1-1: NPDES Unauthori zed States, Territories, and Federal Facilities (2009)...................... 2 Table 2-1: Annual Treatment Area Thresholds .............................................................................. 8 Table 2-2: Administrative and Monitoring Requirements for Affected Entities............................ 9 Table 3-1: Potentially Affected Entities: Mosq uito and Other Flying In sect Pest Control .......... 13 Table 3-2: Entities Exceeding Annual Treatmen t Area Thresholds: Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control ............................................................................................................ 14 Table 3-3: Estimated Number of Public Drinki ng Water Utilities with Surface Water Intakes... 16 Table 3-5: Estimated Number of Industria l Facilities with Surface Water Intakes...................... 17 Table 3-6: Potentially Affected Entiti es: Aquatic Weed and Algae Control................................ 18 Table 3-7: Entities Exceeding Annual Treatmen t Area Thresholds: Aquatic Weed and Algae Control ........................................................................................................................ ...... 19 Table 3-8: Estimated Number of Potentially A ffected Entities with Surface Water Intakes ....... 20 Table 3-9: Potential Number of Affected En tities: Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control ............... 21 Table 3-10: Entities Exceeding Annual Treatment Area Thresholds: Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control ........................................................................................................................ ...... 21 Table 3-11: Potentially Affected Entit ies: Forest Canopy Pest Control....................................... 23 Table 3-12: Entities Exceeding Annual Treatment Area Thresholds , Forest Canopy Pest Control

............................................................................................................................... ............ 23 Table 3-13: Summary of Pote ntially Affected Entities 1 ............................................................... 24 Table 4-1: Current Implementation of Best Ma nagement Practices for Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control................................................................................................. 27 Table 4-2: Current Implementation of Best Management Practices in Non-Drinking Water Entities: Aquatic Weed and Algae Control....................................................................... 28 Table 5-1: Massachusetts Mosquito Control District Expenditures ............................................. 33 Table 5-2: Estimated Incremental Costs to Regi onal/District Entities: Identifying the Problem, Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control ............................................................... 36 Table 5-3: Estimated Incremental Costs to Municipal Entities: Identifying the Problem, Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control................................................................................ 36 Table 5-4: Estimated Incremental Costs: Pest Management, Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control ($/yr)............................................................................................................ . 39 Table 5-5: Potential Costs: Identifying the Problem, Aquatic Weed Control .............................. 42 Table 5-6: Potential Affected Acres and Feasib le Costs: Pest Manage ment, Aquatic Weed and Algae Control 1 .................................................................................................................. 45 Table 5-7: Potential Costs: Pesticide Us e, Aquatic Weed and Algae Control.............................. 47 Table 5-8: Summary of Estimated Unit Costs .............................................................................. 53 Table 5-9: Summary of Estimated Annual Technology-based Effluent Limitation Costs ($/yr). 54 Table 5-10: Estimated Labor Cost ($/hour).................................................................................. 55 Table 5-11: Potential Co sts for NOI Submittal............................................................................. 55 Table 5-12: Potential Level of Effort to Prepare PDMP............................................................... 56 Table 5-13: Potential Co st to Produce PDMP .............................................................................. 56 Table 5-14: Potential Recordkeeping Costs.................................................................................. 57 Table 5-15: Potential Reporting Cost ........................................................................................... 57 Table 5-16: Potential Site Monitoring Cost.................................................................................. 57iv May 2010 Table 5-17: Summary of Potential Annual Admi nistrative and Monitoring Costs by Component

............................................................................................................................... ............ 58 Table 5-18: Administrative a nd Monitoring Costs ($/yr)............................................................. 59 Table 5-19: Summary of Potential Annual Admi nistrative and Monitoring Costs ($/yr) ............ 60 Table 5-20: Total Estimated Costs For Entities Above and Below Treatment Thresholds ($/yr) 1

............................................................................................................................... ............ 61 Table 5-21: Summary of To tal Estimated Costs ($/yr) 1 ............................................................... 61 Table 5-22: Key Uncertainti es of the Analysis............................................................................. 62 Table 5-23: Potential Average Entity Costs for Mo squito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control 1

............................................................................................................................... ............ 63 Table 5-24: Potential Average Entity Co sts for Aquatic Weed and Algae Control 1 .................... 63 Table 5-25: Potential Average Entity Co sts for Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control 1 ................... 63 Table 5-26: Potential Average Entity Costs for Forest Canopy Pest Control 1 ............................. 64 Table 6-1: Average Compliance Costs for Entit ies Exceeding Annual Treatment Area Thresholds and Potential Revenue Threshold Values for Characterizing Impacts to Small Governments.................................................................................................................... . 67 Table 6-2: Average Compliance Costs for Entit ies that do not Exceed Annual Treatment Area Thresholds and Potential Revenue Threshold Values for Characterizing Impacts to Small Governments.................................................................................................................... . 67 Table 6-3: Municipality a nd County Revenues based on Average Per Capita Revenues 1 ........... 68 Table 7-1: Potential Toxic Effects of Pesticides........................................................................... 71 Table 7-2: Types of Benefits Associated With Environmental Policies: Ecological Improvements

............................................................................................................................... ............ 72

Figure 1: Map of Massachusetts Mo squito Control Projects, 2009.............................................. 11v May 2010 

### Executive Summary
This report presents an evaluation of the pot ential costs and benefits associated with implementing the requirements of the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for the app lication of pesticides re sulting in discharges to waters of the United States. Note that the administrative and monitoring costs presented herein likely are much less than if individual permits were issued to each of the approximately 35,000 operators in the areas for which EPA is developing this general permit.



### ES.1 Introduction On November 27, 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final regulation to codify its interp retation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as not requiring NPDES permits for application of pesticides to and over, including near, waters of the United States if the application is consistent with Federal Insecticide, Fungicide a nd Rodenticide Act requirements. After the rule was published, petitions for review were filed in eleven Circuit Courts. These petitions were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal s. On January 7, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court ruled in Nationa l Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA to vacate the CWA Pesticides Rule. On April 9, 2009 the Department of Justice file d a motion to stay issuance of the Court’s mandate for two years. In addition, industry petiti oners filed a motion to seek a rehearing of the court’s decision. However, in August 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court denied rehearing the case, and on February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court denied hearing the case. Thus, EPA and states authorized to issue NPDES permits are required to issue permits to point source disc hargers for pesticide applications that result in a di rect discharge of pes ticides to waters of the United States. The proposed PGP addresses this requirement for states, federal facilities, tribal lands, and territories where EPA has NPDES permitting authority for pest icide discharges (also referred to as the unauthorized areas). The draft PGP is applicable to discharges to waters of the United States from the application of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides th at leave a residue. The following pesticide use patterns are covered under the PGP:

• Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

• Aquatic Weed and Algae Control

• Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control

• Forest Canopy Pest Control

The draft PGP includes requirements associated with technology-based effluent limitations, and administrative and monitoring activities. The te chnology-based effluent limitations require all entities to implement control measures to minimi ze the discharge resulting from application of pesticides and certain entities to implement Inte grated Pest Management (IPM) practices related to problem identification, pest management, and pesticide use. Administrative requirements include submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered under the permit, conducting site monitoring, developing and implementing a pest icide discharge management plan (PDMP), preparing annual reports, and recordkeeping. The applicabil ity of the different permitvi May 2010 requirements depends on the extent of pesticide applications (annual treatment area thresholds, in acres or linear miles treated, which vary by use patterns).



### ES.2 Potentially Affected Entities The types of entities that may be affected by th e draft PGP vary by use pattern but may include federal and tribal governments; state and local governments (including te rritories); utilities; operators of irrigated farms; and forest owners and other private entities. These entities may perform pesticide activities themselves or contra ct out pesticide activities to commercial pest control operators. In all instan ces of contract activity, EPA a ssumes that the responsibilities and costs are ultimately borne by the hiring entity, and thus reports the activity at the hiring entity level. Data are not available for all areas and use patterns. Therefore, in a number of instances, EPA developed estimates based on existing inform ation (e.g., internet sources suggesting that certain units of government may be involved in the different use patt erns) or to provide conservatively high estimates of entities that ma y be affected (e.g., assuming that all irrigated farms in unauthorized areas apply pesticides to irrigation ditches). More accurate information on the number of entities that would be subject to the draft PGP may substantially affect the cost analyses. Table ES-1 shows the estimates of potentially affected entities by una uthorized area and use pattern. Over 90% (approximately 31,600) of these entities are operators of irrigated farms, who fall under the aquatic weed and algae control us e pattern. However, there is uncertainty regarding whether all of these entities will be affected by the draft PGP. Moreover, EPA does not expect affected pesticide applications on irrigated farms will exceed the 20 linear miles annual treatment area threshold established in the draft PGP for the aquatic weed and algae control use pattern. The annual tr eatment area thresholds (Table 2- 1) determine the applicability of the different permit requirements.
Table ES-1: Summary of Potentially Affected Entities

Area Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest

Control Aquatic Weed and Algae

Control Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Forest Canopy Pest Control Total

Alaska 2 325 15 18 360 Idaho 23 16,313 11 48 16,395 Massachusetts 9 2,140 26 214 2,389 New Hampshire 44 632 10 85 771 New Mexico 13 10,244 8 26 10,291 Oklahoma 1 3,811 74 159 4,045 District of Columbia 1 8 2 0 11 Territories 1 289 35 10 335 Tribes 17 89 24 50 180 Federal Facilities 10 10 10 29 59 Total 121 33,861 215 639 34,836



### ES.3 Potential Costs Potentially affected entities may incur costs as sociated with the technology-based effluent limitations and the administrative and monitoring requirements of the draft PGP. The draft PGP will only result in incremental co sts associated with the tech nology-based effluent limitationvii May 2010 provisions in instances where the requirements represent acti vities are not already being implemented by affected entities. EPA used existing information provided by representatives from a number of the unauthorized areas to es timate the extent of current compliance with components of the draft PGP. In instances wher e information was not available, EPA generally assumes that entities are not cu rrently implementing the required activities and would therefore incur incremental costs to comply with the PGP.

Technology-Based Effluent Limitations The technology-based effluent limitations of the dr aft PGP requires that en tities who are required to submit an NOI (those who will exceed annua l treatment area thresholds) implement IPM practices that may or may not re sult in incremental costs for affected entities; entities below the annual treatment area thresholds will only be subject to the administrative and monitoring requirements. Entities subject to technology-based effluent limitati ons that are not currently in compliance with the requirements may incur incr emental costs that depend on the extent of pesticide applications (e.g., numb er of acres or linear miles treated) and the feasibility of alternatives to pesticide use. Some information on the potential unit costs of required activities is available from the unauthorized states and ot her sources (e.g., entitie s performing pesticide applications in the unauthorized states). However, because the feasibility a nd cost of alternatives to pesticide use will be highly site and entity -specific, EPA could only develop illustrative estimates based on potential increm ental unit costs for some draf t PGP components. For this reason, actual costs incurred may vary substantially. Two components of the requirements for the mos quito and other flying insect pest control use pattern may result in incremental costs: identifying the problem (including target species and densities and breeding sites) and pest manageme nt. Under the aquatic weed and algae control use pattern, costs may be associated with re quirements for identifying the problem, pest management, and pesticide use. Technology-base d effluent limitations for aquatic nuisance animal control and forest canopy pest control are not likely to be associated with incremental costs. Table ES-2 provides a summary of the pot ential annual incremental costs associated with the different practices (unit cost s for various draft PGP requireme nts). For mosquito and other flying insect pest control, the potential unit co sts provided are midpoints for ranges of potential costs. That is, for identifying the problem, small operators (most likely small municipalities) costs are expected to fall within the range of $15,000-$24,000 for all related activities. For larger operators (e.g. multi-county mosquito ab atement districts), costs associated with identifying the problem are expected to be $15,000-$369,000. The range of costs for pest management activities range from $7,000-$389,000 pe r entity. Given that many of the entities under this use pattern are likely to be relatively small, EPA believes that most will incur costs more towards the lower end of th e range of potential costs. Howe ver, to be conservative (i.e., erring on the side of greater impacts) the midpoint estimate will be used to reflect potential unit costs in this analysis.viii May 2010 Table ES-2: Summary of Estimated Unit Costs fo r Technology-based Effluent Limitations ($/yr) Requirement Potential Unit Cost Description and Source Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Identify the problem: Species/target densities

Mapping breeding sites

Municipality-level costs $99,000/entity

$112,000/entity

$20,000/entity Midpoint of surveillance expenditures in mosquito control districts in MA (MADEP, 2009; MDAR, 2008)

Midpoint of expenditures in mosquito control districts in MA (MADEP, 2009; MDAR, 2008) and costs estimated for Idaho ISDA (2009)

Average annual cost for problem identification for municipalities in New Hampshire (McGregor, 2009; NHDHHS, 2010)

Pest management Regional-level costs

Municipality-level costs $195,000/entity

$800/entity Midpoint cost for implementing water management and vegetation and sediment removal in mosquito control districts in MA (MADEP, 2009; MDAR, 2008)

Low end of range for implementing water management and vegetation and sediment removal in mosquito control districts in MA (MADEP, 2009; MDAR, 2008) Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Identify the problem $100/acre Su rveying costs; Coble (2009) Pest management $50/acre - $500/acre Illustrati ve only; represents potential feasible cost difference between pesticide use and use of alternative method 1 Pesticide use $100/acre Surveillance m onitoring of aquatic weed treatments; ISDA (2009) Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control NA NA NA Forest Canopy Pest Control NA NA NA NA = not applicable (no incremental costs identified). 1. Assumed for half of affected acres. Actual costs of feas ible alternatives to pesticide use will be site- and entity-specific

. Table ES-3 shows the potential annual costs by unauthorized area and use pattern. As shown in Table ES-3, technology-based effl uent limitation costs may be in the range of $11.6 million to $12.5 million annually; these costs are attributable primarily to IPM practices under the mosquito and other flying insect pest control use pattern.ix May 2010 Table ES-3: Summary of Potential Annual Techno logy-based Effluent Limitation Costs by Use Pattern and Unauthorized Area ($/yr)

Area Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Forest Canopy Pest Control Total Costs Alaska $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Idaho $4,017,000 $7,000 - $21,000 $0 $0 $4,024,000 - $4,038,000

Massachusetts $0 $25,000 - $69,000 $0 $0 $25,000 - $69,000

New Hampshire $35,000 $10,000 - $53,000 $0 $0 $45,000 - $88,000 New Mexico $2,535,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,535,000

Oklahoma $21,000 $25,000 - $50,000 $0 $0 $46,000 - $71,000 District of Columbia $195,000 $0 $0 $0 $195,000 Territories $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Tribes $104,000 - $354,000 $36,000 - $73,000 $0 $0 $140,000 - $427,000

Federal Facilities $4,060,000 $508,000 - $1,016,000 $0 $0 $4,568,000 - $5,076,000

Total $10,967,000 - $11,217,000 $611,000 - $1,282,000 $0 $0 $11,578,000 - $12,499,000 1. Includes illustrative cost estimate for pest management based on potential, feasible net incremental costs; actual costs wil l be site- and entity-specific.

Administrative and Monitoring Administrative and monitoring requirements in the draft PGP differ to some extent for entities that will exceed the annual treatment area thre sholds. A number of entities not required to implement IPM practices (those below the annual treatment area threshold) may incur administrative and monitoring costs. Table ES -4 provides a summary of the potential annual incremental costs for the different activities, a nd Table ES-5 shows tota l potential annual costs by use pattern and unauthorized area. Total cost s may be approximately $5 million per year. These costs primarily reflect the cost associated with recordkeeping and monitoring of pesticide use in ditch banks on irrigated fa rms to control aquatic weeds.x May 2010 Table ES-4: Potential Annual Admini strative and Monitoring Costs

Requirement Entities Exceeding Threshold Entities Not Exceeding Threshold NOI $30 NA PDMP $430 NA Recordkeeping $200 $80 Reporting $100 NA Site Monitoring $200 $50 Total $960 $130 NA: not applicable NOI: Notice of Intent PDMP: Pesticide Discharge Management Plan

Table ES-5: Summary of Potential Annual Admi nistrative and Monitoring Costs ($/yr)

Area Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest

Control Aquatic Weed and Algae

Control Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Forest Canopy Pest Control Total

Alaska $300 $43,000 $3,000 $3,000 $49,300 Idaho $22,000 $2,128,000 $2,000 $8,000 $2,160,000 Massachusetts $9,000 $301,000 $4,000 $30,000 $344,000 New Hampshire $42,000 $104,000 $2,000 $12,000 $160,000 New Mexico $12,000 $1,333,000 $2,000 $4,000 $1,351,000 Oklahoma $1,000 $547,000 $10,000 $22,000 $580,000 District of Columbia $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $4,000 Territories $1,000 $43,000 $10,000 $10,000 $64,000
Tribes $5,000 - $18,000 $25,000 $17,000 $48,000 $95,000 - $108,000 Federal Facilities $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $28,000 $58,000

Total $103,000 - $116,000 $4,536,000 $61,000 $165,000 $4,865,000 - 4,878,000

Total and Average Costs Table ES-6 provides a summary of the technology-based efflue nt limitation and administrative and monitoring costs across the unauthorized areas and use patterns. Total annual costs may be in the range of $16.4 million to $17.4 million. Appr oximately 30% of the total estimated costs represent administrative and m onitoring costs, although there ar e substantial uncertainties associated with components of total costs. In pa rticular, there is uncerta inty regarding the annual incremental costs that will be incurred to comp ly with IPM practices for mosquito and other flying insect pest control (which affects th e magnitude of the t echnology-based effluent limitation costs), and with the number of affected entities under the different use patterns.xi May 2010 Table ES-6: Summary of Total Potential Annual Costs ($/yr) 1

Area Mosquito and Other Flying Pest Insect Aquatic Weed and Algae Aquatic Nuisance

Animal Forest Canopy Total Alaska $300 $43,000 $3,000 $3,000 $49,300

Idaho $4,039,000 $2,135,000 - $2,149,000 $2,000 $8,000 $6,184,000 - $6,198,000

Massachusetts $9,000 $326,000 - $370,000 $4,000 $30,000 $369,000 - $413,000

New Hampshire $77,000 $114,000 - $157,000 $2,000 $12,000 $205,000 - $248,000 New Mexico $2,547,000 $1, 333,000 $2,000 $4,000 $3,886,000

Oklahoma $22,000 $572,000 - $597,000 $10,000 $22,000 $626,000 - $651,000

District of Columbia $196,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $199,000 Territories $1,000 $43,000 $10,000 $10,000 $64,000

Tribes $109,000 - $372,000 $61,000 - $98,000 $17,000 $48,000 $235,000 - $535,000

Federal Facilities $4,070,000 $518,000 - $1,026,000 $10,000 $28,000 $4,626,000 - $5,134,000

Total $11,070,000 - $11,333,000 $5,147,000 - $5,818,000 $61,000 $165,000 $16,443,000 - $17,377,000

1. See Table 5-9 and Table 5-19.

The largest average (per entity) costs are associat ed with state and local government and federal entities that perform mosquito a nd other flying insect pest contro l. These costs, which reflect both administrative and monitoring costs and tec hnology-based effluent limitation costs, may be in the range of $200 to $400,000 annually (see Table 5-23). Average annual costs for entities performing aquatic weed and algae control ma y range from $1,000 to $100,000 (see Table 5-24). Average annual costs for entities performing a quatic nuisance animal or forest canopy pest control may range from $100 to $1,000 (see Table 5- 25). For entities below the annual treatment area thresholds performing mosquito and other flyi ng insect pest control, average annual costs may range from $0 to $200 and for the other use patterns from $0 to $100 (see Table 5-26). Since entities that fall below the annual treatme nt area threshold are not required to meet IPM practices, these costs only reflect ad ministrative and monitoring costs.



### ES.5 Small Entity Analysis There are very limited data available to identify the specific entities potentially affected by the draft PGP. Thus, it is not possible to determine the exact number of enti ties considered to be small governments/businesses or their appli cable revenues for co mparison to potential compliance costs to determine the economic impact.xii May 2010 Under a conservative (i.e., erri ng on the side of greater impact s) scenario, there could be 115 small entities under the mosquito and other flying insect pest control use pattern, 33,838 small entities (including those th at would only incur costs associated with administrative and monitoring requirements) under the aquatic w eed and algae control use pattern, 192 small entities under the aquatic nuisa nce animal control use patter n, and 607 small entities (mostly private forest owners) under the fore st canopy pest control use pattern. Lack of revenue data precludes estimating how many of these entities could incur significant economic impact based on a comparison of revenue s to compliance costs. However, data on average revenues/sales for municipa lities, counties, and irrigated farms provides some indication of the likelihood of leve l of impact, which varies across the unauthorized areas and by use pattern.



### ES.4 Potential Benefits At this time, information is not available to qua ntify or monetize any beneficial impacts of this permit. However, information from the publishe d literature suggests that pesticides covered under the draft PGP may have a dverse effects on aquatic ecosystems. As a result, reducing loadings of these pesticides, such as thr ough the IPM practices a nd pesticide discharge management plans required under the draft PGP, ma y lead to ecological benefits and associated values. Pesticides, although typically desi gned to target a narrow range of species, nonetheless may have unintended adverse impacts on othe r aquatic species and plants. For example, one laboratory study found that the freshwater fish Puntius conchonius , if given chronic exposure to the pesticide carbaryl, developed branchial, hepatic, and renal lesions (Gil l et al., 1988). Another study found that the adulticide ethof enprox caused lethal adverse im pacts on the freshwater fish Oreochromis mossambicus at concentrations of 2.849 ppm and sublethal impacts beginning at concentrations of 1.305 ppm. These subletha l effects included erratic swimming, changes in opercular movement, loss of equilibrium, mucu s secretion, and chromatic changes to skin (Muniyan and Veeraraghavan, 1999). Other pesticide products covered under the draft PGP may also ha ve adverse impacts on wildlife and vegetation, and overall ecosystem health and f unction. For example, the mosquito larvicide fungus Lagendidium giganeum is known to greatly inhibit the reproduction of water fleas (cladocera) (Helgen et al., 1987). These small organisms are critical determinants of the structure of aquatic ecosystems as a whole, and re ductions in their numbers can impact the entire food web (Carpenter et al., 1985). By minimizing discharges of the pesticides to waters of the United States, the PGP will limit the potential for adverse health and mortality impact s to aquatic wildlife. For any pollutants that accumulate in the system, reduced loadings wi ll reduce the potential for accumulation and toxicity to aquatic life (from exposure to accumulated pesticides in sediments), and potential future remediation efforts. Although current data and information is insu fficient to identify the extent or potential magnitude of benefits that w ill result from reducing pesticide loads to waters of the U.S., information gathered from monitori ng and reporting activities may enable such an effort in the future.1 May 2010 

### 1. Introduction

This report presents an evaluation of the pot ential costs and benefits associated with implementing the requirements of the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for the app lication of pesticides re sulting in discharges to waters of the United States. Note that the administrative and monitoring costs presented herein likely are much less than if individual permits were issued to each of the approximately 35,000 operators in the areas for which EPA is developing this general permit.



### 1.1. Background On November 27, 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final regulation to codify its interp retation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as not requiring NPDES permits for application of pesticides to and over, including near, waters of the United States if the application is consistent with relevant Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirements. After the rule was published, petitions for review were filed in eleven Circuit Courts. These petitions were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal s. On January 7, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court ruled in Nationa l Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA to vacate the CWA Pesticides Rule. On April 9, 2009 the Department of Justice file d a motion to stay issuance of the Court’s mandate for two years. In addition, industry petiti oners filed a motion to seek a rehearing of the court’s decision. However, in August 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court denied rehearing the case, and on February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court denied hearing the case. Thus, EPA and states authorized to issue NPDES permits are required to issue permits to point source disc hargers for pesticide applications that result in a di rect discharge of pes ticides to waters of the United States. The proposed PGP addresses this requirement for states, federal facilities, tribal lands, and territories where EPA has NPDES permitting authority for pesticide discharges. The draft PGP is applicable to discharges to waters of the United States from the application of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides th at leave a residue. The following pesticide use patterns are covered under the PGP:

• Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control – to control public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests that de velop or are present during a po rtion of their life cycle in or above standing or flowing wa ter. Public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests in this use category include but are not limited to mosquitoes and black flies.

• Aquatic Weed and Algae Control – to control invasive or other nuisance weeds and algae in water and at water’s edge , including irrigation ditche s and/or irrigation canals.

• Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control – to control invasive or other nuisance animals in water and at water’s edge. Aquatic nuisance animals in this use category include, but are not limited to fish, lampreys, and mollusks.

• Forest Canopy Pest Control – aerial application of a pe sticide over a forest canopy to control the population of a pest species (e.g., insect or pathoge n) where to target the pests2 May 2010 effectively a portion of the pesticide unavoida bly will be applied over and deposited to

water.



### 1.2. States, Territories, and Federa l Facilities to be Covered The draft PGP applies only to states and terr itories where EPA has NPDES permitting authority for pesticide discharges; states and territories with complete NPDES permitting authority are responsible for developing their own permit for pesticide discharges. States that are not authorized by EPA to issue NPDES permits for any discharge to waters of the United States include Massachusetts, Idaho, New Hampshir e, and New Mexico. EPA has full NPDES permitting authority for these states; additionall y, EPA has permitting authority over pesticide discharges in Alaska and Oklahoma. In this do cument, these six states are collectively referred to as “unauthorized states.” In addition, EPA has permitting authority over all U.S. territories (except the Virgin Islands), tribal lands within 31 states, and federal faciliti es within four states. In this document, these areas and the unauthorized states ar e collectively referred to as “unauthorized areas.” Table 1-1 shows the areas for which EPA has NPDES permitting authority.
Table 1-1: NPDES Unauthorized States, Territories, and Federal Facilities (2009) Unauthorized States Alaska (only unauthorized for pesticide discharges) Idaho Massachusetts New Hampshire New Mexico Oklahoma (only unauthorized for pesticide discharges) Unauthorized Territories American Samoa District of Columbia 1 Guam Johnston Atoll Midway Island & Wake Island Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico

States with Federal Facilities for which EPA has Permitting Authority Colorado Delaware Vermont Washington
States with Tribal Lands for which EPA has Permitting Authority Alabama

Alaska Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Florida Idaho Iowa Kansas Louisiana Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi

Montana Nebraska

Nevada New Mexico

New York North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma

Oregon Rhode Island South Dakota Texas Utah Washington Wisconsin Wyoming

1. Technically not a territory but included in this group for the purpose of this analysis.



### 1.3. Organization of the Analysis The remainder of the report is organized, as follows:

Section 2: Overview of Pesticide General Permit provides a description of the permit requirements.3 May 2010 Section 3 : Identification of Likely Affected Entities describes the types of en tities that potentially apply pesticides under the four us e patterns, and presents an asse ssment of the numbers and types of pesticide applicat ors potentially affect ed by the draft PGP.

Section 4: Overlap with Existing Requirements summarizes current practic es and regulations that already cover pesticide applicat ors in the areas of concern.

Section 5: Analysis of Costs presents an analysis of potentia l incremental costs to affected entities associated with comp liance with the draft PGP.

Section 6: Small Business Analysis presents an assessment of the cost of regulatory requirements on the likelihood of significant economic impacts on small entities.

Section 7: Benefits Analysis provides discussion of the enviro nmental effects associated with pesticide discharges and the benefi ts of reducing these discharges.4 May 2010 

### 2. Overview of Pesticides General Permit

This section provides an overvie w of the requirements of the draft PGP, which covers point source discharges to waters of the United States from applications of pesticides for specific use patterns. There are four gene ral use patterns covered under the PGP: mosquito and other flying insect pest control, aquatic w eed and algae control, aquatic nu isance animal control and forest canopy pest control. The draft PGP includes technology-based effluent limitations, including specific integrated pest manage ment (IPM) practices for each use pattern, and requirements associated with administra tive tasks and monitoring.



### 2.1. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations Technology-based effluent limitation s provisions include requiremen ts that operators reduce or eliminate discharges of pesticides to waters of the United State to the extent technologically available and economically pract icable and achievable.

2.1.1. Minimize Pesticide Discharges to Waters of the United States All operators must minimize the discharge resulting from application of pest icides. All operators must also do the following: Operators must use the “lowest effectiv e amount of pesticide product per application and optimum frequency” of applications re quired to control the target pest and reduce the potential for development of resistance. Operators must also perform regular maintenance activities to reduce the risk of l eaks, spills or unintent ional discharges and additionally maintain pesticide application equipment in prope r operating condition. Operators must calibrate, clean and repair equipment on a regular basis to ensure effective pesticide application and pest control.

2.1.2. Integrated Pest Manage ment (IPM) Practices All operators who are required to submit an NOI, as required in Part 1.2.2 of the permit, must implement IPM practices. These practices are ai med at reducing pesticide use and lessening the affects of pesticides that are applied. The IPM practices require d in the draft PGP seek to limit the discharge of pesticides to waters of the United States. Ea ch use pattern has its own IPM practices, and these requirements are divided into three different sections: identify the problem, pest management and pesticide use. Under the permit, all operators must identify the problem prior to pesticide application, consider us ing non-chemical control measures, perform surveillance before pesticid e application, and reduce im pacts of pesticide use.

2.1.2.1 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Mosquito and other flying insect pest control i nvolves the control of pub lic health/nuisance and other flying insect pests that deve lop or are present during a portion of their life cycle in or above standing or flowing water. Public health/nuisa nce and other flying ins ect pests in this use category include but are not limited to mosquitoes and black flies. The draft PGP requires the following:

• Identify the Problem5 May 2010 3⁄4 Establish densities for larval a nd adult mosquito or flying ins ect pest populations to serve as action threshold(s) for implemen ting pest management strategies; 3⁄4 Identify target mosquito or flying insect pe st species to develop species-specific pest management strategies based on developmenta l and behavioral considerations for each species; 3⁄4 Identify known breeding sites for source reduc tion, larval control program, and habitat management; 3⁄4 Analyze existing surveillance data to identify new or unidentified sources of mosquito or flying insect pest problems as well as s ites that have recurr ing pest problems.

• Pest Management 3⁄4 Evaluate management options considering impa ct to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, a nd cost effectiveness: no action, prevention, mechanical/ physical methods, cultural me thods, biological control agents, and pesticides.

• Pesticide Use 3⁄4 Conduct larval and/or adult surveillance prior to each pesticide application to assess the pest management area and to determine when action threshold(s) are met that necessitate the need for pest management; 3⁄4 Assess environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, precipit ation, and wind speed) in the treatment area prior to each pesticide application to identify whether existing environmental conditions support development of pest populations a nd are suitable for control activities; 3⁄4 Reduce the impact on the environment and on non-target organisms by applying the pesticide only when the acti on threshold has been met; 3⁄4 In situations or locations wh ere practicable and feasible for efficacious control, use larvicides as a preferred pesticide for mosquito or flying insect pest control when larval action thresholds have been met; 3⁄4 In situations or locations where larvicide use is not practicable or feasible for efficacious control, use adulticides for mosquito or fl ying insect pest control when adult action thresholds have been met.

2.1.2.2 Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Aquatic weed and algae control i nvolves the control of invasive or other nuisance weeds and algae in water and at water’s e dge, including irrigation ditches and/ or irrigation canals. The draft PGP requires the following:6 May 2010 • Identify the Problem 3⁄4 Identify areas with aquatic weed or algae problems and characterize the extent of the problems, including, for example, water use goals not attained (e .g. wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, and recreation); 3⁄4 Identify target weed species; 3⁄4 Identify possible factors cau sing or contributing to the weed or algae problem (e.g., nutrients, invasive species, etc); 3⁄4 Establish past or present aquatic weed or al gae densities to serve as action threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies.

• Pest Management 3⁄4 Evaluate management options considering impa ct to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, a nd cost effectiveness: no action, prevention, mechanical/ physical methods, cultural me thods, biological control agents, and pesticides.

• Pesticide Use 3⁄4 Conduct surveillance prior to each pesticide application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the action threshold is met that necessitates the need for pest management; 3⁄4 Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by applying the pesticide only when the acti on threshold has been met.

2.1.2.3 Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Aquatic nuisance animal control i nvolves the control of invasive or other nuisance animals in water and at water’s edge. Aquatic nuisance an imals in this use category include, but are not limited to fish, lampreys, and mollusks. The draft PGP requires the following:

• Identify the Problem 3⁄4 Identify areas with aquatic nuisance animal problems and characterize the extent of the problems, including, for example, water use goals not attained (e .g. wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, and recreation); 3⁄4 Identify target aquatic nuisance animal species; 3⁄4 Identify possible factors causi ng or contributing to the prob lem (e.g., nutrients, invasive species); 3⁄4 Establish past or present aquatic nuisance anim al densities to serve as action threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies.

• Pest Management 3⁄4 Evaluate management options considering impa ct to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, a nd cost effectiveness: no action, prevention, mechanical/ physical methods, biologi cal control agents, and pesticides.

• Pesticide Use7 May 2010 3⁄4 Conduct surveillance prior to each application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the action threshold is met that necessitates the need for pest management; 3⁄4 Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating site restrictions, application timing, and applic ation method in addition to applying the pesticide only when the acti on threshold has been met.

2.1.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control Forest canopy pest control involves aerial app lication of a pesticide over a forest canopy to control the population of a pest species (e.g., insect or pathoge n) where to target the pests effectively a portion of the pesticide unavoidably will be applied over and deposited to water. The draft PGP requires the following:

• Identify the Problem 3⁄4 Establish target pest densities to serve as action threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies; 3⁄4 Identify target species to develop a species -specific pest management strategy based on developmental and behavioral considerations for each species; 3⁄4 Identify current distribution of the target pest and assess potentia l distribution in the absence of control measures.

• Pest Management 3⁄4 Evaluate management options considering impa ct to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, a nd cost effectiveness: no action, prevention, mechanical/ physical methods, cultural me thods, biological control agents, and pesticides.

• Pesticide Use 3⁄4 Conduct surveillance prior to each application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the pest action threshold is met that necessitates the need for pest management; 3⁄4 Assess environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, precipit ation, and wind speed) in the treatment area to identify conditions that support target pest development and are conducive for treatment activities; 3⁄4 Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating the restrictions, application timing, and applic ation methods in addition to applying the pesticide only when the acti on thresholds have been met; 3⁄4 Evaluate using pesticides against the most susceptible developmental stage.



### 2.2. Administrative Requirements The draft PGP administrative requirements incl ude submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP), as well as performance of annual reporting, recordkeeping, and site monitoring.8 May 2010 2.2.1. Notice of Intent Any entity that has operational control over pesticid e activities or applies pesticides directly will be required to submit an NOI if they will exc eed one or more of the annual treatment area thresholds (see Error! Reference source not found. ). All other entitie s are not required to submit an NOI.

Table 2-1: Annual Treatment Area Thresholds Pesticide Use Pattern Annual Threshold Mosquitoes and Other Flying Insect Pest Control 640 acres of treatment
Aquatic Weed and Algae Control 20 acres of water treatment 20 linear miles at water’s edge
Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control 20 acres of water treatment 20 linear miles at water’s edge Forest Canopy Pest Control 640 acres of forest canopy

2.2.2. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan Any operator that is required to submit an NOI must also submit a PDMP. A PDMP must include: identification of the pesticide discharg e management team; a description of the pest management area; and a descripti on of the control measure(s) ev aluated. Operators must also provide schedules and procedures for applic ation rate and frequency, spill prevention, maintaining pesticide application equipment, performing pest surveillance and assessing environmental conditions. In addition, the PDMP must include spill response procedure and adverse incident response procedure as well as pesticide monitoring schedules and procedures.

2.2.3. Annual Reporting Operators that are required to submit an NOI must also submit an annual report. The report must include operator’s name, NPDES permit tracking number(s), contact information, and, for each pest treatment area, the following must be repo rted: identification of any waters or other treatment area, including size, either by name or by location, to which pesticides were discharged; pesticide use patter n(s); company name(s) and contact information for pesticide applicator(s), if different from the NOI submitte r; total amount of each pesticide product applied for the reporting year by the EPA registration nu mber(s) and by applicati on method; whether the pest control activity was addresse d in the PDMP prior to pesticid e application; adverse incident reports; and description of any corrective action(s).

2.2.4. Recordkeeping All entities must keep accura te and complete written records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with conditions of the draft PGP. EPA recommends th at all operators keep records of acres or linear miles treated for relevant use patterns to help dete rmine whether the annual treatment area threshold has been met. Operat ors required to submit an NOI have increased recordkeeping requirements for each pesticide app lication which include keeping information on: the date on which the operator knew or reasonabl y should have known that they would exceed an annual treatment area threshold du ring any calendar year; surveillan ce method(s) used, date(s) of surveillance activities, and findings of surveillance; target pest(s); pest density prior to pesticide application; company name and contact info rmation for pesticide applicator; pesticide application date(s); description of treatment area; name of each pesticide product used including9 May 2010 the EPA registration number; quantity of pesticide applied; concentration of active ingredient in formulation; for pesticide appli cation directly to water, the effective concentration of active ingredient required for control; any unusual or unexpected ef fects identified to non-target organisms; and documentation of any equipment maintenance.

2.2.5. Site Monitoring

All entities covered under the dr aft PGP must perform site monitoring. Operators must ensure that their equipment is in proper working or der and they are using the lowest amount of pesticides required to effectivel y control the pest. In addition, operators must conduct a visual assessment at the application site when survei llance or an efficacy check is conducted. The visual assessment must consist of spot check s where pesticides are applied for possible and observable adverse incidents.

2.2.6. Summary As described above, the administrative requirement s vary based on whether an entity will exceed an applicable annual treatment area threshold. Table 2-2 summarizes the requirements for each type of entity.

Table 2-2: Administrative and Monitoring Requirements for Affected Entities

Level of Pesticide Use NOI PDMP Reporting Recordkeeping Site Monitoring Exceed threshold X X X X X Do not exceed threshold X 1 X 1. Entities that are not required to submit an NOI have reduced recordkeeping requirements.10 May 2010 

### 3. Identification of Like ly Affected Entities

This section provides available information on the four pesticide use pattern s in the unauthorized areas and identifies entities that may be require d to comply with the draft PGP requirements. There is no one central source of data to identif y potentially affected entities. EPA therefore relied on preliminary information available from the unauthorized areas. Where specific information was not available, EPA made assump tions based on other available data to estimate the number or types of likely affected entities. Using more accurate estimates for the unauthorized areas could yi eld different results and possibly di fferent conclusions. However, in the absence of better data, EPA’s analysis represents a preliminar y estimate of the number and types of potentially affected entities.



### 3.1. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Mosquito and other flying insect pest control is often performed to protect public health, and almost always involves some degree of chemi cal control, including gr ound and aerial control targeted at adult mosquitoes and larvae. T ypically, applicators use Ultra Low Volume (ULV) sprays or foggers because the amount of insectic ide used is small compared to the area treated. Doing this limits the exposure and health risks to humans and the environment. In addition, ULV sprayers and foggers are a cost effectiv e solution for smaller applicators due to the relatively lower capital costs.

Information from the unauthorized areas indicates that mosquito and other flying insect pest control are conducted by public entities 1 , although these entities may c ontract out the activity to commercial pest control operators. (In all instan ces of contract activity, EPA assumes that the responsibilities and costs are ultim ately borne by the hiring entity, a nd thus reports the activity at the hiring entity level.) The level of government at which this type of pest control occurs varies. Many city and county governments implement mo squito control programs. Local and state mosquito control agencies generally collaborate w ith state public health departments to monitor (and at times control) mosquitoes with the goal of preventing mosquito-borne illnesses. In some states, cities and counties form regional mosquito eradication districts which perform mosquito control independent of the state government. For example, Massachusetts has nine mosquito control districts, comprising be tween 2 and 32 towns (though most districts have over 20 towns). Figure 1 provides a map of the control districts with municipal boundaries shown; note that there are a number of municipalities that ar e not covered by a control district.

1 EPA does not have information to suggest that private entities are involved in mosquito or other flying insect pest control efforts to or over, including near, waters of the United States.11 May 2010 Figure 1: Map of Massachusetts Mosquito Control Projects, 2009

Source: MADEP, 2009
The unauthorized areas include six states, six territories, and the District of Columbia, within which exist numerous counties and cities. Mosquito control may al so be performed by tribes and at federal facilities. There are over 300 federal faciliti es within the four states of interest (Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and Washington ), including army bases (administered by Department of Defense), federal prisons (adm inistered by Department of Justice), National Wildlife Refuge Areas (administered by Bur eau of Reclamation), and National Forests (administered by Forest Service), among others. There are 10 federal agencies responsible for these facilities or land areas. There are also 174 unique Indi an reservations in 26 authorized

states. 2

To determine the number of entities that coul d be affected by the draft PGP, EPA relied on information provided by the unautho rized states and other publicly available data. The Alaska Department of Environmental C onservation (ADEC, 2009) indicate s that there is no organized effort to control mosquitoes, and only two locati ons in the state have issued mosquito control permits in the past. The Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) indicates that there are 23 mosquito control districts in the state (ISDA, 2009). As stat ed previously, there are nine mosquito control districts in Massachus etts (MADEP, 2009), and the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets, and F ood (NHDAMF, 2009) indicates that there are 43 mosquito control districts in the state plus one permit for mosquito control at the University of New Hampshire. New Mexico has 13 mosqu ito control districts (Conlon, 2009), and the

2 Based on GIS data from Nationa l Atlas (www.nationalatlas.gov).12 May 2010 Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Fore stry (ODAFF, 2009) indi cates that Tulsa is the only city in the state that cu rrently performs mosquito control. 3 For the District of Columbia, information on its Department of He alth (DOH) website indicates that the District us es larvicides for mosquito control (DCDOH, 2005). EPA searched for mosquito control information fo r tribal reservations with land areas greater than 100,000 acres (52 total) and f ound that only 8 are using pesticid es to control for mosquitoes. However, a number of reservations in Arizona (an authorized state) pe rform mosquito control with the assistance of state partnerships. Trib es working with authorized states to control mosquitoes would most likely be permitted unde r the state’s NPDES program and not under the draft PGP. Thus, EPA found evidence of only five tribal reservations in which mosquito control with pesticides is taking place independent of st ate assistance. This represents approximately 10% of the number of unique In dian reservations with areas gr eater than 100,000 acres (5 out of 52). Assuming that percentage is representati ve of reservations with less than 100,000 acres (122 total), there could be 17 tribal entities po tentially affected by the draft PGP [5 + (122 × 10%)].
For the territories, there is no information to indica te that any of the territories other than Puerto Rico use pesticides for mosquito control. Thus , EPA assumes that only Puerto Rico would be required to obtain a permit for mosquito control under the draft PGP.

For federal facilities there is no information on th e number using pesticides for mosquito control. For this analysis, EPA assumes that each federal ag ency is using pesticides for mosquito control and would receive a single permit for all activ ities across facilities/land areas. Thus, EPA estimated costs for 10 unique federal agenci es potentially affected by the draft PGP. Table 3-1 presents estimates of the number of potentially affected entities. Due to incomplete data on the extent of mosquito and other flying in sect pest control activit ies involving pesticide applications eligible for the draft PGP, the num ber of potentially affected entities may be higher or lower than the amount shown. Nonetheless, th e number of potentially affected entities below represents the best estimate given the information available. Any entity may apply pesticides at one or more sites covered by a single permit.

3 In the past, at most a handful of cities have been involved in mosquito control, and before the threat of West Nile Virus, no mosquito control was performed in Oklahoma. Any mosquito control in Tulsa is likely rudimentary, involving spraying adulticides using truck-mounted foggers (ODAFF, 2009).13 May 2010 Table 3-1: Potentially Affected Entities: Mosqui to and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

State Total Number of Potentially Affected Entities 1 Source
Alaska 2 ADEC (2009) Idaho 23 ISDA (2009) Massachusetts 9 MADEP (2009) New Hampshire 44 NHDAMF (2009)

New Mexico 13 NMDOH (2009)

Oklahoma 1 ODAFF (2009) District of Columbia 1 DCDOH (2009) Territories 1 Assumed only Puerto Rico affected

Tribes 1 17 Assumed 10% potentially affected Federal Facilities 2 10 Represents number of unique agencies
Total 121 Sources: ADEC, 2009; ISDA, 2009; MADEP, 2009; NHDAMF, 2009; NMDOH, 2009; ODAFF, 2009. 1. Estimate based on 10% of the number of unique Indian reserv ation listings for 26 authorized st ates; tribal activities in unauthorized states assumed to be included in number of potentially affected entities in unauthorized states. 2. Estimate based on number of unique federal agencies wi th facilities in four states (CO, DE, VT and WA).

The draft PGP establishes annual treatment ar ea thresholds applicable to permittees for identifying the need to comply with some perm it requirements. For mosquito and other flying insect pest control, the annual treatment area threshold is 640 acre s of treatment. Mosquito and other flying insect pest contro l conducted by vector control di stricts (e.g., entities in Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) will generally cover more than 640 acres. For the two cities in Alaska, EPA assumes that the treatment areas are less than the threshold based on information provided by the State that there is no organized effort to control mosquitoes. For the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Department of Environmental Health’s website indicates that in a t ypical mosquito season it sprays over 800 square miles (512,000 acres) for adult mosquitoes, which is above the applicable threshold. EPA identified at least five tribes likely to be treating areas greater than th e applicable threshold. However, it is uncertain whether the remaining 12 tribal entities are treating more than 640 acres. Thus, EPA uses a range assuming that all 12 tribal entities are either a bove the threshold or below the threshold. Because there is no information on the federal fa cility lands on which pesticides are used to control mosquitoes, EPA assumes that all agencies are either treating areas above the threshold or are treating multiple sites with total treatment areas exceeding th e threshold. Table 3-2 shows the number of entities that may be above the applicable threshold.14 May 2010 Table 3-2: Entities Exceeding Annual Treatment Area Thresholds: Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Estimated Number of Affected Entities State Above Threshold Below Threshold Total Alaska 1 0 22 Idaho 2 23 0 23 Massachusetts 2 9 09 New Hampshire 2 44 0 44

New Mexico 2 13 0 13

Oklahoma 3 1 01 District of Columbia 2 1 01 Territories 2 1 01

Tribes 4 5-17 0-12 17
Federal Facilities 5 10 0 10
Total 107-119 2-14 121 1. Assumes city-level control is for less than 640 acres. 2. Mosquito control districts likely treating more than 640 acres. 3. Information from Tulsa DHS indicates that it treated more than 512,000 acres per year. 4. EPA uses a range assuming that all 12 tribal entities ar e either above the threshol d or below the threshold.. 5. Assumes all federal facilities treating greater than 640 acres.



### 3.2. Aquatic Weed an d Algae Control The aquatic weed and algae control use pattern refers to the applic ation of pesticides to manage invasive or other nuisance w eeds and algae in water and wa ter’s edge, including irrigation ditches and/or irrigation canals. Typically these programs target specific weeds or invasive species and utilize a variety of techniques, including spraying pe sticides. The pesticides are applied in or near water, which results in discha rge to waters of the United States. Information from the unauthorized areas indicates that aqua tic weed and algae control is conducted by both public and private entities.

3.2.1. Public Entities Public entities may include state, county, or municipal governments and public drinking water utilities. These entities may perform the work themselves or contract it out to commercial pest control operators. (In all instances of contract activity, EPA assu mes that the responsibilities and costs are ultimately borne by the hiring entity, and thus reports the activity at the hiring entity level.)
ADEC (2009) indicates th at the state of Alaska has not is sued any permits for aquatic weed control in the past. In Idaho, ISDA manages a very aggressive water milfoil 4 control program that has historically treated 5,000 acres per year; however, budgetary constraints limit the current treatment area to about 600 acres (ISDA, 2009). In Massachusetts , treatment for aquatic weeds occurs in approximately 8% of waters (p ermits issued for 260 out of 3,100 waterbodies) (MADEP, 2009). Available information from Mass achusetts indica tes that the majority of the 260 permits were issued to private entities; EP A assumes that only about 26 (or 10%) are public

4 Milfoil is often considered a nuisan ce plant because it can alter a water's eco logy by forming very dense mats of vegetation on the surface of the water. These mats interfere with recreational activities su ch as swimming, fishing, water skiing, and boating; cause flooding; create good habitat for mosquitoes; rob oxygen from the water by preventing the wind from mixing the oxygenated surface waters to deeper water; and increase the sedimentation rate by trapping sediments.15 May 2010 entities. In New Hampshire, the state issues 20 to 25 permits annually for treatment of invasive exotic aquatic weeds; EPA assumes that all 25 of these entities ar e public. NMDAMF (2009) indicates that, along with the Bur eau of Land Management, they ar e responsible for aquatic weed control within the state. However, NMDAMF (2010) also indicates that aquatic weeds and algae are not problems in New Mexico, and that almost no aquatic pesticide us e occurs directly in waters of the state. Based on this informati on, EPA assumes that ther e are no entities in New Mexico affected by the draft PGP due to a lack of pesticide use. The State of Oklahoma issued 60 licenses – mostly to municipalities – to perform weed control (ODAFF, 2009) on specific water bodies. Consequently, EPA assumes that pot entially 60 public enti ties are affected under the use pattern in Oklahoma. Information is lacking on the extent of aquatic weed control in the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, tribal lands, and federal facilities. In the District of Columbia, the absence of information from the Department of the Enviro nment website regarding aquatic weed control suggests that no aquatic weed control programs are ongoing. There is no information confirming the practice of aquatic weed control in the U.S. territories. For example, EPA found no evidence of spraying to control invasive species in Puer to Rico, Johnston Atoll, or American Samoa. Given this, EPA assumes that aqua tic weed control is minimal or absent in U.S. territories.
For tribal lands, the Southwest Ve getation Management Association’ s trade listing indicates that two of the largest tribes in th e country, Navajo and Hopi, have committees for invasive plants and weeds (SWVMA, 2008). However, there is no indication that either of these committees is active or uses pesticides to cont rol aquatic weeds. To err on the side of potentially higher costs, EPA assumes that 10% of tribes (or 17 of 174) w ould be affected by the draft PGP. In addition, there is evidence that pesticide applications fo r aquatic weed control ar e occurring at federal facilities. For example, McChord Air Force Ba se in Tacoma, Washingt on contracts out aquatic weed control to The Nature Conservancy (The Nature Conservancy, 2007). However, information on the extent of such activities is una vailable. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that each unique federal agency with facili ties across the affected states (10 total) could be affected by the draft PGP. Pesticide use for aquatic weed control may also o ccur in right-of-way ditc hes. There are no data available from which to determine the number of entities subject to the PGP or the location or number of ditches potentially c overed by the draft PGP. However, EPA assumes that pesticide application to right-of-way ditches is conducte d at the state or tribal level (e.g., by the department of transportation), and EPA includes a single entity for each state/territory. For federal facilities, EPA assumes the Federal Highway Administrati on is responsible for pesticide applications along right-of-way d itches (already accounted for a bove); for tribes, EPA assumes that right-of-way ditch pesticide applications are already captured in the estimate described above because tribal governments are not likely to have separate entit ies controlling aquatic weeds. A number of public drinking water utilities wi thdraw surface water for domestic use through intake structures. Depending on th e level of biological activity in the source water, these entities may find it necessary to use chemical controls at the intake structur e to reduce biofouling organisms, such as algae or zebra mussels (see Section 3.3 for discussion of aquatic nuisance animal control). EPA’s Safe Drinking Water In formation System (SDWIS) contains information on public drinking water systems; the data are base d on information for the fiscal year that ended September 2008, as reported to EPA by the states . Table 3-3 shows the number of drinking16 May 2010 water systems that use surface waters (includes di rect surface water and purchased surface water) potentially affected by the draft PGP. 5

Table 3-3: Estimated Number of Public Drinking Water Utilities with Surface Water Intakes

State Estimated Number with Surface Water Intake Alaska 103 Idaho 54 Massachusetts 168 New Hampshire 56

New Mexico 43

Oklahoma 605 District of Columbia 5 Territories 217

Tribes 61 Total 1,312 Source: EPA (2008).

3.2.2. Private Entities In addition to public entities, private entities also perform aquatic weed and algae control practices and may be affected by the draft PGP. Examples of su ch private entities include farms that use pesticides for contro lling aquatic weeds al ong ditch banks, industr ial facilities using pesticides to prevent clogging of surface water inta kes, and others using pesticides for aesthetic or recreational purposes in private lakes/ponds. Based on the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2007), there are 31,636 irrigated crop farms in the six unauthorized states, as shown in Table 3-4. These farms likely us e irrigation ditches to transport water to crops. However, there is no information indicating wh ether any of the ditch banks are treated with pesticides or whether the ditches connect to or result in a discharge to a water of the United States. To be conservative (i.e., erring on the side of overstating impacts), EPA assumes that all irrigated farms use pesticid es along ditch banks and th at those ditches drain to waters of the United States. In addition to ditches on irrigated farms, there may also be a portion of non-irrigated farms that have drainage ditches (e.g., to transport farm waste water off farm, as normal topography of the farm land) . Although the likelihood of farmers using pesticides along these ditch banks that lead to waters of th e United States is not known, the assumption that all irrigated farms are potential ly affected by the draft PGP should compensate for the undetermined number of affected non-irriga ted farms with treated drainage ditch banks.

Table 3-4: Irrigated Farms in Unauthorized States State Number of Irrigated Farms
Alaska 184 Idaho 16,124 Massachusetts 1,630 New Hampshire 505

New Mexico 10,167

Oklahoma 3,026 Total 31,636 Source: USDA (2007).

5 Non-community water systems (both transient and non-tr ansient) are excluded becaus e they serve only a small portion of the population, and it is not clear whether most of these systems use a surface water intake.17 May 2010 Industrial facilities with draw surface water for a variety of purposes. For example, power plants withdraw water for cooling. Regardless of the e nd use of the water, the facility would use an intake structure of some type. Depending on the level of biological activity in the source water, these entities may also find it necessary to use chem ical controls at the in take structure to reduce biofouling organisms, such as algae or zebra mu ssels (See Section 3.3 for discussion of aquatic nuisance animal control). In 1999, EPA issued a screener survey to over 2, 500 industrial facilities, including power plants and a wide range of manufacturing sectors 6 as part of its 316(b) rule making to identify facilities that operate a cooling water inta ke structure and would therefore potentially be subject to 316(b) regulations. The survey results indicated that approximately 25% of the surveyed facilities would potentially be subject to the 316(b) rule. Using this ratio and information on NPDES permitted industrial dischargers in EPA’s permit compliance system database, EPA estimated the potential number of industrial dischargers wi th surface water intake structures in the unauthorized states (Table 3-5). EPA assume s that all of these i ndustrial facilities could potentially be affected by the draft PGP.

Table 3-5: Estimated Number of Industrial Facilities with Surface Water Intakes

State Total NPDES Permits 1 Estimated Number with Surface Water Intake 2
Alaska 149 37 Idaho 200 50 Massachusetts 325 81 New Hampshire 113 28

New Mexico 130 33

Oklahoma 476 119 District of Columbia 9 2 Territories 261 66

Tribes 42 11 Total 1,705 427 1. General permits, stormwater-only permits, and inactive permit excluded. 2. Based on assumption that approximately 25% of industrial dischargers have surface water intakes.

There may also be private property owners that use pesticides to control for aquatic weeds and algae that could potentially be a ffected by the draft PGP. For example, in Idaho, private land owners treat approximately 100 acres per year for aquatic plants such as milfoil. In Massachusetts, based on information available from the state, EPA assumes that of 260 permits issued in 2009, 90% (234 permits) were issued to private property owne rs (MADEP, 2009). In New Hampshire, the state issued 17 permits in 2 009 to treat private ponds. Historically only 5% to 10% of the 1- to 2-acre av erage-sized ponds are treated in a given season (NHDAMF, 2009). However, because the draft PGP lasts for five y ears regardless of the frequency of pesticide applications, EPA assumes that there are 17 pr ivate entities in New Hampshire potentially affected by the draft PGP. EPA does not have information indicating th at private property owners in Alaska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma are using pesticides for aq uatic weed control.

6 The industry sectors targeted included primary metals, petroleum refining, paper products, and chemicals. These four sectors (in addition to power plants) account for 99% of cooling water withdrawals in the US. The screener survey did not address drinking water intakes.18 May 2010 3.2.3. Summary Various types of entities could be affected by th e draft PGP, as discussed above. Table 3-6 summarizes the estimated number of potentially affected entities under the aquatic weed and algae control use pattern. In in stances in which only informati on regarding the number of acres treated is available, the number of affected en tities shown in the table reflect estimates based on the potential number of waters tr eated (derived by di viding the total acreage by the average acres for waters in the state) and assuming th at each represents an affected entity.

Table 3-6: Potentially Affected Entities: Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Potential Number of Affected Entities

Area Government 1 DOT (rightof-way) 2 Drinking Water Utility 3 Farms 4 Industrial 5 Other Private 1,6 Total

Alaska 0 1 103 184 37 0 325 Idaho 72 1 54 16,124 50 12 16,313 Massachusetts 26 1 168 1,630 81 234 2,140 New Hampshire 25 1 56 505 28 17 632

New Mexico 0 1 43 10,167 33 0 10,244

Oklahoma 60 1 605 3,026 119 0 3,811 District of Columbia 0 1 5 0 2 0 8

Territories 0 6 217 0 66 0 289

Tribes 17 0 61 0 11 0 90 Federal Facilities 7 9 1 0 0 0 0 10

Total 209 14 1,312 31,636 427 263 33,861 1. Based on information from ADEC (2009), ISDA (2009), MADEP (2009), NHDAMF (2009), NMDOH (2009), and ODAFF (2009). For Idaho, number of entities based on number of lake/pond acres treated and average lake size (8.3 acres; USGS, 2009) and assuming each lake represents a single entity. For Massachuse tts, EPA assumes 90% of permits are for private entities and 10% are for public entities. For tribes and federal facilities, EPA based estimated number of entities on assumption that 10% of a ll entities would require coverage under the draft PGP. 2. Based on assumption that state-level department of transport ation is responsible for pesti cide applications along right-of-w ay ditches, Federal Highway Administration is responsible for federally owned right-of- ways, and right-of-way pesticide applicatio ns are already accounted for in 10% estimate under the “Government” category. 3. Based on number of surface water systems in EPA’s SDWIS database for each area. 4. Assumes all irrigated farms have irrigation di tches and use pesticides to treat ditch banks. 5. Based on number of NPDES dischargers (excluding general and storm water permits ) in each area and average percent of industrial facilities with surface water intakes [25%; 1999 316(b) Rulemaking Survey]. 6. Represents private property owners using pesti cides to control for aquatic weeds and algae. 7. Federal Highway Administration excluded from gove rnment entities and included under right-of-way entities.

The draft PGP establishes annual treatment ar ea thresholds applicable to permittees for identifying the need to comply with some pe rmit requirements. For aquatic weed and algae control, the annual treatment area threshold is 20 acres of water treatment or 20 linear miles at water’s edge. Based on the information discusse d above, there could be a number of entities performing aquatic weed and algae control that would fall below these thresholds, resulting in reduced permit requirements. For example, the 72 government entities in Idaho tr eat about 600 acres per year, or an average of approximately eight acres per entity. Based on this average, EPA assumes that 90% (or 65 of 72) of the public entities in Idaho would be below the 20 acre treatment threshold. For government entities in Massachusetts, New Hamp shire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, tribal lands, and federal facilities, there is no information i ndicating the size of the treatment areas for each19 May 2010 affected entity. To be conserva tive (i.e., erring on the side of higher costs), EPA assumes that all of the entities could be above the applicable th reshold. Because EPA assumes that right-of-way ditches are controlled at the stat e level, all of these entities would likely be above the thresholds. Also, drinking water utilities and indu strial facilities are likely trea ting less than an acre of water around the surface water intake structure, and would be well below the threshold of 20 acres. In addition, the average farm size of irrigated farms in any of the unauthorized states is less than 100 square miles; thus, the pr esence of a ditch bank over 20 linear miles long is unlikely. Finally, private landowners with aquatic weed pe rmits are likely treating ponds smaller than 20 acres. Table 3-7 summarizes the number of enti ties likely to be exceeding the applicable annual treatment area thresholds.

Table 3-7: Entities Exceeding Annual Treatment A rea Thresholds: Aquatic Weed and Algae Control
Number of Affected Entities State Above Threshold 1 Below Threshold 2 Total Alaska 1 324 325 Idaho 8 16,305 16,313 Massachusetts 27 2,113 2,140 New Hampshire 26 606 632

New Mexico 1 10,243 10,244

Oklahoma 61 3,750 3,811 District of Columbia 1 7 8 Territories 6 283 289

Tribes 17 72 90 Federal Facilities 10 0 10 Total 158 33,703 33,861 1. Includes all entities responsible for right-of-way ditch bank pest control and all government entities responsible for aquat ic weed control, except for Idaho in which 10% of the public gov ernment entities are assumed to be above the threshold. 2. Includes 90% of public government entities in Idaho, drinki ng water utilities and industrial facilities with surface water i ntakes, farmers, and private property owners.



### 3.3. Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Aquatic nuisance animal species are any species that negatively impact aquatic biodiversity. Impacts can be in the form of decreased wa ter quality, impeded comme rcial and recreational activities (e.g. fishing, boating, agricultural irriga tion) and reduced populati ons of native aquatic species including those that are threatened or endangered. Aquatic nuisance animal species include, but are not limited to, lamprey, mollusks, a nd fish. The type of control required for an aquatic nuisance animal depends on the biology of the target species and the environmental conditions and concerns for a specific area. Control methods could include chemical, mechanical, physical, and biological. In general, control methods not only limit target species number, but also restore na tive species and habitats a nd prevent future invasions.

There is limited information on the number and t ypes of entities responsible for aquatic nuisance animal control in the unauthorized areas. Howeve r, because there may be some level of aquatic nuisance animal control within each of the unauthorized area s at the government level (see section 4.3 regarding the Aquatic Nuisance Prev ention and Control Act of 1990), EPA assumes that there is at least one public entity in each unauthorized state or territory affected by the draft PGP for aquatic nuisance animal control. For trib es, in the absence of mo re specific information, EPA assumes that 10% of total entities use pesticides for aquatic nuisance animal control. For20 May 2010 federal entities, EPA assumes that each unique agen cy (10 total) is using pesticides for aquatic nuisance animal control.

In addition to statewide control of aquatic nuisance animals, pub lic drinking water utilities and industrial facilities with surface water intakes (Table 3-3 a nd Table 3-5) may also use pesticides for aquatic nuisance animal control. In mari ne or estuarine waters, hydrozoans, anemones, barnacles, bryozoans, entoproct, tunicates, po lychaetes, and bivalves can cause biofouling and damages to intake structures; mollusks such as Asiatic clams, zebra mussels, and quagga mussels can be problems in fresh waters. The occurrence of these invasive nuisance species varies across the country (e.g., USGS distribution maps indicate that there are no Asiati c clams in Alaska but they are prevalent in Massachuse tts; there are no zebra mussels in Idaho or New Mexico). In the absence of specific information on the location of the facilities using pesticides to control for aquatic nuisance animals at intake structures, EPA assumes that 10% of public drinking water utilities and industrial f acilities with surface wa ter intakes could be affected by the draft PGP (Table 3-8).

Table 3-8: Estimated Number of Potentially Aff ected Entities with Surface Water Intakes Public Drinking Water Utilities Industrial Facilities

State Number with Surface Water Intake 1 Number Potentially Affected 2 Number with Surface Water Intake 3 Number Potentially Affected 2
Alaska 103 10 37 4 Idaho 54 5 50 5 Massachusetts 168 17 81 8 New Hampshire 56 6 28 3

New Mexico 43 4 33 3

Oklahoma 605 61 119 12 District of Columbia 5 1 2 0 Territories 217 22 66 7

Tribes 61 6 11 1 Total 1,312 132 427 43
1. Table 3-3. 2. Based on assumption that approximately 10% could be affected by draft PGP. 3. Table 3-5.

Table 3-9 summarizes the total number of potentia lly affected entities for the aquatic nuisance animal control use pattern. This table incorpor ates the number of potentially affected entities from Table 3-8 and the number of government entities based on the assumption that aquatic nuisance animal control is performed at the st ate/government level by a single public entity.21 May 2010 Table 3-9: Potential Number of Affected Enti ties: Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Potential Number of Affected Entities Area Government 1 Drinking Water Utility 2 Industrial 3 Total Alaska 1 10 4 15 Idaho 1 5 5 11 Massachusetts 1 17 8 26 New Hampshire 1 6 3 10

New Mexico 1 4 3 8

Oklahoma 1 61 12 74 District of Columbia 1 1 0 2 Territories 6 22 7 35

Tribes 17 6 1 24 Federal Facilities 10 0 0 10 Total 40 132 43 215 1. Based on assumption that aquatic animal nuisance control is per formed at state level by a single public entity. For tribes and federal facilities, EPA based estimated number of entities on assu mption that 10% of entities could be affected by the draft PG P. 2. Based on number of surface water systems in EPA’s SD WIS database for each area and assu ming 10% would use pesticides for aquatic nuisance animal control at intakes. 3. Based on number of NPDES dischargers (excluding general and stormwater permits) in each area, average percent of industrial facilities with surface water intakes [25%; 1999 316(b ) Rulemaking Survey], and assumi ng 10% would use pesticides fo r aquatic nuisance animal control at intakes.

The draft PGP establishes annual treatment ar ea thresholds applicable to permittees for identifying the need to comply with some pe rmit requirements. For aquatic nuisance animal control, the water-treatment area annual threshold is 20 acres of water treatment, or 20 linear miles at water’s edge. Because drinking water uti lities and industrial facil ities with surface water intakes are likely to only treat in the vicinity of the intake structure to control for aquatic nuisance animals, they would not be above th e threshold. EPA assumes that because the government entities performing aquatic nuisan ce animal control are state agencies, the application areas could exceed the thresholds. Table 3-10 summarizes the number of entities above and below applicable thresholds.

Table 3-10: Entities Exceeding Annual Treatment A rea Thresholds: Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Number of Affected Entities State Above Threshold 1 Below Threshold 2 Total Alaska 1 14 15 Idaho 1 10 11 Massachusetts 1 25 26 New Hampshire 1 9 10

New Mexico 1 7 8

Oklahoma 1 73 74 District of Columbia 1 1 2 Territories 6 29 35

Tribes 17 7 24 Federal Facilities 10 0 10 Total 40 175 215 1. Includes state-level government entities re sponsible for aquatic nuisance animal control. 2. Includes drinking water utilities and industria l facilities with surface water intakes.22 May 2010 

### 3.4. Forest Canopy Pest Control Forest canopy pest control activities affected by th e draft PGP include aerial pest control projects in and over forest canopies where there are waters of the United States below the canopy. Under this use pattern, pesticides will be unavoidably disc harged to waters in the course of controlling pests (but not necessarily aquatic) that are present near or over waters. These pests may include airborne non-aquatic insects, and other non-a quatic organisms detrimental to industry, the environment, or public health. Spraying can be pe rformed seasonally or peri odically as the need arises and is generally triggered by surveillanc e data indicating a problem. Although there are mechanical and physical techniques that can help control widely disper sed infestations, these techniques are often cost prohibitive. The Na tional Forest Alliance Organization (NAFO, 2009) indicates that there are generally only two circumstances in which forest pesticide application would be over or directly adjacent to natural waters:

3⁄4 Insecticide use to control insects such as gypsy moth, where application to the forest canopy of the entire affected area is required

3⁄4 Herbicide use in forested wetlands that are managed for timber production. However, the latter does not represent the fore st canopy, and therefore is not covered under this permit. There is no specific information on the use of forest canopy pest control in the unauthorized areas. However, EPA has information indicating th e presence of state and national parks as well as private forest land. EPA assu mes that public forest land is managed at the state government level, and that there is at least one public enti ty in each unauthorized state affected by the draft PGP for forest canopy pest control. For territor ies, EPA relied on publicly available data from territory websites (FAO, 2005) a nd the National Forest Service (USDA, 2001; 2002) to identify whether forested land exists. For tribes, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA , 2005) identifies tribes with forest/timberland management plans. EPA assumes that all tribes with management plans could be affected by the draft PGP. For federa l facilities, EPA used GIS data (from National Atlas Federal Lands layer) to locate national parks in the unauthorized states. For private forest land, EPA used data from Birch (1994) to identi fy the number of private forest property owners in each state. Survey results of four Nati onal Forest Alliance Orga nization (NAFO) member companies with the largest forest land owne rship indicate that pe sticides are used on approximately 5% of land and that insecticides are used on 2% of treated land (NAFO, 2009). Table 3-11 summarizes the number of potentially affected entities for th e unauthorized areas.23 May 2010 Table 3-11: Potentially Affected Entiti es: Forest Canopy Pest Control Potential Number of Affected Entities Area Government 1 Private 2 Total Alaska 1 17 18 Idaho 1 47 48 Massachusetts 1 213 214 New Hampshire 1 84 85

New Mexico 1 25 26

Oklahoma 1 158 159 District of Columbia 0 0 0 Territories 4 6 10

Tribes 33 17 50 Federal Facilities 22 7 29 Total 65 574 639 1. For states, based on assumption that forest canopy pest control is performed at the state/government level by a single public entity. For the District of Columbia, territorie s, tribes and federal facilities, EPA based estimated number of entities on GIS data indicating the presence of forest land. 2. Birch (1994) provides data on the number of private fo rest land owners in each unauthorized state; NAFO (2009) suggests that pesticides may be used on 5% of lands, and that pesticides are applied aerially on 2% of these lands.

The draft PGP establishes annual treatment area th resholds for identifying the need to comply with various permit requirements. For forest ca nopy pest control, the annual treatment area threshold is 640 acres of forest canopy. EPA a ssumes that all government entities would exceed the treatment area threshold. For private fore st owners, Birch (1994) provides data on the number of forests greater than and less than 500 acres for va rious regions. Based on these proportions, EPA estimated the number of private forest land owners likely to exceed the annual treatment area threshold. Table 3-12 summari zes the potential number of entities exceeding and not exceeding the annual treatment area threshold.

Table 3-12: Entities Exceeding Annual Treatment Area Thresholds, Forest Canopy Pest Control Number Exceeding Threshold 1 Number Not Exceeding Threshold 2 Area Government Private Government Private Alaska 1 0 0 17 Idaho 1 1 0 46 Massachusetts 1 1 0 212 New Hampshire 1 0 0 84

New Mexico 1 0 0 25

Oklahoma 1 1 0 157 District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 Territories 4 6 0 0

Tribes 33 17 0 0 Federal Facilities 22 7 0 0 Total 65 33 0 541 1. Based on assumption that all government entities exceed the th reshold; for private entities, number exceeding threshold base d on proportion of forest greater than and less than 500 acres from Birch (1994). Massachusetts and New Hampshire in New England Region, Oklahoma in Southern region, Idaho and New Mexico in Rocky Mountain Region, and Alaska in Pacific region. 2. Based on assumption that no government entities fall below the threshold; for private entities, number below the threshold based on proportion of forest greater than and less than 500 acres from Birch (1994). Massachusetts and New Hampshire in New England Region, Oklahoma in Southern region, Idaho and New Mexico in Rocky Mountain Region, and Alaska in Pacific region.24 May 2010 

### 3.5. Summary Table 3-13 summarizes the estimates of potentiall y affected entities by unauthorized area and use pattern. Approximately 31,600 (91%) of these entities are operators of irrigated farms. There is substantial uncertainty regarding whether all of th ese entities will be affected by the draft PGP. Moreover, as mentioned EPA does not expect that farmers will exceed the annual treatment area threshold.

Table 3-13: Summary of Potentially Affected Entities 1

Area Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest

Control Aquatic Weed and Algae

Control Aquatic Nuisance

Animal Control Forest Canopy Pest Control Total

Alaska 2 325 15 18 360 Idaho 23 16,313 11 48 16,395 Massachusetts 9 2,140 26 214 2,389 New Hampshire 44 632 10 85 771 New Mexico 13 10,244 8 26 10,291 Oklahoma 1 3,811 74 159 4,045 District of Columbia 1 8 2 0 11 Territories 1 289 35 10 335 Tribes 17 89 24 50 180 Federal Facilities 10 10 10 29 59 Total 121 33,861 215 639 34,836 1. Includes public and private entities.25 May 2010 

### 4. Overlap with Existing Requirements

The draft PGP will only result in incremental cost s associated with the technology-based effluent limitation provisions in instances in which the requi rements represent activities not already being implemented by affected entities. This sec tion summarizes publicly available data and information provided by the unauthorized states regarding existing (i.e., baseline) pesticide regulations and practices in rela tion to draft PGP requirements fo r the four use patterns. In addition, under the Federal Insec ticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the government controls the licensing, sale, and use of pesticides. FIFRA essentially requires appli cators to use pesticides in accordance with label specification and to mi nimize the amount needed for use. FIFRA also controls which pesticides can and cannot be used to control various pests.

In instances of insufficient information to assess current compliance with any of the requirements of the draft PGP, EPA assumes that, in general, en tities are not already implementing these requirements.



### 4.1. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Information from the unauthorized areas indicates that certain entities are already implementing some of the requirements of the draft PGP related to mosquito and other flying insect control as a result of existing state requirements. As desc ribed below, the level of implementation varies greatly throughout unauthorized areas. In instances of insufficient information to assess current compliance with the requirements of the draft PGP, EPA assumes that, in general, entities are not already implementing these requirements. Alaska does not require any ma pping or surveillance activities for its two mosquito control permits. In addition, ADEC did not provide data on existing pest management or pesticide use practices. Accordingly, EPA assumes that enti ties in Alaska are not currently implementing requirements for mosquito and other flying insect pest control in the draft PGP. The Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA, 2009) indicates that 18 of 23 control districts in the state currently identify sp ecies and establish ta rget population densiti es. In addition, ISDA (2009) suggests that approximately 10% of the di stricts in the state currently map breeding sites (2 of 23), and that between 75% and 100% of di stricts currently perfor m source reduction and habitat modification activities; to be conservativ e (i.e., erring on the side of higher costs), EPA assumes that only 75% (17 of 23) districts are cu rrently performing these activities. In addition, ISDA (2009) indicates that no distri cts practice vegetation management. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP, 2009) indicates that each of nine mosquito control district s must identify the species of conc ern in their area; as part of those activities, the districts us e light traps (MDAR, 2008). Each of the nine districts currently uses GIS mapping as a part of their IPM activities. Pest management activities in Massachusetts include some combination of source reduction and habitat modification activities in all mosquito control districts (MDAR, 2008). Eight of the ni ne districts indicate that they conduct some source reduction activities incl uding: ditch management programs, open marsh water management (OMWM), and tire/container remova l. While the Berkshire District does not indicate the use of source reduction activities, it (along with all other dist ricts) performs specific ditch maintenance. Ditch mainte nance programs within each dist rict include inland/freshwater and salt marsh maintenance, as applicable, usi ng either hand tools or mechanized equipment.26 May 2010 Five of the nine districts al so indicate the use of biologi cal control measures, including introducing predatory fish and inve rtebrates to waters. These data suggest that the districts are largely already implementing the most efficient a nd effective means of pest management and are considering impact on non-target organisms, pest resistance, feasibility, a nd cost effectiveness. For New Hampshire, the NHDAMF ( 2009) indicates that all of the 43 mosquito control districts (plus the University of New Hampshire) currently identify species and establish densities. Only two commercial companies currently serve towns/ci ties within these distri cts, and both perform survey work as a part of their activities. The state has also compelled commercial applicators to add capabilities for producing maps elec tronically. Currently, New Hampshire permit applications routinely include very detailed electronic maps that id entify potential breeding sites. NHDAMF (2009) indicates that little to no cont rol measures beyond pesticide applications for mosquito control are used within the state. The information s uggests that existing entities are likely to be in compliance with permit requiremen ts to identify the problem (i.e., will not incur additional costs related to these requirements), but existing capacity to perform other control measures may be minimal. The New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) requires all county and municipal mosquito control programs to: 1) identif y the source of the problem (i.e ., locate breeding sources); 2) perform continuous surveillance; an d 3) perform the periodic collection of adult mosquitoes for arbovirus testing (NMDOH, 2009). These requirements would likel y result in compliance with requirements for identifying the problem in the draft PGP. The New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA) did not provi de data on existing pest manage ment practices. Thus, it is uncertain whether current methods comply with draft PGP requirements. To be conservative (i.e., erring on the side of highe r costs), EPA assumes that no districts in New Mexico are implementing measures consistent with the pest management and pesticide use requirements in the draft PGP.
In Oklahoma, the ODAFF (2009) indicates that Tuls a is not in compliance with surveillance and mapping requirements in the draft PGP. ODAFF (2009) did not provide data on existing pest management practices. It is therefore uncertain whether current methods comply with draft PGP requirements. For the purpose of this analys is, EPA assumes that Tulsa is not currently implementing measures consistent with a ny of the requirements in the draft PGP.
For the District of Columbia, information fr om the DOH indicates that the city performs surveillance, trapping, an d testing (DCDOH, 2005). While it is likely that the DOH is already in compliance with the problem identification requ irements of the PGP, given the lack of information on existing practices related to pest management and pesticide use requirements, EPA assumes that the District of Columbia is not currently implementing the applicable requirements.

For tribes there is some indication that those usin g pesticides to control for mosquitoes and other flying insect pests may be implementing some of the requirements in the draft PGP. For example, the Arizona Department of Health Services works with tribes and IHS programs throughout Arizona on implementing West Nile virus surveillance and control. The program provides surveillance equipment, training, mosquito speciation and testing support, and larvicidal products (Arizona DHS, 2005). Ho wever, due to uncertainty re lated to the exact number of tribes using pesticides for mosquito control, EP A is unable to determine the extent of existing27 May 2010 compliance with draft PGP requirements. To be c onservative, EPA assumes in this analysis that no affected tribes are currently implementing dr aft PGP requirements to the extent necessary.
In territories, there is limited information re garding existing pesticide practices for mosquito control. In Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Depa rtment of Health (PRDOH ) collaborates with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to implement mosquito control practic es for the purpose of preventing the spread of West Nile Virus a nd Dengue Fever. Efforts include animal and mosquito surveillance, non-insect icide control measures and limited use of pesticides. Much of the West Nile Virus response plan indicates non-centrali zed efforts; however there is an overall mosquito control apparatus in pl ace in Puerto Rico (PRDOH, no date). Based on this limited information, EPA assumes that Puerto Rico is the only territory already implementing problem identification and pest management requirement s, and that none of the territories are implementing the pesticide use re quirements of the draft PGP. There is little information on which federal facilities use pesticides for mosquito control and the measures currently implemented in relation to the requirements of the draft PGP. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA therefore assumes that no federal facilities are in compliance with any of the draft PGP requirements.

Table 4-1 summarizes the information and assu mptions regarding current compliance with the individual IPM requirements for mo squito and other flying insect pe st control for the potentially affected entities.

Table 4-1: Current Implementation of Best Manageme nt Practices for Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Estimated Number of Entities in Compliance 2 Identify the Problem Area Number of Potentially

Affected Entities 1 Identifying Species and Targeting Densities Identifying and Mapping Breeding Sites Pest Management Pesticide Use

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho 2 23 18 2 17 0 Massachusetts 9 9 9 9 0 New Hampshire 44 44 44 0 0

New Mexico 13 13 13 0 0

Oklahoma 1 0 0 0 0 District of Columbia 1 1 1 0 0 Territories 1 1 1 1 0

Tribes 5 - 17 0 0 0 0 Federal 10 0 0 0 0

Total 107 - 119 86 70 27 0 Sources: ADEC, 2009; ISDA, 2009; MADEP, 2009; NHDAMF, 2009; NMDOH, 2009; ODAFF, 2009. 1. Potential affected entities that exceed treatment area thresholds (see Table 3.2) 2. Based on discussion in Section 4.1.



### 4.2. Aquatic Weed an d Algae Control

Information from the unauthorized areas indicates that certain entities are already implementing some of the requirements of the draft PGP related to aquatic weed and algae control as a result of existing state requirements. As described below, the level of implementation varies greatly in the unauthorized areas.28 May 2010 Under Idaho’s water milfoil program, ISDA (2009) suggests 60% current compliance with activities to identify the problem and 40% comp liance with application surveillance requirements of the draft PGP. In addition, ISDA (2009) sugg ests low use of mechanical and biological controls for aquatic weeds, and that mechanical/ physical control methods are cost prohibitive in most areas of Idaho.
In Massachusetts, MADEP (2009) in dicates 100% compliance with ac tivities to identify problem areas for its aquatic weed control permits. MA DEP (2009) also indicate s widespread use of mechanical controls and habitat modification prac tices prior to pesticid e application, and limited use of methods to maintain, enhance and promot e biological controls. However, MADEP (2009) indicates that virtually no application surveillance occurs in Massachusetts. New Hampshire estimated that anywhere from 50% to 100% of the entities to which it issues aquatic weed control permits are compliant w ith PGP problem identification requirements (NHDAMF, 2009). EPA assumes a midpoint of 75% compliance for problem identification activities. NHDAMF (2009) indicates that wher e practical, New Hampshire applicators engage in use of mechanical controls, habitat modifica tion practices, and methods to maintain, enhance and promote biological controls. In addition, current compliance in application surveillance is 100% due to the current permitting system (NHDAMF, 2009).

Oklahoma estimated that 15% to 30% of the ent ities to which it issues aquatic weed control licenses are in compliance with the problem identification provisi ons of the draft PGP (ODAFF, 2009). ODAFF (2009) also indicates a 10% complia nce rate for biological control, a 15% to 30% compliance rate for mechanical control, and that application surveillance occurs in approximately 15% to 30% of Oklahoma waters. Thus, EPA used midpoints of each range to estimate current compliance (e.g., 23% for problem identification, 20% for pest management, and 23% for pesticide use). The information on existing practices provides so me information on potentially affected entities and current compliance (Table 4-2).

Table 4-2: Current Implementation of Best Management Practices in Non-Drinking Water Entities: Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Percent of Non-Drinking Water and Non-Right-of-Way Entities Currently in Compliance Area Identifying the Problem Pest Management Pesticide Use Alaska No entities No entities No entities Idaho 60% 0% 40% Massachusetts 100% 0% 0% New Hampshire 75% 0% 100%

New Mexico 0% 0% 0%

Oklahoma 23% 20% 23% District of Columbia No entities No entities No entities Territories No entities No entities No entities

Tribes 0% 0% 0% Federal Facilities 0% 0% 0% Sources: ADEC, 2009; ISDA, 2009; MADEP, 2009; NHDAMF, 2009; NMDA, 2009; ODAFF, 2009.

In addition, right-of-way pesticide applicators and public drinking wa ter utilities using pesticides to control aquatic weeds and al gae at surface water intakes ar e already in compliance with29 May 2010 problem identification and pestic ide use requirements because both are necessary to successfully eradicate pests and eliminate the problem. It is uncertain whether the entities are implementing all of the pest management requirements. Ho wever, given that pest management provisions require use of pesticide alternat ives where feasible, EPA assumes these entities are already using the most feasible or cost-effective methods available.



### 4.3. Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Current Federal regulations, specifically Sec tion 1204 of the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (amended as th e National Invasive Species Ac t of 1996), require states to develop comprehensive Non-indigenous Aquatic Nu isance Species Management Plans. All of the states that are unauthorized to permit for pesticide discharges (Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oklahoma) have already developed or are currently in the late stages of developing these management plans:

• Alaska – the plan details the aquatic nuisan ce species problems and concerns within the state as well as any pathways for the curre nt and future introd uctions of species; management actions include sections concer ning prevention of new species as well as detecting, monitoring, containing, reducing, or eradicating populations as quickly as possible with the lowest envir onmental impact (ADF&G, 2002).

• Idaho – the plan presents high-priority anim al species (both nativ e and non-native to Idaho); plan sections cover early interv ention-prevention, early detection and rapid response, and containment, control and restoration (IISC, 2007).

• Massachusetts – the plan identifies the priority species (or species gr oups) for established freshwater and coastal species and threateni ng freshwater and coastal species including animals (mussels, clams, fish, etc.); ma nagement actions and objectives include prevention, monitoring, early detection/er adication, and control (MA AIS Working Group, 2002).

• New Hampshire – the aquatic nuisance specie s (ANS) communication pl an indicates that an overall management plan for aquatic nuisa nce species in the state is currently in development; this communication plan signifies that the state has identified the problem species and is in the process of determini ng the various means to control the species including monitoring efforts (NHFGD, 2006).

• New Mexico – the plan includes objectives for preventing the introduction of aquatic invasive species (AIS) into New Mexico, de tecting, monitoring, a nd eradicating pioneer AIS, and where feasible, contro lling and eradicating establishe d AIS that have significant impacts (AISAC, 2008).

• Oklahoma – the plan defines the problem in the state including a list of non-indigenous aquatic animals (fish, mussels, snails, etc.); objectives include preventing the introduction of new ANS, detecting, mon itoring, and eradicating ANS, and controlling and eradicating established ANS that have si gnificant impacts (ODWC, 2008).

In addition, Executive Order 13112 (February 1999), established the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) which was tasked with prepari ng and issuing a national plan to deal with invasive species, among other things. Completed in 2001, th e National Invasive Species Management Plan serves as a comprehensive “blu eprint” for federal action on invasive species. NISC (2008) estimates that 59% of the plan’s 170 specific actions have been completed or are in30 May 2010 progress. The national plan has five strate gic goals intended to be completed by 2012: prevention; early detection a nd rapid response; control and management; restoration; and organizational collaboration. Given the presence of the National Invasive Species Management Plan and the requirement for stat es to develop their own manageme nt plans for aquatic invasive species, it is likely that the District of Columbia, the six U.S. Territories, tribal lands in 31 states, and federal facilities in four states are cove red by one of these plans. Therefore, the unauthorized areas should be in compliance with requirements related to identifying the problem and pest management in the draft PGP. Given th e potential for current compliance with pesticide use under state and national invasi ve species management plans, incremental compliance costs associated with pesticide use for aquatic nuisance animal control are unlikely. EPA assumes that public drinking water utilities using pesticides to control aquatic nuisance animals at surface water intakes are already in compliance with problem identification and pesticide use requirements because both are necessa ry to successfully eradicate the pests and eliminate the problem. It is uncertain whether the utilities are implementing all of the pest management requirements. However, given that pest management provisions require use of pesticide alternatives where feasible, EPA assu mes these entities are already using the most feasible or cost-effec tive methods available.



### 4.4. Forest Canopy Pest Control There is no specific information on whether any cu rrent forest canopy applic ations are compliant with permit requirements for pesticide use. In general, the use of aerial forest canopy pest control necessitates a coordinated, controlled approach, including proper surveillance (e.g. identifying pests, identifying dist ribution of pests) and application assessment of effectiveness. Therefore, EPA assumes that where forest canopy pest control is occurring in the unauthorized areas, entities would already be in compliance with problem identification and pesticide use requirements in the draft PGP. For pest manage ment, alternative methods are likely not to be feasible across large areas; thus, costs associated with pest management for forest canopy pest control may be minimal.31 May 2010 

### 5. Analysis of Costs

This section provides an analysis of the potential incremental cost s that may be associated with the draft PGP. Incremental costs represent expenditures above those required for existing regulations and current practices (i.e., baseline conditions) up to compliance with the draft PGP. The costs are divided into tec hnology-based effluent limitation controls and administrative and monitoring.



### 5.1. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations The method for estimating the poten tial incremental costs associat ed with the technology-based effluent limitation provisions in the draft PGP invol ves identifying entities that may be affected by the particular provisio n, determining incremental control ac tivities (i.e., activities above and beyond those necessary under existi ng regulations) needed for comp liance with the draft PGP, and estimating unit costs of those activities. Unit costs for the incremental activities multiplied by the number of affected entities performing th e respective incremental activities provide an estimate of the incremental cost. Note that the co sts presented in this section represent estimates and actual incremental costs may differ depending on the number of entities affected, current compliance costs, and existing level of controls.

5.1.1. Minimizing Pesticide Discharges in to Waters of the United States Section 2.1 of the draft PGP, Mi nimize Pesticide Discharges into Waters of the United States, requires the following:
All operators must minimize the discharge of pollutants resulting from the application of pesticides. All operators must also do the following:

Section 2.1.1
Use the lowest effective amount of pest icide product per app lication and optimum frequency of pesticide applica tions necessary to control the target pest, consistent with reducing the potential for devel opment of pest resistance;

Section 2.1.2
Perform regular maintenance activities to re duce leaks, spills, or other unintended discharges of pesticides associ ated with the application of pesticides covered under this permit; and

Section 2.1.3
Maintain pesticide application equipment in proper operating c ondition by adhering to any manufacturer’s conditions and industry practices, and by calibrating, cleaning, and repairing such equipment on a re gular basis to ensure effe ctive pesticide application and pest control. You must ensure that the equipment’s rate of pesticide application is calibrated to deliver the precise quantity of pe sticide needed to achieve greatest efficacy against the target pest. The extent to which minimizing pesticide discharges into waters of the United States result in incremental compliance costs will depend on: (1) the extent to which pesticide use continues under the permit (see requirements for integrated pest management practices), (2) whether32 May 2010 applicators are currently in compliance with th e requirements, and (3) the unit costs of the activities.

Estimates of the costs associated with the activ ities required under Sectio n 2.1 of the draft PGP, as currently being implemented by affected entitie s, are not available. However, given FIFRA and pesticide label requirements that already stipulate the use of the lowest effective amount of the product per application (along with the optimum rate and fre quency) and information from Idaho, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire indicati ng that all entities ar e currently performing maintenance (including equipment calibration) as a part of normal operating procedures (ISDA, 2009; MADEP, 2009; and NHDAMF, 2009), increm ental compliance cost s are likely zero.

5.1.2. Integrated Pest Management Practices The draft PGP requires implementation of IPM pract ices for pesticide applications performed by entities that will exceed the annua l treatment area thresholds for the four use patterns: mosquito and other flying insect pest control, aquatic w eed and algae control, aquatic nuisance animal control, and forest canopy pest control.

5.1.2.1 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Under the draft PGP, pesticide a pplications for mosquito and ot her flying insect pest control must conform to IPM practices regarding id entifying the problem, pest management, and pesticide use. Mosquito control activities are not performed at the same leve l (e.g., city, district) across the unauthorized areas, and information is not av ailable on the area treat ed by those entities performing such activities. Thus, it is difficult to estimate costs to entities potentially affected by the draft PGP based on available cost or expend iture data. For example, program expenditures by mosquito control districts in Massachusetts (Table 5-1; M ADEP, 2009) include a variety of activities required under the draft PGP (mappi ng breeding sites, surv eillance, analyzing surveillance data, and alternatives to traditiona l pesticide use). However, these expenditures vary across districts, sometimes substantially (e.g., $800 for water management in the Suffolk District compared to $389,386 in the Cape Cod Distri ct). Differences in cost are most likely the result of different district si zes (e.g., population and area served/treated), and to a lesser extent, other issues such as different standard surveillance practices.33 May 2010 Table 5-1: Massachusetts Mosquito Control District Expenditures Massachusetts Mosquito Control Districts Cost Category Bristol Berkshire Cape Cod Central Norfolk Northeast Plymouth Suffolk
Breeding

Sites, Mapping $79,539 $43,335 $180,081 $145,48 3 $126,711 $144,404 $124,013 -

Surveillance 1 $95,496 - $32,045 $92,565 $93,742 $158,499 $86,919 -

Disease Surveillance $58,234 - - - - - $10,000 $8,000

Surveillance Data Analysis - - $17,472 $97,039 $55,492 - $56,511 -

Water Management $78,456 $1,760 $389,386 $199,63 7 $45,282 $124,583 $33,127 $800

Veg/land Mgmt & Sediment Removal $71,234 - - $141,662 $98, 821 $127,420 $91,122 -

Adulticiding - ULV $213,456 $16,042 - $110,947 $15 1,833 $36,443 $245,061 $37,788

Larval Control $234,223 $50,039 $193,347 $13 1,690 $420,983 $359,40 4 $268,408 $217,406
Public Outreach/ Notifications $34,567 - - $139,992 $19,100 $440 $33,994 -

Email/Web

Updates $8,790 - - $12,700 $6,000 $530 $9,600 -
Equipment - Trucks, ULV, etc $89,567 $7,490 $89,876 $122, 247 $74,129 $62,500 $82,409 -

Pesticide Licenses &

Training $7,234 $873 $4,225 $61,42 5 $5,480 $5,800 $4,170 -

Other Misc $134,000 $48,757 - $277, 400 $274,961 $313,582 $343,453 - Total $1,104,796 $168,296 $906, 432 $1,532,787 $1,372,534 $1, 333,605 $1,388,787 $263,994 Source: MADEP (2009) and MDAR (2008). No expenditure data reported for the East Middlesex District. ‘’-“ = information unavailable. 1. Also includes data analysis for some districts, although s pecific information on which districts and how much analysis cost is included is not available.

For example, the control districts vary in size and make-up (Figure 1, pg 11). Each district covers vastly different territory, ranging in densities from rural to suburban sprawl to urban, and from heavily forested area to coastal salt marshe s. For example, the Suffolk County district covers two urban cities (Boston and Chelsea); Cape Cod covers 15 rural-to-suburban coastal cities and towns; and Berkshire covers eight rural and heavily fo rested towns. Central, East Middlesex, Norfolk are all primar ily suburban districts; while Br istol, Plymouth and Northeast are mainly suburban-to-rural distri cts. All districts use larvicides , and all districts, except Cape Cod, use adulticides. In additi on, all districts perform ditch maintenance (water management), and all, except East Middlesex, perform sour ce reduction. The cost to perform different activities for each district reflect the budget for ea ch district as well as the districts’ geographic area, local community values, topography and urban/suburban/ru ral characteristics (MADEP, 2009 and MDAR, 2008). Available information on unit costs suggests that incremental costs to co mply with the permit requirements for entities not currently performing these activities will vary substantially.34 May 2010 Examples of factors that may affect increm ental costs include land area, population density, water area, climate, geography, existing government expenditures and program capabilities, and opportunities to share capabiliti es with other nearby control districts or governments (e.g., Arizona DHS and IHS assistance to area tribes). Differences in incremental costs may also be attributed to the fact that so me entities (e.g., towns, federal faci lities) are likely to utilize commercial services rather than develop capabilities in house.

Identify the Problem Section 2.2.1.1 of the draft PGP, Identif y the Problem, requires the following:
Prior to the first pesticide application cover ed under this permit that will result in a discharge to waters of the U .S., and at least once each calend ar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that cale ndar year, you must do the following for each pest management area, as defined in Appendix A:

Section 2.2.1.1.1
Establish densities for larval and adult mosquito or flying insect pest populations to serve as action threshold(s) for implem enting pest management strategies;

Section 2.2.1.1.2
Identify target mosquito or flying insect pe st species to develop species-specific pest management strategies based on developmenta l and behavioral consid erations for each species;

Section 2.2.1.1.3
Identify known breeding sites for source reduction, larval control program, and habitat management; and

Section 2.2.1.1.4
Analyze existing surveillance data to identify new or unidentif ied sources of mosquito or flying insect pest problems as well as s ites that have recurring pest problems.

Section 2.2.1.1.5
In the event there is no data for your pest management area in the past calendar year, see Part 5 for any documentation requirements re garding why current data are not available and the data you used to meet th e permit conditions in Part 2.2.1.1. The potential for incremental comp liance costs related to this s ection of the draft PGP depends on the extent to which mosquito and other flying in sect pest control activi ties are currently being implemented by entities subject to IPM requirement s in the unauthorized areas and the extent to which the required IPM activities—identifying mo squito or other flying insect species, establishing target densities, identifying known breeding sites, and analyzi ng surveillance data— are already being performed under existing IPM programs.

Potential Unit Costs Information on mosquito control efforts in Massa chusetts indicates that the districts already identify species and establish target densitie s. Based on this info rmation, the three cost categories for surveillance may reflect the permit requirements to identify the problem and35 May 2010 analyze data. These costs range from $8,000 (Suffolk District) to approximately $190,000 (Central District), with a midpoint of a pproximately $99,000. For identifying and mapping breeding sites, the Massachusetts control di strict costs range from $43,000 to $180,000, with a midpoint of approximately $112,000. Additional anal ysis would be needed to meaningfully normalize these expenditures by f actors such as land area or populat ion. However, the estimates may be representative of typical county- or re gional-level expenditure s related to problem identification for mosquito and ot her flying insect pest control. New Hampshire mosquito control occurs at the municipal level, and is currently performed by two commercial companies. Muni cipalities’ budgets can be as low as $15,000 per year and as high as $105,000 per year, but generally aver age $40,000 per year (McGregor, 2009). Average costs of adult surveillance may range from $4,000 to $8,000 per year, and the cost to perform larval surveillance activities varies greatly from to wn to town, but most likely exceeds the cost to perform adult surveillance (McG regor, 2009). In total, 25 municipalities spent over $400,000, or an average of $16,000 per municipality on larval surveillance (McGregor, 2009). Total costs for adult and larval surveillance could range from $20,000 to $24,000 per year ($4,000 to $8,000 per year plus $16,000 per year). New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) estimates the cost of performing a nnual larval and adult surveillance at $15,000 (NHDHHS, 2010). Thus, for entities that conduct mosquito control at a geographic level more similar to that of a municipal ity (compared to a larger mosquito control district), problem identification may be on the order of $15,000 to $24,000 annually, or approximately $20,000 per

year, on average. As suggested by the information discussed above, entities that operate on a regional or county level (e.g., those in Idaho, Massachusetts, New Me xico, District of Columbia, territories, and federal agencies) may incur costs for identifying species and establishing target densities on the order of $99,000 and costs for identification a nd mapping of breeding sites on the order of $112,000. Entities that operate on a smaller, m unicipal level (e.g., those in Alaska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and tribal lands) may incu r costs for species iden tification, establishment of densities, and mapping of approximately $20,000.

Potential Total Costs Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 pres ent estimates of the number of affected entities, potential incremental costs of surveillance and mapping comp liance activities (described above), and the sum total of these potential incremental costs for Regional/District entities and Municipal entities, respectively. The number of affected entities is based on subtracting the number of entities currently implementing the required best management practices (B MPs) from the total number of affected enti ties (Table 3-1).36 May 2010 Table 5-2: Estimated Incremental Costs to Regiona l/District Entities: Identifying the Problem, Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Identifying Species and

Targeting Densities Identifying and Mapping Breeding Sites Area Estimated No. of Entities 1 Unit Cost ($/entity) Potential Cost Estimated No. of Entities 1 Unit Cost ($/entity) Potential Cost Total Potential

Cost

Idaho 5 $99,000 $495,000 21 $112,000 $2,352,000 $2,847,000 Massachusetts 0 $99,000 $0 0 $112,000 $0 $0

New Mexico 0 $99,000 $0 0 $112,000 $0 $0

District of Columbia 0 $99,000 $0 0 $112,000 $0 $0 Territories 0 $99,000 $0 0 $112,000 $0 $0 Federal Facilities 10 $99,000 $990,000 10 $112,000 $1,120,000 $2,110,000 Total 22 NA $1,485,000 37 NA $3,472,000 $4,957,000 NA: not applicable 1. Based on the difference between the number of potentially affected entities and the number of entities currently performing each activity (Table 4-1).

Table 5-3: Estimated Incremental Costs to Municipal Entities: Identifying the Problem, Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Area Estimated No. of Entities 1 Unit Cost ($/entity) Potential Cost
Alaska 0 $20,000 $0 New Hampshire 0 $20,000 $0 Oklahoma 1 $20,000 $20,000

Tribes 5 - 17 $20,000 $100,000 - $340,000 Total 6 - 18 NA $120,000 - $360,000 NA: not applicable 1. Based on the difference between the number of potentially affected entities and the number of entities currently performing each activity (Table 4-1). 2. Total problem identification costs of $20,000 per entity for m unicipal-level entities are not broken out by species identifi cation and breeding site mapping.

Total cost associated with problem identificati on for mosquito and othe r flying insect control could be approximately $5,077,000 to $5,317,000 (sum of regional/district entity costs and municipality entity costs).

Pest Management Section 2.2.1.2 of the draft PGP, Pest Management, requires the following:
Prior to the first pesticide application cover ed under this permit that will result in a discharge to waters of the U .S., and at least once each calend ar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calenda r year, you must select and implement, for each pest management area, efficient and ef fective means of pest management that minimize discharges resulting fr om application of pe sticides to control mosquitoes or other flying insect pests. In developing these pest manage ment strategies, you must evaluate the following management options, cons idering impact to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, feas ibility, and cost effe ctiveness: no action;37 May 2010 prevention; mechanical/ physical methods; cultu ral methods; biological control agents; pesticides. Whether or not the requirements of Section 2.2.1.2 of the draft PG P result in incremental costs will depend on the extent to which pesticide applicators are currently implementing the most efficient and effective means of pest management to minimize pesticide discharges, and the net incremental cost of such methods (i.e., co mpared to conventional pesticide use).

No Action : No action is to be take n, although a problem has been identified. This may be appropriate in cases where, for example, ava ilable control methods may cause secondary or nontarget impacts that are not justified or no available control methods exist.

Prevention: Prevention strategies are program activ ities which eliminate developing pest populations through environmental modifications and/or habitat management. For mosquito control, these activities are physical methods, such as habita t modification, cultural methods that reduce sources of mosquitoes, and biological control.
Mechanical/Physical Methods: Habitat modification, also known as physical or permanent control, is in many cases the most effective mosquito control technique available and is accomplished by eliminating mosquito breeding sites. Habitat modification activities have the potential to be both effective a nd economical in some areas and can virtually eliminate the need for pesticide use in and adjacent to the affected habitat. However, the ability to use prevention strategies is dependent upon local authority and rest rictions.

Cultural Methods: Cultural methods can reduce sources of mosquitoes and can be as simple as properly discarding old c ontainers that hold wate r capable of producing Aedes aegypti

, Ae. Albopictus or Culex spp. or as complex as implementing Rotational Impoundment Management (RIM) or Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) techniques.
Biological Control Agents: Biocontrol is utilizatio n of parasites, predat ors, and pathogens to regulate pest populations; the major m echanism of biological control is Gambusia affinis ( commonly referred to as mosquitofish).

Pesticides: There are chemical and biological pesticide products registered for use against mosquitoes.

Potential Unit Costs The extent to which methods other than pesticid e use are efficient and effective means of pest management is site specific. For example, the City of Davis, California, established an IPM program in 1989, and in 2005 developed an IPM polic y that included less reliance on chemical controls as well as balanc ing weed controls within economic constraints (2008). Several alternative pest control methods were conti nued in 2008 to reduce reliance on pesticides and meet IPM objectives, including: mechanical removal, hand removal, flooding, and weed habitat removal. However, the City notes that future reliance on these methods could be curtailed by budgetary constraints. (The City also used volunteer labor fo r some IPM program components.) Unit costs may also depend on the extent of the curre nt use of methods other than pesticides. For example, the allocation of expenditures between pesticide related activ ities and other pest management activities varies grea tly. Expenditures in the Suffolk District in Massachusetts are primarily related to pesticide application (a pproximately 97%). There may therefore be opportunities for more efficient or effective met hods to minimize pesticide use. In comparison,38 May 2010 only 22% of expenditures in the Cape Cod Distri ct in Massachusetts may be attributable to pesticide use, as compared with 43% for wa ter management and vegetation and sediment removal. Feasible and cost-effective uses of me thods that minimize pesticide discharges may be greater in that district and opport unities to replace remaining pest icide use less feasible or costeffective. As an estimate of potential expenditures related to the pest management options in the draft PGP, the expenditures in Table 5-1 for mosquito control districts in Massachusetts for water management and vegetation and sediment remova l can be used. Costs of implementing these practices range widely ($800 in the Suffolk Distri ct to $389,000 in the Cape Cod District). In addition, ISDA (2009) indicates an annual cost of $7,500 per dist rict for water management practices. The effectiveness of these activities for minimizing pesticide discharges may vary by location. However, the midpoint of total cost s for implementing both water management and vegetation and sediment removal, based on the Massachusetts estimates, is approximately $195,000. These costs could be representative of cost s that a regional entity or control district might spend on alternative, non-pesticide control methods; the low end of the range ($800) could be representative of expenditures associated with municipalities.

Potential Total Costs Feasibility and cost-effectiveness may prevent en tities from selecting an y method for which the net incremental cost exceeds the cost of conventional pe sticide application fo r a similar level of control. If all entit ies found other methods infeasible or not cost effective, incremental compliance costs would be zero. On the other en d of the spectrum, the net incremental cost (over and above the cost of pestic ide use for the same level of control) at which all entities may implement alternative methods would likely be close to zero, and incremental compliance costs would also be minimal. More likely, entities will work within budget c onstraints and site-speci fic circumstances to implement alternative methods of control when funds are available and seek additional funding to accommodate methods that minimize pesticid e discharges. Chemical and safety costs associated with pesticide use could also increase over time and change the net incremental cost differential between conventional pesticide use and other methods . In this case, compliance costs would also likely be minimal. The incremental costs that any entity will bear in determining whether alternative methods are feasible and cost-effective is speculative; for example, the ability and willingness to incur increased control costs is likely related to income in the community, among other factors. Table 5-4 provides estimates of potenti ally affected entities and illust rative estimates of potential costs assuming that affected entities incur net incrementa l costs (costs of altern ative methods less cost of conventional pesticide use) for water mana gement and vegetation and sediment removal methods of approximately $195,000 for regional enti ties and $800 for municipalities.39 May 2010 Table 5-4: Estimated Incremental Costs: Pest Manage ment, Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control ($/yr)

Area Entities Potentially Incurring Incremental Cost 1 Potential Feasible Net Incremental Cost 2 Alaska 0 $0 Idaho 6 $1,170,000 Massachusetts 0 $0 New Hampshire 44 $35,000

New Mexico 13 $2,535,000

Oklahoma 1 $1,000 3 District of Columbia 1 $195,000 Territories 0 $0

Tribes 5 - 17 $4,000 - $14,000 Federal Facilities 10 $1,950,000
Total 80 - 92 $5,890,000 - $5,900,000 1. Based on the difference between the number of potentially affected entities and the number of entities currently performing each activity (Table 4-1). 2. Estimates for illustration only; actual costs/cost savings will be entity-specific. Costs calculated by multiplying the num ber of regional entities potentially incurring net in cremental costs (in ID, MA, NM, District of Columbia, Territories Federal Facilit ies) by $195,000, and the number of municipalities potentially incurri ng net incremental costs (in AL, NH, OK and Tribes) by $800. 3. Rounded up from $800.

Pesticide Use Section 2.2.1.3 of the draft PGP, Pes ticide Use, requires the following:
If a pesticide is sele cted to manage mosquitoes or flyi ng insect pests and application of the pesticide will result in a discharge to a water of the U.S., you must:

Section 2.2.1.3.1

Conduct larval and/or adult surv eillance prior to each pestic ide application to assess the pest management area and to determine when action threshold(s) are met that necessitate the need for pest management;

Section 2.2.1.3.2
Assess environmental conditions (e.g. temper ature, precipitation, and wind speed) in the treatment area prior to each pesticid e application to identify whether existing environmental conditions support development of pest populations and are suitable for control activities;

Section 2.2.1.3.3
Reduce the impact on the environment and on non-target organisms by applying the pesticide only when the acti on threshold has been met; and

Section 2.2.1.3.4
In situations or locations where practicabl e and feasible for efficacious control, use larvicides as a preferred pesticide for mosquito or flying insect pest control when larval action thresholds have been met; and

Section 2.2.1.3.540 May 2010 In situations or locations where larvicide use is not practicable or feasible for efficacious control, use adulticides for mosquito or fly ing insect pest control when adult action thresholds have been met. The potential for the requirements of Sections 2.2.1.3.1 and 2.2.1.3.2 of the draft PGP to result in incremental costs depends on: the extent of curr ent larval and adult surveillance and assessment of environmental activities prior to each pesticide a pplication, per-a pplication surveillance and assessment costs, and the number of pesticide applications still occurring after applicators select the most efficient and effective method of pest management to minimize pesticide discharges to waters of the United States.

Since the effect of Section 2.2.1.2 of the draft PGP (selecting the most efficient and effective method to minimize pesticide discharges) on pestic ide applications is no t known, estimates of incremental compliance cost for surveillance would be speculative. Further, available information on current program expenditures (e.g., information from Massachusetts and Idaho) is not sufficient to determine whether surveillance and assessment of environmental conditions is performed before each application, or how many a pplications are reflected in existing program expenditures. For example, for entities curr ently conducting surveillanc e but not prior to each application, existing expenditures may not incr ease if non-pesticide methods replace some pesticide applications. For en tities that do not currently con duct surveillance, incremental compliance costs are likely, but expenditures leve ls in other states may not be representative because pesticide application rates and amount s may differ. In addition, a portion of the surveillance costs may already be included in the surveillance estimates under problem identification.
For Sections 2.2.1.3.3 and 2.2.1.3.5 of the draft PGP, co sts are likely minimal or there may be a cost savings associated with only applying pesticides when an action threshold is met.
For Sections 2.2.1.3.4 of the draft PGP, it is difficult to quantify the costs of using larvicides as the preferred pesticide (e.g., switching away from or decreasing the use of adulticides). However, there is some evidence to suggest th at equipment costs associated with applying larvicides may be cheaper than applying adulticides (Town of Silvercity; Alabama Department of Public Health), although labor requirements ma y differ as well. While there is also evidence to suggest that adoption of IPM pr actices leads to slightly greate r chemical spending on average, pesticide applications may be reduced as a resu lt of selecting the most efficient and effective method to minimize pesticide use (Norton, 2009). Therefore, potential incremental costs associated with pesticide use provisi ons are likely minimal.

5.1.2.2 Aquatic Weed and Algae Control The following practices apply to any pesticide app licator for aquatic weed and algae control that meets the annual treatment area threshol ds (as identified in Section 3.2.3).

Identify the Problem Section 2.2.2.1 of the draft PGP, Identif y the Problem, requires the following:
Prior to the first pesticide application cover ed under this permit that will result in a discharge to waters of the U .S., and at least once each calend ar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year you must do the following for each pest management area, as defined in Appendix A:41 May 2010 Section 2.2.2.1.1
Identify areas with aquatic w eed or algae problems and char acterize the extent of the problems, including, for example, water use goals not attained (e.g. wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, and recreation);

Section 2.2.2.1.2
Identify target weed species;

Section 2.2.2.1.3
Identify possible factors causing or contri buting to the weed or algae problem (e.g., nutrients, invasive species, etc); and

Section 2.2.2.1.4
Establish past or present aquatic weed or algae densities to serve as action threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies.

Section 2.2.2.1.5
In the event there is no data for your pest management area in the past calendar year, see Part 5 for any documentation requirements re garding why current data are not available and the data you used to meet th e permit conditions in Part 2.2.1.1. The potential for incremental compliance costs resulting from the draft PGP requirements to identify the problem will depend on the extent to which entities that control aquatic weeds and algae are currently conducting problem identification activities and the cost of such activities. In general, identifying weed species, weed issues, and more general aquati c conditions falls under the category of scouting. Scouting involves id entifying weed species and evaluating weed location and density, and is done on the ground by wa lking and/or riding in an all-terrain vehicle or boat (Blankinship, 2009). On the ground, surveyor s will visually observe the plants and map out problem areas (Hamel, 2009). Some will also use a sampling rake at intervals to collect, sample and identify the species. Other surveyors utilize viewing tubes, underwater cameras or divers and snorkelers to inve stigate conditions unde r the surface. Scouting can also be accomplished by aerial survey using helicopter or plane, though this method is more expensive (Blankinship, 2009). Where submerged aquatic weed s are present, bathymetric surveys can be employed. Locations and densities of aquatic pl ant nuisances are typically plotted using GIS software.

Potential Unit Costs The amount of time necessary to sc out an area depends on a variety of factors, including size and depth, access, type of weed, and time of year (B lankinship, 2009). A surveyor typically spends about one day per lake (200 acres or less) st udying conditions and weed cover and assessing locations for herbicide applica tion (Hamel, 2009). Typical costs may range from $100 per acre for a small pond or lake to $1,000 per day for a larg er lake that requires a full day or longer to survey (Coble, 2009). Cost data for ditch bank scouting are not available. In order to properly identify sources of the problem, a full limnological study may be required (Hamel, 2009). Given the size, scope, and complex ity of these studies, costs are, at a minimum, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and ca n exceed millions of dolla rs per area. Hamel (2009) explains that most nutrient problems aris e due to a variety of watershed inputs and are42 May 2010 largely out of the control of local populations or regulating agencies. Due to the impracticality of performing a long-term study to identify prob lems, EPA assumes that problem identification will be much less nuanced and performed during su rveillance to determine weed type and weed cover. That is, the potential cost of identification is likely closer to Coble’s (2009) lower estimate of $100 per acre.

Potential Total Costs Table 5-5 summarizes the potentially affect ed area for aquatic weed control based on information in Section 3.2.3 and Section 4.2. For this analysis, EPA assumes that each affected entity represents a single waterbody, and the number of affected acres is calculated by multiplying the number of entities/waterbodies not already in compliance with draft PGP requirements by the average lake size in the stat e/area. Note that average water body sizes are below the threshold for aquatic weed control; however, EPA assumes that entities would need to treat for multiple pests, resulting in an increa sed treatment acreage exceeding the threshold. For federal entities, EPA assumes that approximately 1% of all waterbody ac res located at federal facilities (225,619 acres, based on NHD GIS data) would need to be treated with pesticides for aquatic weed control.
Also, the number of affected waterbodies does no t include private property owners, such as ditch banks on farms and surface water intake structur e operators, as these entities are not likely to exceed the annual treatment area th resholds (see Section 3.2.3).

Table 5-5: Potential Costs: Identifying the Problem, Aquatic Weed Control

Area Number of Affected Entities 1 Percent of Entities Not in Compliance 2 Number of Entities Not in Compliance 2 Potential Acres not in Compliance 4 Total Potential Costs ($/yr) 5 Alaska 0 0% 0 0 $0 Idaho 7 60% 3 25 $3,000 Massachusetts 26 100% 0 0 $0 New Hampshire 25 75% 6 46 $5,000

New Mexico 0 0% 0 0 $0 Oklahoma1 60 23% 46 110 $11,000 District of Columbia 0 0% 0 0 $0 Territories 0 0% 0 0 $0

Tribes 17 0% 17 162 $16,000 Federal Facilities 9 0% 9 2,256 $226,000 Total 144 - 81 2,599 $261,000 NA: not applicable 1. Includes only government entities (see Table 3-6 and 3.7); EPA assumes that right-of- way ditch bank pesticide applicators and public drinking water utilities are not likely to incur net incremental costs. 2. Compliance estimates bas ed on percentages in Table 4-2. 4. Calculated by assuming that each affected entity represents one waterbody, and multiplying the number of entities/waterbodie s not in compliance with draft PGP requirements by the average lake size (in acres). For federal facilities, it is assumed that 1% of all waterbody acres on facility lands are treated with pesticides for aquatic weed and algae. 5. Represents number of potentially affected acres not in compli ance with draft PGP multiplied by a unit cost of $100/acre (Cob le, 2009).43 May 2010 Pest Management Section 2.2.2.2 of the draft PGP, Pest Management, requires the following:
Prior to the first pesticide application cover ed under this permit that will result in a discharge to waters of the U .S., and at least once each calend ar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calenda r year, you must select and implement, for each pest management area, efficient and ef fective means of pest management that minimize discharges resulting fr om application of pe sticides to contro l aquatic weeds or algae. In developing these pest management strategies, you must evaluate the following management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, fe asibility, and cost effectiveness: no action; prevention; mechanical/physical methods; cultural methods ; biological control agents; pesticides. Whether or not the requirements of Section 2.2.1.2 of the draft PG P result in incremental costs will depend on 1) the extent to which pesticide applicators are currently implementing the most efficient and effective means of pest management to minimize pesticide discharges and 2) the net incremental cost of such methods (i.e., compared to conventional pesticide use). The efficiency and effectiveness of pest mana gement methods that do not involve the use of pesticides will be site specific.

No Action : No action is to be take n, although a problem has been identified. This may be appropriate in cases where, for example, ava ilable control methods may cause secondary or nontarget impacts that are not justified or no available controls exist.

Prevention: Preventing introductions of possible aquati c weeds and algae is the most efficient way to reduce the threat of nuisance species (ANS Task Fo rce, 2009). Identifying primary pathways of introduction and actions to cut o ff those pathways is essential to prevention. Through a better understanding of the transporta tion and introduction of aquatic weeds and algae, private entities (aquacultu re) and the public have the nece ssary knowledge to assist in local aquatic weed and algae cont rol by reducing conditions that en courage the spread of aquatic weeds and algae in their immediate surroundings. For example, recreational water users provide a pathway of unintentional introductions. Increas ing public awareness of aquatic weeds and algae, their impacts, and what individuals can do to prevent their intr oduction and spread is critical for prevention. Other examples of pr evention include: better design of water holding sites, better management and maintenance of potential problem sites, and volunteer removal of pest species (e.g., hand weeding). Monitoring and detection also play important roles in the prevention of the spread and introduc tion of aquatic weeds and algae.
Mechanical and Biological Control: Mechanical and biological co ntrols will be the appropriate method of control method in some cases, or a pa rt of a combination of methods. In some instances, the need for chemical pesticide use in and adjacent to the affected habitat can be reduced or virtually eliminated with proper exec ution of alternative strategies and proper best management practices.

Mechanical control techniques wi ll vary depending on the pest . Examples include dewatering, pressure washing, abrasive scrubbing, and weed removal by hand or machine.

Biological control of aquatic weeds and algae may be achie ved through the introduction of diseases, predators, or parasites. While biologi cal control generally has limited application for44 May 2010 control of aquatic weeds and algae, the operator should fully consider this option in evaluating pest management options.

Cultural Methods: Cultural techniques in clude the use of pond dyes and water-level drawdown. Pond dyes are used to manage filamentous alga e and submersed (underwater) vegetation. Several pond colorants and one or two dyes are EPA-regi stered for aquatic-weedcontrol. They are effective if there is little wa ter outflow from the pond; however, they are intended to intercept sunlight needed by algae and other underwater plants for photosynthesis and thus tend to be ineffective on floating plants like duckweed a nd water lilies and emergent (growing above the surface) plants like cattails and bulrushes. They are nontoxic and do not kill the plants, and they are safe for use in ponds for irrigation, fishing and livestock. They are not intended for use in large lakes with significant water flow or lakes used for public water supplies. 7

Pesticides: Aquatic herbicides are chemicals specifically formulated for use in water to kill or control aquatic plants. Aquatic herbicides are sp rayed directly onto floating or emergent aquatic plants or are applied to the water in either a liquid or pellet form. Systemic herbicides are capable of killing the entire plant. Contact herbic ides cause the parts of the plant in contact with the herbicide to die back, leaving the roots aliv e and able to re-grow. Non-selective, broad spectrum herbicides will generally affect all plants that they come in contact with. Selective herbicides will affect only some plants. 8

Potential Unit Costs ISDA (2009), MADEP (2009), NHDAMF (2009), a nd ODAFF (2009) all provide various unit costs for aquatic weed management. For mechani cal/physical methods of c ontrol, estimates vary from a low of $460 to a high of $5,000 per acre, and from $12,000 to $20,000 per mile of river. The only estimate for light attenuation is be tween $50 and $500 per acre. Estimates for bottom barriers vary from $15,300 per acre to $50,000 per acre . The estimates for the cost of biological agents range from $15 per acre to $3,000 per acre.
Net unit costs equal the cost of the most efficien t/effective method less the total cost of pesticide use (e.g., any surveillance costs th at would not be incurred with other methods). However, information is not available on th e current cost of pesticide use. Costs may also vary based on the extent of current use of a lternative methods; opera tors already using the most feasible and cost-effective opportunities to minimize pesticide di scharges would not like ly incur costs related to use of non-pesticide methods.

Potential Total Costs As described in the mosquito control section, feasibility and cost-effectiveness may prevent entities from selecting any method for which th e net incremental cost exceeds the cost of pesticide application for a similar level of cont rol. If all entities found non-pesticide methods infeasible/not cost effective, incremental co mpliance costs would be zero. However, more likely, entities will work within budget constraint s and site-specific circumstances to implement alternative methods of control when funds are available, seek funding increases over time to accommodate methods that minimize pesticide discharges, or work with other jurisdictions to gain efficiencies and economies of scale.

7 http://www.grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_weeds_overboard/

8 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/w q/plants/management/aqua028.html45 May 2010 The level of any positive net incremental cost th at entities will bear in determining whether alternative methods are feasible and cost-effective is speculative; the abilit y and willingness to incur increased control costs is likely related to income in the community and type of entity, among other factors. For example, given that pesticide use along right-of-way ditch banks typically covers large areas, eith er the selection of less targeted methods or no action may be more likely considering feasibility and cost effectiveness. In a ddition, information is lacking as to whether the current mix of methods will ch ange under the permit. For example, NHDAMF (2009) suggests that methods that minimize pestic ide discharges are curr ently being considered and employed where feasible. Similarly, avai lable unit cost estimates vary by orders of magnitude, even for the same method, suggesting that site-specific c onditions affect unit costs. Notwithstanding these uncertainties, Table 5-6 pr ovides potential incremental cost estimates to government entities that are currently controlling aquatic weeds with pesticide use for lakes and ponds based on the assumption that the entities would be willing and able to bear a net incremental cost (i.e., cost difference between pe sticide use and use of an alternative method) ranging from $50 per acre to $500 per ac re on half of affected acres. The ability to incur such net incremental costs may be higher or lower de pending on the specific entity and area treated. Costs to state departments of transportation respon sible for right-of-way ditches are likely to be minimal based on the assumption that if more feas ible or cost-effective methods were available they would already be in use.

Table 5-6: Potential Affected Acres and Feasible Costs: Pest Management, Aquatic Weed and Algae Control 1

Net Incremental Cost ($/yr) 6

Area Potential Number of Affect Entities 2 Percent of Entities not in Compliance 3 Average Lake Size (acres) 4 Potential Acres not in Compliance 5 $50/acre $500/acre Alaska 0 0% 11 0 $0 $0 Idaho 7 0% 8.3 29 $1,000 $15,000 Massachusetts 26 0% 7.5 98 $5,000 $49,000 New Hampshire 25 0% 7.6 95 $5,000 $48,000

New Mexico 0 0% 3.4 0 $0 $0

Oklahoma 60 23% 2.4 55 $3,000 $28,000 District of Columbia 0 0% 2.4 0 $0 $0 Territories 0 0% 11.9 0 $0 $0

Tribes 17 0% 9.5 81 $4,000 $41,000 Federal Facilities 9 0% NA 1128 $56,000 $564,000 Total 144 - - 1,486 $74,000 $745,000 NA: not applicable 1. Illustrative cost; feasible controls and costs will be site specific. 2. Includes only government entities (see Table 3-6 and 3.7); EPA assumes that entities responsible for right-of-way ditch bank applications are not likely to incur net incremental costs. 3. Compliance estimates bas ed on percentages in Table 4-2. 4. Source: USGS (2009). 5. Calculated based on assumption that each entity represents a single waterbody and multiplying number of entities/waterbodies by the average lake size (1% of waterbody acres for federal fac ilities), and assuming that only 50% of the acres are treated. 6. Calculated based on assumption that entities would be willing and able to incur net incremental cost ranging from $50/acre t o $500/acre.46 May 2010 Pesticide Use Section 2.2.2.3 of the draft PGP, Pes ticide Use, requires the following:
If a pesticide is selected to manage aquatic weeds or algae and application of the pesticide will result in a discharge to a water of the U.S., you must:

Section 2.2.2.3.1
Conduct surveillance prior to each pesticid e application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the action threshold is met that necessitates the need for pest management; and

Section 2.2.2.3.2
Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by applying the pesticide only when the acti on threshold has been met. The potential for the draft PGP requirements rega rding pesticide use to result in incremental compliance costs will depend on both the extent to which pesticides are used under the permit after selection of the most effi cient/effective method to minimize pesticide discharges (Section 2.2.2.2 of the draft PGP) and the extent to whic h pesticide applicators are currently conducting application surveillance.

Potential Unit Costs ISDA (2009) indicates a range of $100 per ac re to $1,000 per waterbody for surveillance monitoring of aquatic weed treatments. Under the draft PGP, applicators that are currently conducting surveillance and switch to other non- pesticide methods to minimize pesticide discharges will no longer incur costs.47 May 2010 Total Potential Costs Table 5-7 presents pote ntial costs associated with the draft PGP requirements for pesticide use assuming surveillance costs of approximately $100/acre (ISDA, 2009). In addition, right-of-way pesticide applicators using pesticides to control aquatic weeds and algae at surface water intakes are already in compliance with pesticide use re quirements because such activities are necessary to successfully eradicate the pests and eliminate the problem.

Table 5-7: Potential Costs: Pesticide Use, Aquatic Weed and Algae Control

Area Number of Affected Entities 1 Number of Entities Not in Compliance 2 Average Lake Size

(acres) 3 Potential Acres not in Compliance 4 Total Potential Costs ($/yr) 5 Alaska 0 0 11 0 $0 Idaho 7 4 8.3 33 $3,000 Massachusetts 26 26 7.5 195 $20,000 New Hampshire 25 0 7.6 0 $0

New Mexico 0 0 3.4 0 $0

Oklahoma 60 46 2.4 110 $11,000 District of Columbia 0 0 2.4 0 $0 Territories 0 0 11.9 0 $0

Tribes 17 17 9.5 162 $16,000 Federal Facilities 9 9 NA 2256 $226,000 Total 144 102 - 2,756 $276,000 NA: not applicable 1. Illustrative cost; feasible cont rols and costs will be site specific. 2. Includes only government entities (see Table 3-6 and 3-7); EPA assumes that right-of-wa y ditch bank pesticide applicators are not likely to incur net incremental costs. 3. Compliance estimates bas ed on percentages in Table 4-2. 4. Source: USGS (2009) 5. Calculated by assuming that each affected entity represents one waterbody, and multiplying the number of entities/waterbodie s not in compliance with draft PGP requirements by the average lake size (in acres). For federal facilities, EPA assumes that 1% of waterbody acres on these lands would be treated for aquatic weeds. 6. Estimated by multiplying number of potentially affected acres not in compliance with the draft PGP by unit cost of $100/acre (Coble, 2009).

5.1.2.3 Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control The following practices apply to pesticide applic ations for aquatic nuisance animal control.

Identify the Problem Section 2.2.3.1 of the draft PGP, Identif y the Problem, requires the following:
Prior to the first pesticide application cover ed under this permit that will result in a discharge to waters of the U .S., and at least once each calend ar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that cale ndar year, you must do the following for each pest management area, as defined in Appendix A:

Section 2.2.3.1.1
Identify areas with aquatic nu isance animal problems and charac terize the extent of the problems, including, for example, water use goals not attained (e.g. wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, and recreation);

Section 2.2.3.1.248 May 2010 Identify target aquatic nu isance animal species;

Section 2.2.3.1.3
Identify possible factors caus ing or contributing to the pr oblem (e.g., nutrients, invasive species); and

Section 2.2.3.1.4
Establish past or present aquatic nuisan ce animal densities to serve as action threshold(s) for implementing pest management strategies.

Section 2.2.3.1.5
In the event there is no data for your pest management area in the past calendar year, see Part 5 for any documentation requirements re garding why current data are not available and the data you used to meet th e permit conditions in Part 2.2.1.1. The extent to which requirements to identify the problem will result in incremental compliance costs depends on the extent to which affected en tities are currently c onducting such activities, and the cost of the actions. However, given the potential for current complia nce with problem identification under state and national invasive species management plans (Section 4.3), incremental compliance costs associated with problem identification for aqua tic nuisance animal cont rol are unlikely.

Pest Management Section 2.2.3.2 of the draft PGP, Pest Management, requires the following:
Prior to the first pesticide application cover ed under this permit that will result in a discharge to waters of the U .S., and at least once each year th ereafter prior to the first pesticide application during t hat calendar year, you must select and implement, for each pest management area, efficien t and effective means of pest management that minimize discharges resulting from application of pest icides to control aquatic nuisance animals. In developing these pest management st rategies, you must evaluate the following management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, fe asibility, and cost effectiveness: no action; prevention; mechanical/physical methods; biologic al control agents; pesticides.

No Action: No action is to be taken, although an a quatic nuisance animal problem has been identified. This may be appropr iate in cases where, for exampl e, available control methods may cause secondary or non-target impacts that are no t justified or no availa ble controls exist.

Prevention: Preventing introductions of possible nuisance species is the most efficient way to reduce the threat of aquatic nuisance animal s (ANS Task Force, 2009). Identifying primary pathways of introduction and actions to cut o ff those pathways is essential to prevention. Through a better understanding of the transporta tion and introduction of aquatic nuisance animals, private entities (aquaculturists) and the public have th e necessary knowledge to assist in local aquatic nuisance animal cont rol by reducing conditions that en courage the spread of aquatic nuisance animals in their immediate surroundings. For example, recreational water users provide a pathway of unintentional introductions. Incr easing public awareness of aquatic nuisance species, their impacts, and what individuals can do to prevent their intr oduction and spread is49 May 2010 critical for prevention. Other examples of pr evention include: better design of water holding sites, better management and maintenance of potential problem sites, and volunteer removal of pest species (e.g., fishing). Monitoring and detect ion also play important roles in the prevention of the spread and introduction of aquatic nuisance animals.

Mechanical and Biological Control : Mechanical and biological co ntrols will be the appropriate methods of control method in some cases, or a pa rt of a combination of methods. Mechanical control techniques will vary depending on the pest. Examples include fishing, dewatering, netting, electrofishing, pressure washing, use of electric fences and abrasive scrubbing.

Biological control of aquatic nuisance animals may be achieve d through the introduction of diseases, predators, or parasites. While biologi cal control generally has limited application for control of aquatic nuisan ce animals, operators should fully cons ider this option in evaluating pest management options.

Pesticide: Chemical and biological pesticides, such as lampricides, molluscides, and piscicides, are registered for use to control aquatic nuisan ce animals. These pestic ides are specifically formulated for use in water where aquatic nuisan ce animals occur. In some cases, pesticide use may impact non-target species.

The potential for pest management requirements to result in incremental costs depends on the extent to which the plans described above are al ready in compliance with permit requirements to minimize pesticide discharges, and the net incremental co st associated with alternative methods of pest control. However, given the potential for current compliance with pest management under state and national invasive species ma nagement plans (Section 4.3), incremental compliance costs associated with pest manage ment for aquatic nuisance animal control are unlikely.

Pesticide Use Section 2.2.3.3 of the draft PGP, Pes ticide Use, requires the following:
If a pesticide is selected to manage aquatic nuisance ani mals and application of the pesticide will result in a discharge to a water of the U.S., you must:

Section 2.2.3.3.1
Conduct surveillance prior to ea ch application to assess th e pest management area and to determine when the action threshold is met that necessitates the need for pest management; and

Section 2.2.3.3.2
Reduce the impact on the environment and non- target organisms by evaluating site restrictions, application timing, and applic ation method in addition to applying the pesticide only when the acti on threshold has been met. The potential for pesticide use requirements to result in incremental costs depends on the extent to which the plans described above are already in compliance with permit requirements, and the net incremental cost associated with alternative methods of pest control.50 May 2010 However, given the potential for current complian ce with pesticide use un der state and national invasive species management plans (Section 4.3) , incremental compliance costs associated with pesticide use for aquatic nuisan ce animal control are unlikely.

5.1.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control The following practices apply to pesticide a pplications for forest canopy pest control

Identify the Problem Section 2.2.4.1 of the draft PGP, Identif y the Problem, requires the following:
Prior to the first pesticide application cover ed under this permit that will result in a discharge to waters of the U .S., and at least once each calend ar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application in that calendar year, you mu st do the following for each pest management area, as defined in Appendix A:

Section 2.2.4.1.1
Establish target pest densiti es to serve as action thres hold(s) for implementing pest management strategies;

Section 2.2.4.1.2
Identify target species to develop a species-s pecific pest management strategy based on developmental and behavioral considerations for each species; and

Section 2.2.4.1.3
Identify current distribution of the target pest and asse ss potential distribution in the absence of control measures.

Section 2.2.4.1.4
In the event there is no data for your pest management area in the past calendar year, see Part 5 for any documentation requirements re garding why current data are not available and the data you used to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.1.1.

Potential Unit Costs The use of pesticides over the forest canopy n ecessitates a coor dinated, controlled approach, including proper surveillance (e.g. id entifying pests, identifying distri bution of pests). Therefore, in the event that some forest canopy pest cont rol is occurring in the unauthorized areas, incremental compliance costs associated w ith identifying the problem are unlikely.

Total Potential Costs Incremental compliance costs associated with identifying the problem are minimal since any entities currently using pesticides for this use pattern will routin ely conduct these activities as part of their tasks. Thus, tota l costs for identifying the problem for forest canopy pest control are likely minimal.

Pest Management Section 2.2.4.2 of the draft PGP, Pest Management, requires the following:51 May 2010 Prior to the first pesticide application cover ed under this permit that will result in a discharge to waters of the U .S., and at least once each calend ar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calenda r year, you must select and implement for each pest management area efficient and ef fective means of pe st management that minimize discharges resulting from application of pestic ides to control forestry pests. In developing these pest management strate gies, you must evaluate the following management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, pest resistance, fe asibility, and cost effectiveness: no action; prevention; mechanical/physical methods; cultural methods ; biological control agents; pesticides.

No Action: No action is to be taken, although a forest canopy pest control problem has been identified. This may be appropriate in cas es where available control methods may cause secondary or non-target impacts or where aes thetic/ economic losses are not anticipated.

Mechanical and Biological Control: Mechanical and biological cont rols will be the appropriate method of control method in some cases, or a pa rt of a combination of methods. In some instances, the need for chemical pesticide use in and adjacent to the affected habitat can be reduced or virtually eliminated with proper exec ution of alternative strategies and proper best management practices.

Mechanical control techniques wi ll vary depending on the pest . An example of mechanical control in a forest canopy would be egg mass removal (gypsy moth).

Biological control of forest canopy pests may be achieved through the introduction/enhancement of diseases, predators, or para sites. In addition, forest ca nopy pest control programs aimed specifically at insects may also utilize sterile insect release, mating disruption, and biological pesticides. While biological c ontrols generally have limited app lications for forest canopy pest control programs, they should be fully consideredas an option in the development of an IPM plan. The latter two programs are often ut ilized when controlling for gypsy moth.

Cultural Method: Cultural control methods are strategies that make the habitat unsuitable for a pest. An example of a cultural method to manage pests of the forest cano py would be to select a different species of tree to plant, or to plant resi stant varieties of trees. Maintaining the trees in good health to discourage pests is another method of cultural control.

Pesticide: Several chemical and biological pesticides are available that may be used to reduce defoliation of the trees. These pesticides are typically used wh en pest populations are high and the action threshold has b een reached. These products are aerially applied.

Potential Unit Costs For any use of forest canopy pest control in the unauthorized areas, incremental compliance costs associated with pest management depend on the ex tent to which affected entities switch away from pesticide use to minimize pesticide discha rges, and the cost of the alternative method compared to the total cost associ ated with pesticide use. Give n that forest canopy pest control covers larger areas than targeted control, selec tion of more targeted methods may be unlikely or no action may be more likely considering feasibility and cost effectiveness.52 May 2010 Total Potential Costs There is a lack of information indicating that prevention, mechanical/ physical methods, cultural methods, and biological control are likely to be feasible across la rge areas. Thus, incremental compliance costs associated with pest management for forest canopy pest control may be minimal.

Pesticide Use Section 2.2.4.3 of the draft PGP, Pes ticide Use, requires the following:
If a pesticide is selected to manage forestry pests and app lication of the pesticide will result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., you must:

Section 2.2.4.3.1
Conduct surveillance prior to ea ch application to assess th e pest management area and to determine when the pest action threshold is met that necessitates the need for pest management;

Section 2.2.4.3.2
Assess environmental conditions (e.g. temper ature, precipitation, and wind speed) in the treatment area to identify conditions t hat support target pest development and are conducive for treatm ent activities;

Section 2.2.4.3.3
Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating the restrictions, application timing, and applicati on methods in addition to applying the pesticide only when the action thresholds have been met; and

Section 2.2.4.3.4
Evaluate using pesticides against the most susceptible developmental stage. For any use of forest canopy pest control in the unauthorized areas, incremental compliance costs associated with the pesticide use requirements de pend on the extent to which affected entities are currently performing the required activiti es, and the cost of the requirements.

Potential Unit Costs There is no information on the potential cost of conducting surveillance using BMPs prior to each application, assessing environmental conditions as close to the treatm ent as possible, and using pesticides only when action thresholds are met and against the most susceptible developmental stages. However, the use of pesticides over the forest canopy necessitates a coordinated, controlled approach, including proper surveillance a nd assessment. Therefore, in the event that some forest canopy pest control is occurring in the unauthoriz ed areas, incremental compliance costs associated with pesticide use are unlikely.

Total Potential Costs Incremental compliance costs associated with pesticide use are minimal since any entities currently using pesticides for this use pattern wi ll routinely conduct these activities as part of their tasks. Thus, total costs for pesticide use for forest canopy pest control are assumed to be minimal.53 May 2010 5.1.3. Summary of Technology-Based Effluent Limitation Costs

Table 5-8 shows the estimated unit costs of th e permit requirements for each use pattern. As shown in the table, the availability and prevalence of cost data varies fo r each permit requirement and use pattern. For mosquito and other flying insect pest control, the potential unit costs provided are midpoints for ranges of potential costs. That is, for identifying the problem, small operators (most likely small municipalities) cost s are expected to fall within the range of $15,000-$24,000 for all related activities. For la rger operators (e.g. multi-county mosquito abatement districts), costs asso ciated with identifying the pr oblem are expected to be $15,000- $369,000. The range of costs for pest manage ment activities range from $7,000-$389,000 per entity. Given that a many of the entities are likely to be relatively small, EPA believes that most will incur costs more towards the lower end of the range of potential costs. However, to be conservative (i.e., erring on the side of greater impacts) the midpoint estimate will be used to reflect potential unit costs in this analysis.

Table 5-8: Summary of Estimated Unit Costs Requirement Potential Unit Cost Description and Source Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Identify the problem: Species/target densities

Mapping breeding sites

Municipality-level costs $99,000/entity

$112,000/entity

$20,000/entity Midpoint of surveillance expenditures in mosquito control districts in MA (MADEP, 2009; MDAR, 2008). Midpoint of expenditures in mosquito control districts in MA (MADEP, 2009; MDAR, 2008) and costs estimated for Idaho ISDA (2009). Average annual cost for problem identification for municipalities in New Hampshire (McGregor, 2009; NHDHHS, 2010) Pest management Regional-level costs

Municipality-level costs $195,000/entity

$800/entity Midpoint cost for implementing water management and vegetation and sediment removal in mosquito control districts in MA (MADEP, 2009; MDAR, 2008)

Low end of range for implementing water management and vegetation and sediment removal in mosquito control districts in MA (MADEP, 2009; MDAR, 2008) Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Identify the problem $100/acre Su rveying costs; Coble (2009) Pest management $50/acre - $500/acre 1 Illustrative only; represents potential feasible cost difference between pesticide use and use of alternative method 2 Pesticide use $100/acre Surveillance monitoring of aquatic weed treatments; ISDA (2009) Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control NA NA NA Forest Canopy Pest Control NA NA NA NA = not applicable (no incremental costs identified). 1. Assumed for half of affected acres, for illustration. 2. Actual unit costs of feasible alternatives to traditional pesticide use will be site- and entity-specific.

EPA uses the unit costs and estima tes of potentially affected facili ties that would be required to implement the technology-based effluent limita tion to estimate potenti al costs under each use pattern. The potential costs ar e summarized in Table 5-9.54 May 2010 Table 5-9: Summary of Estimated Annual Technology- based Effluent Limitation Costs ($/yr)

Area Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest

Control 1 Aquatic Weed and

Algae Control 1 Aquatic Nuisance

Animal Control Forest Canopy Pest Control Total

Alaska $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Idaho $4,017,000 $7,000 - $21,000 $0 $0 $4,024,000 - $4,038,000

Massachusetts $0 $25,000 - $69,000 $0 $0 $25,000 - $69,000

New Hampshire $35,000 $10,000 - $53,000 $0 $0 $45,000 - $88,000 New Mexico $2,535,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,535,000

Oklahoma $21,000 $25,000 - $50,000 $0 $0 $46,000 - $71,000 District of Columbia $195,000 $0 $0 $0 $195,000 Territories $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Tribes $104,000 - $354,000 $36,000 - $73,000 $0 $0 $140,000 - $427,000

Federal Facilities $4,060,000 $508,000 - $1,016,000 $0 $0 $4,568,000 - $5,076,000

Total $10,967,000 - $11,217,000 $611,000 - $1,282,000 $0 $0 $11,578,000 - $12,499,000 1. Includes illustrative cost estimate for pest management based on potential feasible net incremental costs; actual costs will be siteand entity-specific.

As presented in Table 5-9, tota l potential costs of complying w ith the technology-based effluent limitations under the draft PGP could range from approximately $11.6 million to $12.5 million. Note that most of the costs are attributable to identifying the problem and pest management requirements under the mosquito control use patt ern. These costs are highly uncertain and entity-specific; actual costs may be higher or lower than estimated.



### 5.2. Administrative and Monitoring This section provides estimates of the potenti al costs that may be associated with the administrative and monitoring provisions of the draft PGP. To estimate potential administrative and monitori ng costs, EPA identified the likely level of effort (e.g., number of hours) as sociated with performing each act ivity and the potential cost of that effort (e.g., average wage rate) based on best professional judgment. Labor categories likely to be involved in administrativ e and monitoring tasks include mana gerial, technical, and clerical. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes base mean annual wage rates in its Occupational Employment Survey (OES, 2008), and an Empl oyment Cost Index (ECI, 2009) to update the wage rates to 2009 values to acc ount for inflation. As discussed in Section 3, entities may use their own employees for pesticide applications or contract out th e services. EPA used average government and commercial wage rates to estimate administrative and monitoring costs assuming that each entity is equally likely to use either government or commercial labor. For state and local governments, EPA included em ployee benefits in th e wage rate, and for commercial applicators, included benefits, overhead, and profit in estimating total labor rates. The BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compen sation (ECEC, 2009) provides estimates for benefit markups for governments (benefits account for approximately 25% of the total labor55 May 2010 rate), and PSMJ (2009) indicates that the wage rate multiplier is 3.05 for commercial/engineering firms. Table 5-10 presents the estimated labor cost by labor category; rates for managers reflect OES category 11-9121, Natural Sciences Managers ; technical staff refl ect OES category 9-4091, Environmental Science and Protec tion Technicians, Incl uding Health; and clerical staff reflect OES category 43-0000, Office and Administ rative Support Occupations State.

Table 5-10: Estimated Labor Cost ($/hour)

Labor Category State Government 1 Local Government 1 Commercial 2 Average 3

Managers $51 $64 $167 $113 Technical $38 $38 $63 $51 Clerical $29 $28 $53 $41 Note: Detail may not add to total due to independent rounding. Sources: BLS OES (2008); BLS EC I (2009); BLS ECEC (2009). 1. Mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollars; includes cost of employee benefits. 2. Mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollars; includes cost of employee benefits, overhead cost, and profit (estimated based on a total wage rate multiplier of 3.05). 3. Represents average of government rates (state and local government average) and commercial rate.

The following sections describe the estimated leve l of effort that may be necessary to comply with the various requirements, and the calculation of potential costs (both total and implied annual for activities performed once per permit term).

5.2.1. Notice of Intent Entities must submit an NOI electronically. Given that potential entities will submit an NOI electronically, the burden associated with this requirement is like ly two hours or less of technical and managerial staff time to identify a need and complete an accurate submission. Table 5-11 shows the calculation of potential costs for submitting an NOI. Table 5-11: Potential Costs for NOI Submittal
Labor Category Rate 1 ($/hour) Hours Total Cost Average Annual Cost 2 Managerial $113 1 $113 $23 Technical $51 1 $51 $10 Total na 2 $164 $33 Note: detail may not add to total due to independent rounding. na: not applicable 1. See Table 5-10. 2. Total cost divided by the permit term (5 years).

For this analysis, EPA assumed that affected entities submit no more than one NOI per use pattern. Affected state entities may submit sepa rate NOIs by use pattern because there may be different agencies involved in th e different activities. However, private entities are likely to submit only one NOI for all applic able use patterns (e.g., industrial facilities controlling both aquatic weeds and algae and aquatic nuisan ce animals at intake structures).

5.2.2. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan

PDMPs document the evaluation and selection of c ontrol measures to meet the technology-based effluent limitations and minimize discharges. These plans may cover one or more treatment areas within one plan, and can re ference other documents (such as pre-existing integrated pest management plan). Thus, the cost to develop th e PDMP will vary based on the extent of pest56 May 2010 problems and pesticide use, as well as existing do cumentation that may be referenced to fulfill plan requirements. Entities that have been evaluating pest problems and alternative management methods, and commercial entities that apply pestic ides and that can readily provide procedures including incident response plans, may have si gnificant relevant materi al already compiled and available. Table 5-12 provides estimates of the average level of effort that might be required to prepare PDMPs; the actual level of effo rt may be higher or lower than shown depending on the number of treatment areas covered, the e xperience of the applicator in preparing PDMPs, and the amount of existing material available. The majority of this effort is likely to be performed by environmental science professionals (e.g., 90%), w ith managerial review (e.g., 5%) and clerical support (e.g., 5%). Table 5-13 presents the po tential costs associated with these efforts (approximately $2,100 per plan).

Table 5-12: Potential Level of Effort to Prepare PDMP Required Documentation Level of Effort (hours) PDMP Team: All staff working on pest management and PDMP 1 Pest Management Area Description: Pest problem description, action thresholds, map, and water quality standards 16
Control Measures Description: Docu mentation of evaluation of control measures, including active ingredients evaluated 14 Schedules and Procedures: Documentation pertaining to control measures and other actions to minimize discharges 8 Eligibility: Documentation of consider ations under othe r federal laws 1 TOTAL 40

Table 5-13: Potential Cost to Produce PDMP

Labor Category Rate 1 ($/hour) Hours Total Cost Annual Cost 2 Managerial $113 2 $226 $45 Technical $51 36 $1,836 $367 Clerical $41 2 $82 $16 Total na 40 $2,144 $429 Note: detail may not add to total due to independent rounding. na: not applicable

1. See Table 5-10. 2. Total cost divided by the permit term (5 years).

5.2.3. Recordkeeping Since entities are likely to keep an electronic copy of the permit (and already have filing capacity for backup paper files including a ny correspondence with EPA), as well as prepare and save the PDMP, NOI, annual reports, and an y adverse incident reports electr onically, the level of effort associated with these recordkeeping requirements is not likely to exceed two hours of clerical staff time annually. The additional recordkeeping by entities requir ed to submit an NOI will likely be kept by technical staff at the time of application, and incr emental level of effort of may be approximately one-half of an hour. Thus, the total level of effort will depend on the number of pesticide applications, which will vary by entity. For exam ple, Table 5-14 presents the potential annual cost based on an average of eight pesticide appl ications annually per ent ity (i.e., four hours for57 May 2010 recordkeeping annually), which may cover more th an one use pattern or only one use pattern, depending on the entity type and size.

Table 5-14: Potential Recordkeeping Costs
Category Level of Effort (Number of Hours) Labor Rate 1 ($/hour) Annual Cost
Entities Submitting NOIs 2 4 $51 $204 Entities not Submitting NOIs 2 $41 $82

1. See Table 5-10. 2. Level of effort based on an average of eight pesticide applications per year per entity.

5.2.4. Reporting Since annual reports may be submitted electronica lly and the records required for the report are also likely to be electronic, EPA assumes that the level of effort associated with this requirement may be approximately two hours of technical (or clerical staff) time per year. Table 5-15 presents the potential annual cost assuming tech nical staff familiar with the records will submit the annual report.

Table 5-15: Potential Reporting Cost
Labor Category Rate 1 ($/hour) Hours Annual Cost

Technical $51 2 $102

1. See Table 5-10.

5.2.5. Site Monitoring Site monitoring may add an additional quarter ho ur per site monitored, and entities may monitor one or more sites per pesticide application. For consistency with the assumptions used to calculate potential recordkeeping costs, Table 5- 16 presents the potential costs based on entities that exceed the threshold conducting an average of ei ght applications annually. For entities that do not exceed the threshold, pesticid e applications are likely to be fewer; Table 5-16 presents costs based on an average of two applications per year.

Table 5-16: Potential Site Monitoring Cost
Category Level of Effort 1 (Number of Hours) Labor Rate 2 ($/hour) Annual Cost
Entities Submitting NOIs 3 4 $51 $204 Entities not Submitting NOIs 4 1 $51 $51 na: not applicable 1. Based on 0.25 hours for monitoring per site.

2. See Table 5-10. 3. Based on two sites monitored per application, and an average of eight pestici de applications per year. 4. Based on two sites monitored per application, and an average of two pesticide applications per year.

5.2.6. Total Annual Costs Table 5-17 provides a summary of the potential annual administra tive and monitoring costs. Entities that exceed annual treatment area thresh olds may incur annual costs of approximately $960 per year. Entities that do not exceed annual tr eatment area thresholds may incur cost of approximately $130 annually.58 May 2010 Table 5-17: Summary of Potential Annual Administra tive and Monitoring Costs by Component

Requirement Entities Exceeding Threshold Entities Not Exceeding Threshold NOI $30 NA
PDMP $430 NA Recordkeeping $200 $80 Reporting $100 NA Site Monitoring $200 $50 Total $960 $130

Numbers in table are rounded for ease of calculation. NA: not applicable NOI: Notice of Intent PDMP: Pesticide Discharge Management Plan

The total magnitude of administrative and mon itoring costs will depend on the total number of entities seeking coverage under the draft PGP, and the applicability of the different requirements. Based on the estimates of potentially affected entit ies and number likely to exceed the thresholds presented in Section 3, Table 5-18 shows the calculation of potential total administrative and monitoring costs by use pattern.59 May 2010 Table 5-18: Administrative and Monitoring Costs ($/yr) Potential Annual Cost ($/yr) 1
Area Entities Above Threshold Entities Below Threshold Total Annual Costs Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Alaska $0 $300 $300 Idaho $22,000 $0 $22,000 Massachusetts $9,000 $0 $9,000 New Hampshire $42,000 $0 $42,000 New Mexico $12,000 $0 $12,000 Oklahoma $1,000 $0 $1,000 District of Columbia $1,000 $0 $1,000 Territories $1,000 $0 $1,000 Tribes $5,000 - $16,000 $0 - $2,000 $5,000 - $18,000 Federal Facilities $10,000 $0 $10,000 Subtotal $103,000 - $114,000 $300 - $2,300 $103,000 - $116,000 Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Alaska $1,000 $42,000 $43,000 Idaho $8,000 $2,120,000 $2,128,000 Massachusetts $26,000 $275,000 $301,000 New Hampshire $25,000 $79,000 $104,000 New Mexico $1,000 $1,332,000 $1,333,000 Oklahoma $59,000 $488,000 $547,000 District of Columbia $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 Territories $6,000 $37,000 $43,000 Tribes $16,000 $9,000 $25,000 Federal Facilities $10,000 $0 $10,000 Subtotal $153,000 $4,383,000 $4,536,000 Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Alaska $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 Idaho $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 Massachusetts $1,000 $3,000 $4,000 New Hampshire $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 New Mexico $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 Oklahoma $1,000 $9,000 $10,000 District of Columbia $1,000 $0 $1,000 Territories $6,000 $4,000 $10,000 Tribes $16,000 $1,000 $17,000 Federal Facilities $10,000 $0 $10,000 Subtotal $39,000 $22,000 $61,000 Forest Canopy Pest Control Alaska $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 Idaho $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 Massachusetts $2,000 $28,000 $30,000 New Hampshire $1,000 $11,000 $12,000 New Mexico $1,000 $3,000 $4,000 Oklahoma $2,000 $20,000 $22,000 District of Columbia $0 $0 $0 Territories $10,000 $0 $10,000 Tribes $48,000 $0 $48,000 Federal Facilities $28,000 $0 $28,000 Subtotal $95,000 $70,000 $165,000 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 1. Calculated by multiplying estimates from Table 3-2

, Table 3-7

, Table 3-10 , and Table 3-12 by $960 (exceed threshold) and $130 (do not exceed threshold).60 May 2010 Table 5-19 provides a summary of the potential annual administra tive and monitoring costs. Aquatic weed and algae control accounts for ove r 90% of the administrative and monitoring costs (approximately $4.5 million) due to the potentia l applicability of the draft PGP to operators of irrigated farms. However, as discussed in Section 3, there is substantial uncertainty surrounding the estimates of number of affected entities in this categ ory. This uncertainty in turn translates to substantial uncertainty associat ed with the estimates of administrative and monitoring costs.

Table 5-19: Summary of Potential Annual Admini strative and Monitoring Costs ($/yr)

Area Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest

Control Aquatic Weed and Algae

Control Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Forest Canopy Pest Control Total

Alaska $300 $43,000 $3,000 $3,000 $49,300 Idaho $22,000 $2,128,000 $2,000 $8,000 $2,160,000 Massachusetts $9,000 $301,000 $4,000 $30,000 $344,000 New Hampshire $42,000 $104,000 $2,000 $12,000 $160,000 New Mexico $12,000 $1,333,000 $2,000 $4,000 $1,351,000 Oklahoma $1,000 $547,000 $10,000 $22,000 $580,000 District of Columbia $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $4,000 Territories $1,000 $43,000 $10,000 $10,000 $64,000
Tribes $5,000 - $18,000 $25,000 $17,000 $48,000 $95,000 - $108,000 Federal Facilities $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $28,000 $58,000

Total $103,000 - $116,000 $4,536,000 $61,000 $165,000 $4,865,000 - 4,878,000 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.



### 5.3. Summary of Costs Table 5-20 provides a summary of total technology-based effluentlimitations and administrative and monitoring requirements for entities above and below annual treatment area thresholds for each use pattern. Table 5-21 provides a summ ary of the total a nnual costs across the unauthorized areas and use patt erns. Since EPA did not iden tify any incremental technologybased effluent limitation requirements (due to es timated current compliance) for aquatic nuisance animal control and forest canopy pest control, total costs for these use patterns represent administrative and monitoring costs only. Appr oximately 40% of the total estimated costs represent administrative and m onitoring costs. As discusse d above, there is substantial uncertainty surrounding these costs. However, ther e are also substantial un certainties associated with the estimation of the technology-based efflue nt limitation costs. The key uncertainties in the analysis are described further in Table 5-22.61 May 2010 Table 5-20: Total Estimated Costs For Entities Ab ove and Below Treatment Thresholds ($/yr) 1 Mosquito and Other

Flying Insect Pest Aquatic Weed and Algae Aquatic Nuisance Animal Forest Canopy

Area Above Below Above Below Above Below Above Below Alaska $0 $300 $1,000 $42,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $2,000 Idaho $4,039,000 $0 $29,000 $2, 120,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $6,000 Massachusetts $9,000 $0 $95,000 $275,000 $1,000 $3,000 $2,000 $28,000 New Hampshire $77,000 $0 $78,000 $79,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $11,000 New Mexico $2,547,000 $0 $1,000 $1,332,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 Oklahoma $22,000 $0 $109,000 $488,000 $1,000 $9,000 $2,000 $20,000 District of Columbia $196,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Territories $1,000 $0 $6,000 $37,000 $6,000 $4,000 $10,000 $0 Tribes $370,000 $2,000 $89,000 $9,000 $16,000 $1,000 $48,000 $0 Federal Facilities $4,070,000 $0 $1,026,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $28,000 $0
Total $11,331,000 $2,300 $1,435,000 $4,383,00 0 $39,000 $22,000 $95,000 $70,000

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 1. Represents high end of cost ranges only.

Table 5-21: Summary of Total Estimated Costs ($/yr) 1

Area Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest

Control Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Aquatic Nuisance

Animal Control Forest Canopy

Pest Control Total

Alaska $300 $43,000 $3,000 $3,000 $49,300 - $49,300

Idaho $4,039,000 $2,135,000 - $2,149,000 $2,000 $8,000 $6,184,000 - $6,198,000

Massachusetts $9,000 $326,000 - $370,000 $4,000 $30,000 $369,000 - $413,000

New Hampshire $77,000 $114,000 - $157,000 $2,000 $12,000 $205,000 - $248,000 New Mexico $2,547,000 $1,333, 000 $2,000 $4,000 $3,886,000

Oklahoma $22,000 $572,000 - $597,000 $10,000 $22,000 $626,000 - $651,000 District of Columbia $196, 000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $199,000 Territories $1,000 $43,0 00 $10,000 $10,000 $64,000

Tribes $109,000 - $372,000 $61,000 - $98,000 $17,000 $48,000 $235,000 - $535,000

Federal Facilities $4,070,000 $518,000 - $1,026,000 $10,000 $28,000 $4,626,000 - $5,134,000

Total $11,070,000 - $11,333,000 $5,147,000 - $5,818,000 $61,000 $165,000 $16,443,000 - $17,377,000 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

1. See Table 5-9 and Table 5-19.62 May 2010 Table 5-22: Key Uncertainties of the Analysis Uncertainty/Assumption Comment

All irrigated farms affected; no nonirrigated farms affected Information on the extent to wh ich farmers treat ditch banks that lead to waters of the United States with pesticides for aquatic weed and algae control is not available. The estimated administrative and monitoring costs for irrigated farm s comprise almost 25% of the total estimated costs.
Number of private forest owners affected Information on the number of priv ate forest owners in unauthorized areas, whether owners manage the forests using pesticides, and the number of acres treated is not available. Affected entities and current compliance in territories, tribal lands, and federal facilities Relatively little information was available regarding the use patterns in these areas. The analysis reflects illustrative estimates of affected entities and the assumption of no current compliance.

Incremental costs to comply with technology-based effluent limitations Incremental costs will be highly site- and entity-specific. Majority of costs reflect expenditures associat ed with problem identification (mosquito control) and pest management (mosquito and aquatic weed control); actual unit costs may be substantially higher or lower. Number of right-of-way ditch banks potentially affected by the draft PGP. Sufficient information is not available on the location or number of right-of-way ditch banks; costs for these ditches could include surveillance and monitoring. Number of affected entities for aquatic weed control based on number of water acres treated and average water size in each state. Water sizes vary greatly. Thus, the actual number of potentially affected entities could be higher or lower than estimated.

The estimated costs vary substantially by type of entity. Table 5-23 through Table 5-26 show potential average costs for the entities exceed ing and not exceeding annual treatment area thresholds by use pattern; actual costs incurred by the different entities may be higher or lower than the averages shown. As illustrated by the tables, the highest costs are potentially borne by entities exceeding annual treatment area thresholds performing mosquito and other flying insect pest control. Costs associated with the draf t PGP for mosquito and ot her flying insect pest control may be in the range of $200,000 to $400,000 annually, reflecting both costs to comply with technology-based effluent limitations and administrative and monitoring requirements. However, some areas (Massachusetts) may be larg ely in compliance and thus incur only minimal administrative and monitoring costs (approxima tely $1,000), while others may incur higher costs. For example, unit costs for federal fac ility mosquito control a nd aquatic weed control entities are higher because EPA assumes that none of the draft PGP requirements are currently being implemented (due to a lack of data to th e contrary). Average entity-level costs for the other use patterns primarily reflect ad ministrative and monitoring costs only.63 May 2010 Table 5-23: Potential Average Entity Costs for Mos quito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control 1 Average Cost/Entity ($/yr) Unauthorized Area Above Threshold Below Threshold Alaska $0 $200 Idaho $175,600 $0 Massachusetts $1,000 $0 New Hampshire $1,800 $0 New Mexico $195,900 $0 Oklahoma $22,000 $0 District of Columbia $196,000 $0 Territories $1,000 $0 Tribes $21,800 $200 Federal facilities $407,000 $0 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 1. Based on dividing total potential costs from Table 5-20 by number of affected entities from Table 3-2 (high end of range only).

Table 5-24: Potential Average Entity Costs for Aquatic Weed and Algae Control 1 Average Cost/Entity ($/yr) Area Above Below Alaska $1,000 $100 Idaho $3,600 $100 Massachusetts $3,500 $100 New Hampshire $3,000 $100 New Mexico $1,000 $100 Oklahoma $1,800 $100 District of Columbia $1,000 $100 Territories $2,000 $100 Tribes $5,200 $100 Federal Facilities $102,600 $0 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 1. Based on dividing total potential costs from Table 5-20 by number of affected entities from Table 3-7 (high end of range only).

Table 5-25: Potential Average Entity Costs for Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control 1 Average Cost/Entity ($/yr) Unauthorized Area Above Threshold Below Threshold Alaska $1,000 $100 Idaho $1,000 $100 Massachusetts $1,000 $100 New Hampshire $1,000 $100 New Mexico $1,000 $100 Oklahoma $1,000 $100 District of Columbia $1,000 $0 Territories $1,000 $100 Tribes $900 $100 Federal facilities $1,000 $0 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 1. Based on dividing total potential costs from Table 5-20 by number of affected entities from Table 3-10 (high end of range only).64 May 2010 Table 5-26: Potential Average Entity Cost s for Forest Canopy Pest Control 1 Average Cost/Entity ($/yr) Unauthorized Area Above Threshold Below Threshold Alaska $1,000 $100 Idaho $1,000 $100 Massachusetts $1,000 $100 New Hampshire $1,000 $100 New Mexico $1,000 $100 Oklahoma $1,000 $100 District of Columbia $0 $0 Territories $1,000 $0 Tribes $1,000 $0 Federal facilities $1,000 $0 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 1. Based on dividing total potential costs from Table 5-20 by number of affected entities from Table 3-12 (high end of range only).65 May 2010 

### 6. Small Entity Analysis

6.1. Identification of Small Entities A small entity may be:

• A small business according to SBA (Small Bu siness Administration) size standards;

• A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or

• A small organization that is a not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

The SBA defines small businesses based on NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) codes and size standards expressed by th e number of employees or annual receipts (13 CFR §121.20). For each use pattern, EPA estimated the number of affected entities that meet the SBA definition of a small entity. For mosquito and other flying insect pest cont rol, information availa ble suggests that most entities are county and local gove rnments. MADEP (2009) identif ies the municipalities covered by each of its nine mosquito control districts. Based on municipality populations, Census data indicates that there are several towns within th e districts that would not be considered small entities because their po pulations are greater than 50,000. Howe ver, even with size information, it is uncertain how the control costs would be a pportioned to each municipality. Therefore, EPA assumes all the municipalities are small. There is no information on the specific entities responsible for mosquito control in Alaska , Idaho, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and the affected territories and tribes. Therefore, for screening purpose s, EPA assumes that all of the entities are also small. Federal facilities do not represent small entities , and the District of Columbia and Tulsa, Oklahoma have populat ions over 50,000 and do not represent small entities. Thus, based on the in formation available, EPA estima tes that there are potentially 115 entities (not including the indivi dual municipalities potentially cove red by each control district) that could be small entities. For aquatic weed and algae control, the informa tion available suggests that most of the entities required to implement the technology-based effl uent limitations are municipalities, except in New Mexico where two state agencies are responsi ble for such activities. Because there is no information identifying which municipalities would be affected, for the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all of the poten tially affected governmental entities may be small (201 total), excluding New Mexico. Based on data in SDWIS on populations served, EPA also assumes that the potentially affected public drinking water utilities (1,312) may be small. There is no information available identifying the farms ( 31,636), industrial surface water intake facilities (427), and private land owners ( 263) that may be affected; thus , for this analysis, EPA also assumes that entities in these categories may be small entities. Because EPA assumes that rightof-way ditches are treated on a state-level by the Department of Transportation, these entities would not be small. Thus, based on the inform ation available, EPA estimates that there are potentially 33,838 entities that could be small entities.66 May 2010 For aquatic nuisance animal contro l, EPA assumes that governmental activities are more likely to be conducted at the state or territ ory level by a single entity rather than controlled by individual municipalities. Affected entities are likely to be large, even if on the county-level. However, there is no information identifying which tribes ma y be affected. For this analysis, EPA assumes that potentially affected tribal entities (17 under aquatic nuisan ce animal control) are small. Similar to above, EPA assumes that the potentially affected industrial fac ilities (43) and drinking water utilities (132) with surf ace water intakes are small. Thus, based on the information available, EPA estimates that there are potentia lly 192 entities that coul d be small entities. For forest canopy pest control, EPA assumes that governmental activities are more likely to be conducted at the state level by a si ngle entity rather than controlle d by individual municipalities. Consequently, these entities are like ly to be large, even if on the county-level. However, there is no information identifying which particular trib es may be affected. For this analysis, EPA assumes that potentially affected tribal entities (33 under forest canopy pest control) are small. Private forest owners may be large or small en tities, depending on sales; small business size thresholds vary based on the a pplicable industrial categories. There is no information available regarding the private forest owners that may be affected, their indus trial classificati on, or sales. Thus, based on the information available, EP A estimates that there are potentially 33 governments that may be small entities, and that some portion of the 574 potentially affected private forest owners may also be small entities.



### 6.2. Evaluating Potential Economic Impact Because the specific entities that may be affect ed by the draft PGP is uncertain, evaluating the potential economic impact based on revenues or sales is not possible. However, EPA can estimate the applicable thresholds below which average per entity compliance costs could exceed a percentage of annual revenues/sa les (Table 6-1 and Table 6.2). For this analysis, EPA used percentages of 1% and 3% of re venues/sales to characterize the potential for significant impacts on small entities.67 May 2010 Table 6-1: Average Compliance Costs for Entities Exceeding Annual Treatment Area Thresholds and Potential Revenue Threshold Values for Char acterizing Impacts to Small Governments

Revenue Threshold Values 2

Area Average Cost per Entity, Exceed

Threshold 1% 3% Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Idaho $175,600 $17,560,000 $5,853,333 Massachusetts $1,000 $100,000 $33,333 New Hampshire $1,800 $180,000 $60,000 New Mexico $195,900 $19,590,000 $6,530,000 Territories $1,000 $100,000 $33,333 Tribes $21,800 $2,180,000 $726,667 Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Alaska $1,000 $100,000 $33,333 Idaho $3,600 $360,000 $120,000 Massachusetts $3,500 $350,000 $116,667 New Hampshire $3,000 $300,000 $100,000 Oklahoma $1,800 $180,000 $60,000 Tribes $5,200 $520,000 $173,333 Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Tribes $900 $90,000 $30,000 Forest Canopy Pest Control Tribes $1,000 $100,000 $33,333

ne: not estimated

1. See Table 5-23, Table 5-24, Table 5-25, and Table 5-26. 2. Average per entity costs would exceed 1% or 3% of revenues if revenues are le ss than the values shown.

Table 6-2: Average Compliance Costs for Entities that do not Exceed Annual Treatment Area Thresholds and Potential Revenue Threshold Va lues for Characterizing Impacts to Small Governments Revenue Threshold Values 2 Unauthorized Area Average Cost/Entity 1 1% 3% Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control Alaska $200 $20,000 $6,667 Tribes $200 $20,000 $6,667 Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Alaska $100 $10,000 $3,333 Idaho $100 $10,000 $3,333 Massachusetts $100 $10,000 $3,333 New Hampshire $100 $10,000 $3,333 Oklahoma $100 $10,000 $3,333 Tribes $100 $10,000 $3,333 Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control Tribes $100 $10,000 $3,333 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. ne: not estimated

1. See Table 5-23, Table 5-24, Table 5-25, and Table 5-26. 2. Average per entity costs would exceed 1% or 3% of revenues if revenues are le ss than the values shown.68 May 2010 For comparison, Table 6-3 shows the average revenues in municipali ties and counties with populations of 50,000, 25,000, and 10,000 people for each of the affected areas (territory revenues calculated based on nati onal average per capita estimate s; there is no information on tribal revenues, particularly for smaller tribes, to include tribes in the table).

Table 6-3: Municipality and County Revenues based on Average Per Capita Revenues 1 50k Population 25k Population 10k Population

Affected Area Per Capita Revenue Revenue Per Capita Revenue Revenue Per Capita Revenue Revenue

Municipalities Alaska 2 $3,136 $156,800,000 $3,136 $78,400,000 $2,477 $24,770,000

Idaho $836 $41,800,000 $594 $14,850,000 $774 $7,740,000 Massachusetts 3 $2,875 $143,750,000 $2,378 $59, 450,000 $23,778 $237,780,000 New Hampshire $2,062 $103,100,0 00 $2,375 $59,375,000 $2,192 $21,920,000

New Mexico $1,841 $92,050,000 $1,458 $36,450,000 $1,299 $12,990,000

Oklahoma $1,569 $78,450,000 $1, 283 $32,075,000 $1,104 $11,040,000 Territories $1,401 $70,050,000 $1,417 $35,425,000 $1,215 $12,150,000 Counties Alaska $2,706 $135,300,000 $3,084 $77,100,000 $17,025 $170,250,000 Idaho $641 $32,050,000 $620 $15, 500,000 $1,258 $12,580,000 Massachusetts 4 $841 $42,050,000 $841 $21,025,000 $841 $8,410,000 New Hampshire 4 $456 $22,800,000 $456 $11,400,000 $456 $4,560,000 New Mexico $532 $26,600,000 $1,559 $38,975,000 $879 $8,790,000

Oklahoma $323 $16,150,000 $473 $11,825,000 $680 $6,800,000 Territories $854 $42,700,000 $883 $22,075,000 $1,151 $11,510,000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2002). 1. Based on average per capita revenues for municipalities with populations between 49,999 and 25,000; 24,999 and 10,000; and less than 10,000, respectively. 2. Revenue for 25k population based on average per capita revenue for municipalities with 24,999 to 50,000. 3. Revenue for 10k population based on average per capita revenue for municipalities with 10,000 to 24,999. 4. Revenue for all populations based on average per capita revenue for municipalities with 10,000 to 24,999.

As shown by comparing values in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 with those in Table 6-3, the relativ e magnitude of per entity compliance cost in comparison to estimated revenues of different size small governments varies by area. For example, for mosquito control in New Hampshir e, average revenues for municipalities of each size category are above the revenue thresholds that would result in compliance costs being more than 1% and 3% of annual revenues. Based on average compliance costs and per capita revenues for municipalities with less than 10,000 people, small entities in New Hampshire exceeding treatment thresholds would have to serve popul ations less than 82 ($180,000/$2,192) for costs to exceed 1% of revenues and less than 27 ($60,000/$2,192) fo r costs to exceed 3% of revenues.

In contrast, for mosquito control in Idaho, muni cipalities and counties wi th populations less than 25,000 that exceed treatment thresholds could have compliance costs greater than 1% of annual revenues. Compliance costs could also exceed 1% or 3% of revenues for entities with larger populations if per capita revenues are less than average or complia nce costs higher than average. Information from the 2007 Census of Agriculture indicates that average per farm revenues (market value of agricultural good sold) rang e from $113,916 to $433,901 for the affected areas69 May 2010 (USDA, 2007). Per entity costs for farm s may range from $100 to $200 (based on the assumption that all farmers have treatment areas below annual thresholds and would only incur a portion of the administrative and monitoring costs. These compliance costs could exceed 1% and 3% of sales if the an nual value of goods sold is below $10,000 to $20,000 and $3,000 to $7,000 respectively.
Similarly, private forest owners could incu r compliance costs ranging from $100 to $1,000 per year, depending on treatment area size. For th ese compliance costs to exceed 1% and 3% of revenues, annual revenues for private forest owners would need to be below $10,000 to $100,000 and $3,000 to $30,000, respectively.



### 6.3. Summary There is very limited data available to identify the specific entities potentially affected by the draft PGP or to determine the exact number of entities considered to be small governments/businesses or their applicable re venues for comparison to potential compliance costs to determine the economic impact.
Under a conservative (i.e., erri ng on the side of greater impact s) scenario, approximately 35,000 small entities could incur comp liance costs under the four use patterns, including those that would not incur costs associated with technology-based effluent limitations. Lack of revenue data precludes estimating the number of thes e entities for which compliance costs could represent a significant por tion of revenues or sales. However, data on average revenues/sales for municipalities, counties, and irrigated farms provi des some indication of the likelihood of level of impact, which varies across the un authorized areas and by use pattern.70 May 2010 

### 7. Qualitative Discussion of Benefits

This section provides discussion of the potential benefits of the draft PGP. Information is not available to quantify or monetize beneficial impacts. However, the published literature suggests that pesticides covered under th e draft PGP may have adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems. As a result, reducing loadings of these pesticides through the IPM practices and pesticide use plans required under the draft PGP, may lead to ecological benefits and associated values.



### 7.1. Potential for Reduced Loadings Although there is no information on baseline pollutant loadings under the four use patterns in the unauthorized areas 9 , or the extent to which these loadings will be reduced under the draft PGP, the permit may contribute to water quality related benefits if the actions taken lead to reduced loadings of pollutants associated with adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems. The draft PGP includes two types of requirement s that could have th e effect of reducing pesticide loadings: technology- based effluent limitations and administrative and monitoring requirements. The technology-based efflue nt limitation requirements include minimizing pesticide discharges to waters of the United States, and implementing IPM practices. IPM practices include alternatives to traditional pesticide use, if feasible, and consideration of environmental conditions when using pesticides. The administrative and monitoring requirements include developing PDMPs and site monitoring for adverse incidents. The evaluation and just ification of practices surrounding pesticide use involved in developing PDMPs may result in cha nges to current pesticide use practices, and fewer discharges to waters of the United St ates. Monitoring for a nd reporting of adverse incidents may have the effect of reducing loadings to the extent that dischargers observe, report, and address adverse environmental impacts th rough changes in application practices. Information and data obtained through the repo rting requirements may enable confirmation of such an effect in the future. 10



### 7.2. Potential Adverse Effects A ssociated with Pesticides Pesticides, although typically desi gned to target a narrow range of species, nonetheless may have unintended adverse impacts on othe r aquatic species and plants. Information on the extent of adverse impacts on aquatic ecosys tems associated with pesticid e discharges under the four use patterns in the unauthorized area is not availabl e. Many aquatic herbicid es, which are introduced to water, do not persist for signifi cant periods of time in aquatic e nvironments. For example, this characteristic is shown in studies of copper herbicides which are 100- 200% less toxic after one week than upon initial applica tion (Mastin and Rodgers, 2000).
However, the draft PGP covers a large number of active i ngredients in pesticid es across the four use patterns (see Appendix A). Presence of some of these pollu tants in aquatic environments may lead to adverse effects on a quatic ecosystems. For example, Table 7-1 presents findings from the published literature regarding potential for adverse effects of several of the active ingredients.

9 Although total quantity sold of the various pesticides ma y be reported, information on the four use patterns covered by the draft PGP, and resulting discharges to waters of the United States, is lacking.

10 Thus, there may also be information benefits stemming from the draft PGP.71 May 2010 Table 7-1: Potential Toxic Effects of Pesticides Chemical Toxic Effects Adulticides Carbaryl 1 Branchial, hepatic, and renal lesions in fish (Gill et al., 1988) Chlorpyrifos 1 Highly toxic to freshwater fish, aqu atic invertebrates, and estuarine and marine organisms (EPA, 2002) Esfenvalerate 1 Interferes with salmonid sensory processes critical to migration (Sandahl, 2004) Ethofenprox Sublethal effects to freshwat er fish including erratic swimming, changes in opercu lar movement, loss of equilibrium, mucus secretion. (Muniyan and Veeraraghavan, 1999) Malathion 1 Impacts on minnow growth and reproduction at sufficient concentrations (Mount and Stephan, 1967) Naled (DDVP) Liver impacts on fish even at very low doses (Sakaguchi, 1972) Permethrin 1 Toxicity to some invertebrates at <1 ug/L (McLeesc et al., 1980) Pyrethrins 1 Less than 1 u/g can be toxic to some freshwater fish in some formulations (Mauck et al., 1976) Resmethrin 1 Toxic to some fish and invertebrate species in the range of 0.22-15.0 ug/L (Rand, 2002) Sumithrin (d-phenothrin) Concentrations as lo w as 1 ppb may be fatal to fish (Cox 2003) Larvicides Methoprene Sublethal impacts on endocri ne processes of invertebrates at even very low concentrations (Olmstead and LeBlanc, 2001) Aquatic Herbicides 2,4-D, 2-ethylhexyl ester Limited data available, but may be toxic effects on non-target species (APVMA, 2006) 2,4-D, butoxyethyl ester Limited data available, but may be toxic effects on non-target species (APVMA, 2006) 2-4,D 1 Liver, vascular, and neurological impacts on bluegills, with more severe effects at >5 ppm concentration (Cope et al., 1970) Copper ethanolamine complex Daphnia magna moderately sensitive to copper pesticides (Mastin and Rodgers, 2000) Copper ethylene diamine complex Daphnia magna moderately sensitive to copper pesticides (Mastin and Rodgers, 2000) Copper sulfate pentahydrate Daphnia magna moderate ly sensitive to copper pesticides (Mastin and Rodgers 2000) Diquat dibromide LC50 for some formulations has a 96-hr LC 50 of 0.74-4.9 mg/L (Paul et al., 1994) Fluridone Mildly toxic to fish (LC 50 for commercial formulations ranges 1.8-13 mg/L) (Paul et al., 1994) Imazapyr Slightly toxic to aquatic invert ebrates (Washington State Department of Agriculture, 2003) Penoxsulam Slightly toxic, NOAEC at 126 ppm, for the aquatic invertebrate Ramshorn snail (U.S. EPA, 2003) Triclopyr, triethylamine salt Moderately toxic to fi sh, mildly toxic to aquatic insects (Kreutzweiser et al., 1993) Fish Control Rotenone Substantial mortality at 17 μg/L in mysid (Naess et al., 1991); mortality impacts on white sucker at 9 to 14 μg/L (Holcombe et al., 1987); intoxication impacts on water flea at 2.5 to 5.5 μg/L (Rach et al., 1988). 1. Also used for forest canopy pest control.

Several of these pesticides persist in sediment or in fish tissue, albeit with significant variability among pesticide types and formulations. The a dulticides chlorpyrifos and esfenvalerate both persist in sediment, and chlorpyr ifos may also persist in fish tissue (Adelsbach and Tjeerdema,72 May 2010 2003; Extoxnet, 1993b). However, others, such as carbaryl and the larv acide methoprene, are less likely to persist (Fisher a nd Lohner, 1986; Des Lauriers, 2004).



### 7.3. Environmental Benefits Reducing surface water loadings for pesticides as sociated with adverse effects on aquatic life could have a beneficial impact on aquatic ecosystems. Thes e beneficial impacts may be associated with a variety of benefits. EPA broa dly classifies the types of benefits that are typically associated with environmental policies into those that directly affect human welfare (e.g., human health improvements, improved amenit ies) and those that affect human welfare through ecological systems or proce sses (i.e., ecological benefits). Ecological benefits (Table 7-2) include those stemming from direct and indirect use of na tural resources (e.g., recreation), as well as “nonuse” values derived from knowledge of the existence of clean resources and the desire to preserve resources for future generations.

Table 7-2: Types of Benefits Associated With Environmental Policies: Ecological Improvements Benefit Category Examples Market products

Recreation activities and aesthetics

Valued ecosystem functions

Nonuse values Harvests or extraction of food and other resources

Wildlife viewing, fishing, boating, swimming, hiking

Biodiversity, genetic library

Values held for the existence of species, populations, communities, or ecosystems Source: EPA (2000; 2008)

7.3.1. Ecological Benefits The primary impact of reducing pesticide loadin gs to waters of the United States will be improved water quality, which can have direct impacts on aquatic ecosystems. For example, many of the currently registered products covered by the draft PGP are used for eradicating adult mosquitoes (adulticides). As shown in Table 7-1, one laboratory study f ound that the freshwater fish Puntius conchonius , if given chronic exposure to the pest icide carbaryl, developed branchial, hepatic, and renal lesions (Gill et al., 1988). A nother study found that the adulticide ethofenprox caused lethal adverse impacts on the freshwater fish Oreochromis mossambicus at concentrations of 2.849 ppm and sublethal impacts beginning at c oncentrations of 1.305 ppm. These sublethal effects included erratic swimming, changes in opercular movement, loss of equilibrium, mucus secretion, and chromatic changes to sk in (Muniyan and Veeraraghavan, 1999). Other pesticide products covered under the draft PGP may also ha ve adverse impacts on wildlife and vegetation. For example, the mosquito larvicide fungus Lagendidium giganeum is known to greatly inhibit the reproduction of water fleas (cladocera) (Hel gen et al., 1987). Likewise, aquatic herbicides have the potential not only to impact plants other than those targeted by the application, but also aquatic wild life. One study showed the aqua tic herbicide copper sulfate to have an LC 50 of 18.9 μg/L for seven aquatic test species, the most sensitive being Daphnia

magna (Mastin and Rodgers, 2000). In addition to direct impacts on wildlife and ve getation, pesticide discharges may also impact overall ecosystem health and function. One exampl e of this is the aforem entioned impacts of the mosquito larvicide fungus Lagendidium giganeum on cladocerans. These small organisms are73 May 2010 critical determinants of the stru cture of aquatic ecosystems as a whole, and reductions in their numbers can impact the entire f ood web (Carpenter et al., 1985). By minimizing discharges of the pesticides shown in Table 7-1 to waters of the United States, the PGP will limit the potential for adverse health and mortality impacts to aquatic wildlife. As some fish species are vulnerable to these pe sticides, it is possible that pesticide loading reductions could have positive impacts on fisherie s. For any pollutants that accumulate in the system (e.g., chlorpyrifos in sediments and fi sh tissue), reduced loadings will reduce the potential for accumulation and toxicity to aquatic life (from exposure to accumulated pesticides in sediments), and potential future remediation efforts.

7.3.2. Ecological Benefit Values Estimating the value of reducing adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems (or improvements in the health of aquatic ecosystems) that result from reductions in loadings und er the draft PGP would require data and information that are not currently available, including: baseline pollutant loadings, change in loadings, e nvironmental impact associated w ith the change in loadings, and the associated changes in ecological values (u se and nonuse). Even if ecological effects of changes in pesticide loadings could be quantified, estimating the value of the types of ecological benefits likely to arise would be challenging for a number of reasons, incl uding that benefits will primarily require estimation thr ough nonmarket valuation technique s (e.g., travel cost methods for recreation demand; stated preference met hods, which involve asking questions regarding individuals’ preferences for environmental quali ty, for nonuse benefits). Because such methods are time and resource intensive, analysts ofte n utilize the practice of benefits transfer, or estimating the benefits of water quality improvement s at one site based on the results of studies conducted for other sites and purposes. Studies in the published literature have identified values associat ed with benefits that can be expected to arise from improving water quality. As an example, Magat et al. (2000) estimate the value of a percentage increase in river miles or lake acres with “good” water quality, defined as a river or lake that is a safe place to swim, has fi sh that are safe to eat, and supports many plants, fish, and other aquatic life. The estimated va lues reflect a total value of the improvement, including use and nonuse benefit ca tegories. Azevedo et al. (2001) estimated the willingness to pay to maintain the current water quality of a lake used for fishing and avoid future deterioration including low fish diversity. Reduced pestic ide loadings under the draft PGP may also contribute to maintaining or im proving water quality and associat ed values. Although current data and information is insufficient to identify th e extent or potential magnitude of benefits that will result from reducing pesticide loads to waters of the U.S., information gathered from monitoring and reporting activ ities may enable such an effort in the future.74 May 2010 

### References
Adelsbach, T.L. and R.S. Tjeerdema. Chemistry and Fate of Fenvalerate and Esfenvalerate. 2003. Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology . 176:137-154. Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva tion (ADEC). State Response for Aquatic Weed Control and Mosquito Control. Karin Hendr ickson, Pesticide Program Coordinator. 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. October 2002. Available electronically at: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/ State%20Plans/ak_ansmp.pdf

Australian Pesticides and Vete rinary Medicines Authority (A PVMA). 2000. Evaluation of the new active Imazamox in the products Raptor Herbic ide and Raptor WG Herb icide. Available at: http://www.apvma.gov.au/registration/a ssessment/docs/prs_imazamox.pdf

Australian Pesticides and Vete rinary Medicines Authority (APV MA). 2006. Preliminary Review Findings (Environment) Part 1: 2,4-D Esters. Available at: http://www.apvma.gov.au/produc ts/review/current/2_4_d.php Azevedo, C., J. Herriges, and C. Kling. 2001. Va luing Preservation and Improvements of Water Quality in Clear Lake. Staff Report 01-SR 94, Ce nter for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. March. Blankinship, Mike. President/C EO Blankinship & Associates, Inc. Personal Communication. 24 August 2009.
Birch, Thomas W. 1994. Private Forest-land Owner s of the United States, 1994. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. No rtheastern Forest Experiment Station Resource Bulletin NE-134. Available electronically at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publica tions/resource_bulletins/ pdfs/scanned/OCR/ne_ rb134a.pdf.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2005. 2005 Stat us of Forest Manage ment Inventories and Planning. Available electronically at: http://www.itcnet.org/includes/downloads /4_atus_of_forest_inventories.pdf. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC). September 2009 Release. Available electronically at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12092009.pdf Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index (ECI). September 2009 Release. Available electronically at: http://www.bls .gov/news.release/archives/eci_10302009.pdf Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Em ployment Statistics (OES ). May 2008 Release. Available electronically at: http://www.bls.gov/ OES/2008/may/oessrci.htm

Carpenter, S.R., J.F. Kitchell, and J.R. H odgson. 1985. Cascading Trophic Interactions and Lake Productivity. BioScien ce. 35(10): 634-639. City of Davis. 2008. Integrated Pest Manage ment Program 2008 Annual Report. Prepared by Martin Guerena and John McNerney.
Coble, Harold. North Carolina State Un iversity. Personal co mmunication 20 August 2009.75 May 2010 Conlon, Joe. AMCA Technical Direct or. Personal Communication. 18 August 2009 Cope, Oliver B., George H. Wallen, and Edward M. Wood. 1970. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 99:1-12.
Cox, C. 2003. Insecticide Factsh eet: Sumithrin (D-Phenothrin). Journal of Pesticide Reform. 23(2):10-14. Des Lauriers, Angelune. 2004. The fate and transpor t of methoprene in an urban West Nile virus mosquito control program (abstract). Masters Abstracts International. 47(1, 130): p.2004. Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999. Available electronically at: http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/EO%2013112.pdf Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). 1993a. Atrazine. Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Michig an State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at Da vis. Available electronically at: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d- captan/atrazine-ext.html . Accessed April 15, 2010. Extoxnet: The Extension Toxicology Networ k. 1993b. Pesticide Information Profile: Chlorpyrifos. Cooperative extension offices of Cornell University, Mich igan State University, Oregon State University and Univer sity of California at Davis. Available electronically at: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/car baryl-dicrotophos/chlorpyrifos-ext.html
Fisher, S.W. and T.W. Lohner. Studies on the envi ronmental fate of carbary l as a function of pH. 1986. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology . 15(6): 1432-0703.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conser vation Commission (FWC). 2009. Freshwater Permits: Triploid Grass Carp. Available electronically at: http://www.myfwc.com/License/Fre shwaterPermit_grasscarp.htm Food and Agricultural Organizatio n of the United Nation (FAO). 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment, 2005. Available electronically at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2005/en/
Gill, T.S., J.C. Pant, and J. Pant. 1988. Gill, liver, and kidney lesions associated with experimental exposures to carbaryl and dimethoa te in the fish (Puntiu s conchonius ham.) Bull. Environmental Contamination and Toxicity. 41(1):71-78.
Greenfield, Ben K. et al. Review of Alternativ e Aquatic Pest Control Methods for California Waters. San Francisco Estuary Institute, San Francisco, CA. April 2004. Available electronically at: http://www.sfei.org/apmp/repor ts/PestAlternativ es_review.pdf Hamel, Kathy. Washington Department of Ecology. Personal Communication.21 August 2009. Health Canada. 2008. Proposed Registration Deci sion: Bispyribac-sodium. Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Available at: http://dsp-p sd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/pmra-arla/H113-9- 2008-2E.pdf Helgen, J.C., N.J. Larson, and R.L. Anderson. 1988. Responses of zooplankton and Chaoborus to temephos in a natural pond and in the laboratory. Earth and Environmental Science. 17(4): 459- 471.76 May 2010 Holcombe, G.W., G.L. Phipps, A.H. Sulaim an, and A.D. Hoffman. Simultaneous Multiple Species Testing: Acute Toxicity of 13 Chemical s to 12 Diverse Freshwat er Amphibian, Fish, and Invertebrate Families. Archives of Envir onmental Contamination and Toxicology. 16:697-710 Idaho Invasive Species Council (IISC) Technica l Committee. Idaho Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan. 2007. Available electronically at: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/St ate%20Plans/Idaho_ANS_Plan_2007.pdf Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) and Gem County Mosquito Abatement District, Emmett, Idaho. State Response for Mosquito Cont rol. Robert Hays, Urban Pesticide Program Manager (ISDA) and Jason Kinley, Di rector of Gem County MAD. 2009. Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA). State Response for Aquatic Weed Control. Thomas Woolf, Aquatic Plant Program Manager. 2009.
Kreutzweiser, D.P., S.B. Holmes, and D.C. Ei chenberg. 1994. Influence of exposure duration on the toxicity of triclopyr ester to fish and a quatic insects. Earth and Environmental Sciences. 26(1):124-129. Magat, W., J. Huber, W.K. Viscusi, and J. Be ll. 2000. An Iterative Choice Approach to Valuing Clean Lakes, Rivers, and Streams. Jour nal of Risk and Uncertainty, 21:1, 7-43. Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species (M A AIS) Working Group. Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan. D ecember 2002. Available electronically at: http://www.mass.gov/czm/invasives/docs/invasive_species_plan.pdf Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Re sources (MDAR). Annual Operations Reports. 2008. Available electronically at: http://www. mass.gov/agr/mosquito/annualreports.htm Massachusetts Department of Environmental Pr otection (MADEP). State Response for Aquatic Weed Control. Robert Kubit and Gary Gonyea, Environmental Engineer. 2009. Mastin, B.J. and J.H. Rodgers, Jr. 2000. Toxic ity and Bioavailability of Copper Herbicides (Clearigate, Cutrine-Plus, and C opper Sulfate) to Freshwater An imals. Earth and Environmental Science. 39(4): 445-451. Mauck, W.L., L.E. Olson, L.L. Marking. 1976. T oxicity of natural pyrethrins and five pyrethroids to fish. Archives of Environm ental Contamination and Toxicology. 4(1): 18-29. McGregor, Susan. Dragon Mosquito Cont rol. Personal Communication. August 2009
McLeesc, D.W., C.D. Metcalfe, and V. Zitko. Lethality of permethr in, cypermethrin and fenvalerate to salmon, lobster and shrimp. Bu lletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 25(1):950-955. Mount, D.I. and C.E. Stephan. A method for esta blishing acceptable toxicant limits for fish-- malathion and the butoxyethanol ester of 2,4-d. Tr ansactions of the American Fisheries Society. 96: 185-193 Muniyan, M. and K. Veeraraghavan. 1999. Acute toxi city of ethofenprox to the freshwater fish, Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters). Journa l of Environmental Biology. 20(2): 153-155. Naess, T., K.E. Naas, and O.B. Samuelsen. Toxicity of Rotenone to Some Potential Predators on Marine Fish Larvae - an Experimental Study. Aquaculture Engineering. 10(3): 149-159.77 May 2010 National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO). 2009. Aggregate Pesticide Use Statistics for Four Timber Companies. November 2009. National Invasive Species Council (NISC). 2008- 2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan. August 2008. Availabl e electronically at: http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/2008- 2012%20National%20Invasive%20Speci es%20Management%20Plan.pdf. New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food (NHDAMF). Division of Pesticide Control. State Respons e for Aquatic Weed Control and Mosquito Control. Robert A. Wolff, Environmentalis t 111 - Groundwater. 2009. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). Plant Control Techniques. 2009. Available electronically at: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/wa ter/wmb/exoticspecies/management.htm New Hampshire Department of Health and Huma n Services. Guidance for Towns and Cities: Response Plans and Funding for Mosquito C ontrol. Available electronically at: http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/DHHS/CDCS/ West+Nile+Virus/wnv-eee-towns.htm New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFGD). Communicating with the Public on Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Final Report for the state of New Hampshire. March 2006. Available electronically at: h ttp://www.protectyourwaters.net /ansreport/NHFinalReport.pdf New Mexico Aquatic Invasive Species Advi sory Council (AISAC). New Mexico Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan. Oc tober 2008. Available electronically at: http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/docum ents/NMAISMgmt%20Plan_Final_Oct_08.pdf New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NM DA). State Response for Aquatic Weed Control and Mosquito Control. Cary C.S. Hamilton, Program Manager. 2009. New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) . Mosquito Control Responsibilities. 2009. Available electronically at: http://www.health.state.nm.us/epi/docum ents/MOSQUITOCONTROLRESPONSIBILITIES_00 0.pdf Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. Available electronically at: http://www.anstaskfor ce.gov/Documents/nanpca90.pdf Norton, G. and J. Maupin. Does IPM Adoption Reduce Pesticide Use? A National-level Accounting. July 2009. Poster Presentation at AAEA & ACCI 2009 Joint Annual Meeting. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (ODAFF). State Response for Aquatic Weed Control and Mosquito C ontrol. Quang Pham and Mike Vandeventer, Environmental Program Managers. 2009. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC).Oklahoma Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. July 2008. Av ailable electronically at: http://southeastaquatics. net/uploads/document/d03eae47cb2a8739b0420d75eb87f61ae04f6c45.p df.
Olmstead, Allen W. and Gerald L. LeBlanc. 2001. Low Exposure Concentration Effects of Methoprene on Endocrine-Regulated Processes in the Crustacean Daphnia magna Toxicological Sciences. 62:268-273.78 May 2010 Paul, E.A., H.A. Simonin, J. Symula, and R.W. Bauer. 1994. The toxicity of diquat, endothall, and fluridone to the early life stages of fish. Journal of Fr eshwater Ecology. 9(3):229-240. Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDOH). Pu erto Rico West Nile Response Plan. Available electronically at: http://www.salud.gov.pr/Datos/VirusDelNilo Occidental/Documents/prWNRP.pdf.
PSMJ Resources, Inc. 2009. 2009 PSMJ A/E Financ ial Performance Survey, 29th Edition: CEO Snapshot. Rach, J.J., T.D. Bills, and L.L. Marking. Acut e and Chronic Toxicity of Rotenone to Daphnia magna. Investigations in Fish Control No. 92, US Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I., Washington, D.C. :5 p.
Rand, G.M. 2002. Hazard Assessment of Resmethrin: I. Effects and Fate in Aquatic Systems. Ecotoxicology. 11(2):101-111. Sakaguchi, H. On the effect of agricultural chemicals upon fish - I. Changes of chemical components in serum and liver of crap exposed to organophosphate compounds. Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish. 38(6): 555-560.
Sandahl, J.F., D.H. Baldwin, J.J. Jenkins, and N.L. Scholz. 2004. Odor-e voked field potentials as indicators of sublethal neurotoxi city in juvenile coho salmon (O ncorhynchus kisutch) exposed to copper, chlorpyrifos, or esfenva lerate. Canadian Journal of Fi sheries and Aquatic Sciences. 61(3):404-413. Silver City. Silver City V ector Control Task Force. Available electronically at: http://www.townofsilvercity.org /vector/scienceofvector.html U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Nati onal Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Available electronically at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture (U SDA) Forest Service. 2002. Guam’s Forest Resources, 2002. Available el ectronically at: http://www.fs .fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb243.pdf. United States Department of Agriculture (U SDA) Forest Service. 2001. American Samoa’s Forest Resources, 2001. Ava ilable electronically at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb244.pdf. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. Recrea tional Activities List by State. Available electronically at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recre ation/map/state_list.shtml. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. Data Evaluation Reports on the Acute Toxicity of XDE-638 on Freshwat er Invertebrates. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemical/f oia/cleared-review s/reviews/119031/119031.htm United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Registration Standard (Second Round Review) for the Reregistration of Pesticide Products Containing Chlorpyrifos. Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. EPA, Washington, DC. June. Washington State Department of Agriculture. 2003. Ecological Risk Assessment of the Proposed Use of the Herbicide Imazapyr to Control Invasive Cordgrass (Spartina spp.) in Estuarine Habitat Of Washington State. Available at:79 May 2010 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/WQ/pesticides/fi nal_pesticide_permits/noxious/risk_assessme nt_Imazapyr.pdf80 May 2010 

### Appendix A
Table A-1: List of Active Ingredients: Mos quito (Larvicides and A dulticides) and Other Flying Insect Pest Control (Black Fly) Mosquito Adulticides bifenthrin Chlorpyrifos deltamethrin etofenprox malathion naled permethrin Pyrethrins resmethrin sumithrin tau-fluvalinate

Mosquito Larvicides Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis Bacillus sphaericus methoprene mineral oil mono-molecular surface film petroleum distillate temephos

Black Fly Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis

Table A-2: List of Active Ingredients: Aqua tic Weed (Herbicides) and Algae (Algaecides) Control (Ditch Banks and Rights of Way)
Herbicides 1H-Pyrazole-3-carboxylic acid, 4, 5-dihydro-5-oxo-1-(4-sul fophenyl)-4-((4-sulfophenyl)azo)-, trisodium salt 2-(4,5-Dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H- imidazol-2-yl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid with 2- propanamine (1:1) 2,4-D, 2-ethylhexyl ester 2,4-D, butoxyethyl ester 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt 2,4-D, isopropylamine salt 2,4-D, sodium salt 2,4-D, triisopropanolamine salt 2-4,D 2-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro- , compd. with 1,1',1''-nitrilotris(2-propanol) (1:1) 3-Isopropyl-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4 (3H)-one-2,2-dioxi de, sodium salt 5-Bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-meth yluracil, lithium salt Acetic acid, ((3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)-, 2-butoxyethyl ester Acetic acid, (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)-, isooctyl ester Acid Blue 9 Acrolein81 May 2010 Table A-2: List of Active Ingredients: Aqua tic Weed (Herbicides) and Algae (Algaecides) Control (Ditch Banks and Rights of Way)
Alachlor Atrazine Benfluralin Benzoic acid, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy-, compd with 2-propanamine (1:1) Benzoic acid, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy-, co mpd with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Bromoxynil Bromoxynil octanoate Bronopol Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester Chloropicrin Chlorsulfuron Copper carbonate Cycloate DCPA (or chlorthal-dimethyl?) Dicamba Diquat dibromide Dithiopyr Diuron Endothal-dipotassium Endothall, mono(N,N,-dimethyl alkyl amine) salt Ethalfluralin Fluridone Glyphosate Glyphosate-isopropylammonium Heptanoic acid, 2,6-dibromo-4-cyanophenyl ester Hexazinone Imazapyr Linuron MCPA (and salts and esters) MCPA, dimethylamine salt Mecoprop-P Metam-sodium Metolachlor Metribuzin Metsulfuron Molinate Napropamide Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxyfluorfen Pendimethalin Prometon Prometryn Propanoic acid, 2-(4-((5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyr idinyl)oxy)phenoxy)-, butyl ester, (R)- Propyzamide Pyrazon Simazine Sodium bromide82 May 2010 Table A-2: List of Active Ingredients: Aqua tic Weed (Herbicides) and Algae (Algaecides) Control (Ditch Banks and Rights of Way)
Sodium chlorate Sulfometuron Telone Triallate Triclopyr Triclopyr, triethylamine salt Trifluralin

Algaecides Acrolein Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride Ammonia Bacillus licheniformis Bacillus thuringiensis Subsp. Kurstaki, Basic cupric sulfate Bromine chloride 1-Bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin Bronopol Calcium hypochlorite Chlorine 5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone Chlorothalonil Copper as metallic (in the form of chela Copper carbonate Copper ethanolamine complex Copper hydroxide Copper oxychloride Copper sulfate pentahydrate Copper triethanolamine complex Deltamethrin 2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide 1,3-Dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride Dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride Diquat dibromide Diuron Dodecylguanidine hydrochloride Endothal-dipotassium Endothall, mono(N,N,-dimethyl alkyl amine) salt Erioglaucine Etridiazole Fluridone Glutaral Hydrogen peroxide Mancozeb Maneb Methanone83 May 2010 Table A-2: List of Active Ingredients: Aqua tic Weed (Herbicides) and Algae (Algaecides) Control (Ditch Banks and Rights of Way) 2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone Methylene bis(thiocyanate) Nonanoic acid Octanoic acid Octyl decyl dimethyl ammonium chloride Peroxyacetic acid Poly(oxyethylene(dimethyliminio)ethylene Propiconazole Sodium bromide Sodium chlorate Sodium chlorite Sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione Sodium dichloroisocyanurate dihydrate Sodium hypochlorite Sodium percarbonate Tartrazine Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulphate 2-(Thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole p-Tolyl diiodomethyl sulfone Trichloro-s-triazinetrione Xylene

Ditchbanks 2-(4,5-Dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H- imidazol-2-yl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid with 2- propanamine (1:1) 2,4-D, 2-ethylhexyl ester 2,4-D, butoxyethyl ester 2,4-D, diethanolamine salt 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt 2,4-D, isopropylamine salt 2,4-D, triisopropanolamine salt 2-4,D 2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone 2-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro- , compd. with 1,1',1''-nitrilotris(2-propanol) (1:1) 3,6-Dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid, alkanolamine salts (of ethanol and isopropanol series) 3-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4,5-dihydro-4-methyl- 4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl)-5-methyl-, monoammonium salt, (.+-.)- 3-Quinolinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4,5-dihydro-4-met hyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl)-, monoammonium salt 4-Amino-3,6-dichloropyridine-2-car boxylic acid, potassium salt 5-Bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-meth yluracil, lithium salt 5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone 9H-Fluorene-9-carboxylic acid, 2,7- dichloro-9-hydroxy-, methyl ester Acephate Acetic acid, ((3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)-, 2-butoxyethyl ester Asulam, sodium salt Atrazine Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies israelensis Strain BMP 144 solids, spores and insecticidal toxins84 May 2010 Table A-2: List of Active Ingredients: Aqua tic Weed (Herbicides) and Algae (Algaecides) Control (Ditch Banks and Rights of Way) Bacillus sphaericus Benzamide, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dio xo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N- [[methyl(1-methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]- Benzoic acid, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy-, compd with 2-(2-aminoethoxy)ethanol (1:1) Benzoic acid, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy-, co mpd with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Boric acid (HBO2), sodium salt Bromacil Carbaryl Carfentrazone-ethyl Chevron 100 Chlorflurenol, methyl ester Clopyralid Clopyralid, triethanolamine Diazinon Dicamba Dicamba, sodium salt Difethialone Diflubenzuron Diphacinone Diquat dibromide Diuron Fluroxypyr Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester Glufosinate Glutens, corn Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)- potassium salt Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, ammonium salt Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, compd. with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, diammonium salt Glyphosate Glyphosate-isopropylammonium Hexazinone Hydrogen peroxide Imazapic Imazapyr Imidacloprid Isooctyl 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)propionate MCPA, dimethylamine salt Mecoprop (and salts and esters) Methyl 9-hydroxyfluorene-9-carboxylate Metsulfuron Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 063503 MSMA (and salts) Nonanoic acid Octhilinone Oryzalin Oxyfluorfen Pendimethalin85 May 2010 Table A-2: List of Active Ingredients: Aqua tic Weed (Herbicides) and Algae (Algaecides) Control (Ditch Banks and Rights of Way)
POE isooctadecanol Prodiamine Prometon Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-, (R)- , compd. with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-, 2-ethylhexyl ester Propanoic acid, 2-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)-, (R )-, compd. with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Pyraflufen-ethyl Pyriproxyfen Rimsulfuron S-Methoprene Sodium chlorate Sulfentrazone Sulfometuron Sulfosulfuron Tebuthiuron Topramezone Triclopyr Triclopyr, triethylamine salt Triisopropanolamine salt of aminopyralid Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2)

Rights Of Way (Z)-6-Heneicosen-11-one 1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 1-Decanaminium, N-decyl-N,N-dimethyl-, chloride 2-(4,5-Dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H- imidazol-2-yl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid with 2- propanamine (1:1) 2,4-D, 2-ethylhexyl ester 2,4-D, butoxyethyl ester 2,4-D, diethanolamine salt 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt 2,4-D, isopropylamine salt 2,4-D, triisopropanolamine salt 2-4,D 2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 2-{1-{{(3-chloro-2-propenyl)oxy} imino}propyl}-3-hydroxy-5-(tetrahydro-2H-pyran-4- yl)-,(E,?)- 2-Ethylhexyl (R)-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)propionate 2-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro- , compd. with 1,1',1''-nitrilotris(2-propanol) (1:1) 3,6-Dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid, alkanolamine salts (of ethanol and isopropanol series) 3-Isopropyl-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4 (3H)-one-2,2-dioxi de, sodium salt 3-Methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one 3-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4,5-dihydro-4-methyl- 4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl)-5-methyl-, monoammonium salt, (.+-.)- 3-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 2-{1-{ {{(3,5-difluorophenyl)amino}carbonyl }hydrozono}ethyl}-, monosodium salt 3-Quinolinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4,5-dihydro-4-met hyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl)-, monoammonium salt 4-Amino-3,6-dichloropyridine-2-car boxylic acid, potassium salt 5-Bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-meth yluracil, lithium salt86 May 2010 Table A-2: List of Active Ingredients: Aqua tic Weed (Herbicides) and Algae (Algaecides) Control (Ditch Banks and Rights of Way) 9H-Fluorene-9-carboxylic acid, 2,7- dichloro-9-hydroxy-, methyl ester Abamectin Acetamide, N-(2,4-dimethyl-5- (((trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl)amino)phenyl)-, compd. with 2,2'iminobis(ethanol) (1:1) Acetamiprid Acetic acid, ((3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)-, 2-butoxyethyl ester Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-, compd. with methanamine (1:1) Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16) Amitrole Ammonium salt of (+/-)-2-(4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4- (1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl)-5-ethyl-3- pyridinecarboxylic acid Asulam, sodium salt Atrazine Azadirachtin Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki strain SA-12 solides, spores, and insecticidal toxins, ATCC # SD - 1323 Bacillus thuringiensi s subsp. kurstaki Benfluralin Benzamide, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dio xo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N- [[methyl(1-methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]- Benzoic acid, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy-, compd with 2-(2-aminoethoxy)ethanol (1:1) Benzoic acid, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy-, compd with 2-propanamine (1:1) Benzoic acid, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy-, co mpd with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Bifenazate Bifenthrin Boric acid Boric acid (HBO2), sodium salt Bromacil Butylated hydroxytoluene Carbaryl Carfentrazone-ethyl Chevron 100 Chlorflurenol, methyl ester Chlorophacinone Chlorpyrifos Chlorsulfuron Chondrostereum purpureum isolate PFC 2139, ATCC 60854 cis-7,8-Epoxy-2-methyloctadecane Clethodim Clopyralid Cypermethrin Deltamethrin Dicamba Dicamba with 2,4-D Dicamba, sodium salt Dichlobenil Dichlorvos Diflubenzuron dimethenamide-P87 May 2010 Table A-2: List of Active Ingredients: Aqua tic Weed (Herbicides) and Algae (Algaecides) Control (Ditch Banks and Rights of Way) Diphacinone Diquat dibromide Dithiopyr Diuron d-trans-Chrysanthemum monocarboxylic ester of dl-2-allyl-4-hydroxy-3-me thyl-2-cyclopenten-1-one Ethylene Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Ferric HEDTA Fipronil Flumioxazin Fluroxypyr Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester Fosamine Glufosinate Glutaraldehyde Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)- potassium salt Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, ammonium salt Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, compd. with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, diammonium salt Glyphosate Glyphosate-isopropylammonium Halosulfuron-methyl Hexazinone Hydramethylnon Imazamox Imazapic Imazapyr Imazethapyr Imidacloprid Indoxacarb Isooctyl 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)propionate Isoxaben lambda-Cyhalothrin Maleic hydrazide, potassium salt MCPA (and salts and esters) MCPA, 2-ethylhexyl ester MCPA, dimethylamine salt Mecoprop (and salts and esters) Mecoprop, dimethylamine salt Mecoprop-P Metaldehyde Methyl 9-hydroxyfluorene-9-carboxylate Metribuzin Metsulfuron Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 063503 MSMA (and salts) N-(2,4-Dimethyl-5-(((trifluoromethyl)sulfony l)amino)phenyl)acetamide, potassium salt Napropamide88 May 2010 Table A-2: List of Active Ingredients: Aqua tic Weed (Herbicides) and Algae (Algaecides) Control (Ditch Banks and Rights of Way)
Nonanoic acid Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxadiazon Oxyfluorfen Paclobutrazol Pendimethalin Permethrin Phosphoric acid, ir on(3+) salt (1:1) Picloram Picloram-potassium Piperonyl butoxide Prodiamine Prometon Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-, (R)- , compd. with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-, 2-ethylhexyl ester Propanoic acid, 2-(4-((5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyr idinyl)oxy)phenoxy)-, butyl ester, (R)- Propanoic acid, 2-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)-, (R )-, compd. with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Propoxur Pyraflufen-ethyl Pyrethrins Pyriproxyfen Quinclorac Resmethrin Rimsulfuron Sethoxydim Simazine S-Methoprene Sodium chlorate Spinosad (Naturally occurring mixture of spinos yn A, pc code 110003 , CAS Reg. No. 131929-60-7 ; & spinosyn D, pc code 110004, CAS Reg. No. 1319 29-63-0) With CAS Reg. No. 168316-95-8 by SPINOSAD itself. Starlicide Sucrose Sulfentrazone Sulfometuron Sulfonic acids, C14-16-alkane hydro xy and C14-16-alkene, sodium salts Sulfosulfuron Tebuthiuron Tetramethrin Thiazopyr Thiodicarb Thiram Topramezone Triclopyr Triclopyr, triethylamine salt Trifluralin Triisopropanolamine salt of aminopyralid89 May 2010 Table A-2: List of Active Ingredients: Aqua tic Weed (Herbicides) and Algae (Algaecides) Control (Ditch Banks and Rights of Way)
Triticonazole Vinegar Yellow mustard seed (Brassica hirta) Zeta-Cypermethrin Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2)

Table A-3: List of Active Ingredients: Aquatic Nuisance Animals (Fish, Lamprey, and Mollusk)

Fish Antimycin A Calcium hypochlorite Cube Resins other than rotenone Piperonyl butoxide Rotenone Sodium hypochlorite

Mollusk Sodium chlorate

Lamprey Niclosamide Phenol, 4-nitro-3-(trifluoromethyl)

Table A-4: List of Active Ingredients: Forest Canopy Pest Control (Forestry) Forestry (Z)-6-Heneicosen-11-one .beta.-D-Allofuranuronic acid, 5-((2-amino-5-O-(aminocarbonyl )-2-deoxy-L-xylonoyl)amino)-1-(5- carboxy-3,4-dihydro-2,4-diox o-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-1,5-dideoxy-, zinc salt (1:1) 1,2,4-Triazin-3(2H)-one, 4,5-dihydro-6-me thyl-4-{(3-pyridinylmethylene)amino}-, (E)- 1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 11-Tetradecen-1-ol, acetate, (E)- 2-(4,5-Dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H- imidazol-2-yl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid with 2- propanamine (1:1) 2,4-D, 2-ethylhexyl ester 2,4-D, butoxyethyl ester 2,4-D, diethanolamine salt 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt 2,4-D, triisopropanolamine salt 2-4,D 2-Butanone, 4-(4-(acetyloxy)phenyl)-, acetate 2-Ethylhexyl (R)-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)propionate 2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone 2-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro- , compd. with 1,1',1''-nitrilotris(2-propanol) (1:1) 3,6-Dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid, alkanolamine salts (of ethanol and isopropanol series) 3,7-Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol 3-Buten-2-one, 4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-, (E)- 3-Methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one90 May 2010 Table A-4: List of Active Ingredients: Forest Canopy Pest Control (Forestry) 4-Amino-3,6-dichloropyridine-2-car boxylic acid, potassium salt 5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone 9,10-Anthracenedione 9,11-Tetradecadien-1-ol, 1-acetate, (9E, 11E)- 9,11-tetradecadien-1-ol, acetate, (9E, 11Z)- 9H-Fluorene-9-carboxylic acid, 2,7- dichloro-9-hydroxy-, methyl ester Abamectin Acephate Acequinocyl Acetamiprid Acetic acid, ((3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)-, 2-butoxyethyl ester Alkyl*-N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)amine *(100% C12-C18) Asulam, sodium salt Atrazine Azadirachtin Azinphos-Methyl Azoxystrobin Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki strain SA-12 solides, spores, and insecticidal toxins, ATCC # SD - 1323 Bacillus firmus strain I-1582 Bacillus pumilus strain QST 2808 Bacillus subtilis GB03 Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens Strain FZB24 Bacillus thuringiensi s subsp. kurstaki Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain BMP123 Bacillus thuringien sis subsp. kursta ki strain EG2348 Bacillus thuringien sis subsp. kursta ki strain EG2371 Bacillus thuringiensis Subsp. Kurstaki, Strain ABTS-351 Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki strain EG7841 Lepidopteran active toxin Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki, strain EG7826 Lepidopteran active toxin Bacillus thuringiensis, subsp. strain ABTS 1857 Basic copper sulfate Beauveria bassiana ATCC 74040 Beauveria bassiana GHA Benfluralin Benzamide, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dio xo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N- [[methyl(1-methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]- Benzoic acid, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy-, compd with 2-(2-aminoethoxy)ethanol (1:1) Benzoic acid, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy-, co mpd with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Bergamot oil beta-cyfluthrin Bifenazate Bifenthrin Borax (B4Na2O7.10H2O) Boric acid boscalid Buprofezin Capsaicin Carbamic acid, butyl-, 3-iodo-2-propynyl ester Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester91 May 2010 Table A-4: List of Active Ingredients: Forest Canopy Pest Control (Forestry) Carbaryl Carbofuran Carbon Carfentrazone-ethyl Chenopodium ambrosioides var. ambrosioides Chlorantraniliprole Chlorflurenol, methyl ester Chlorophacinone Chloropicrin Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos Chondrostereum purpureum isolate PFC 2139, ATCC 60854 Cinnamaldehyde cis-7,8-Epoxy-2-methyloctadecane Clethodim Clofentezine Clothianidin Copper hydroxide Copper oxychloride (Cu2Cl(OH)3) Copper sulfate pentahydrate Cryolite Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3-(2-chloro-3,3,3- trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2, 2-dimethyl-, cyano(3- phenoxyphenyl)methyl ester, [1R-[1 alpha(S*), 3 alpha(Z)]]- Cyfluthrin Cytokinin (as kinetin) D-Alanine, N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N -(methoxyacetyl)-, methyl ester Dazomet Deltamethrin D-Glucitol, octanoate Dicamba Dicamba with 2,4-D Dicamba, sodium salt Dichlobenil Dicloran Diclosulam Diflubenzuron Diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone dimethenamide-P Dimethoate Dinotefuran Diphacinone Diquat dibromide Disulfoton Diuron Egg solids Emamectin benzoate Endosulfan Esfenvalerate Ethaneperoxoic acid92 May 2010 Table A-4: List of Active Ingredients: Forest Canopy Pest Control (Forestry) Ethephon Ethyl 1-naphthaleneacetate Ethylene Etoxazole Farnesol Fenbutatin-oxide Fenpropathrin Fenpyroximate Ferbam Fipronil Flucarbazone-sodium Flufenacet Flumioxazin Fluopicolide Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester Fosamine Fosetyl-Al Garlic oil Gas cartRidge (as a device for burrowing animal control) Geraniol Gibberellic acid Gibberellin A4 mixt. with Gibberellin A7 Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 Glufosinate Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)- potassium salt Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, ammonium salt Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, compd. with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, diammonium salt Glyphosate Glyphosate-isopropylammonium Halosulfuron-methyl Harpin alpha beta protein Hexazinone Hexythiazox Hydramethylnon Hydrogen peroxide Imazapyr Imazaquin Imidacloprid Indole-3-acetic acid Indole-3-butyric acid Indoxacarb Iprodione Isooctyl 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)propionate Isoxaben Kaolin clay Lactofen lambda-Cyhalothrin Limonene93 May 2010 Table A-4: List of Active Ingredients: Forest Canopy Pest Control (Forestry)
Malathion Mancozeb Maneb MCPA, 2-ethylhexyl ester MCPA, dimethylamine salt Metalaxyl Metarhizium anisopliae strain F52 sporesMethane, iodoMethidathion Methyl 9-hydroxyfluorene-9-carboxylate Methyl bromide Metribuzin Metsulfuron Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 063503 Mono- and di- potassium salts of phosphorous acid MSMA (and salts) Muscodor albus strain QST 20799 Myclobutanil Napropamide Nerolidol Nonanoic acid Octhilinone Oil of citronella Oil of lemongrass Oil of mustard Oil of orange Oil of thyme Oil of wintergreen Oryzalin Oxadiazon Oxydemeton-methyl Oxyfluorfen Paclobutrazol Paraquat dichloride Pendimethalin Permethrin Phosmet Picloram Picloram-potassium Piperonyl butoxide Polyhedral inclusion bodies of Douglas fir tussock moth nucleopolyhedrosis virus Polyhedral inclusion bodies of gypsy moth nucleopolyhedrosis virus Potassium laurate Potassium phosphate, monobasic Potassium silicate Prodiamine Propamocarb hydrochloride Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-, (R)- , compd. with N-methylmethanamine (1:1) Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-, 2-ethylhexyl ester94 May 2010 Table A-4: List of Active Ingredients: Forest Canopy Pest Control (Forestry) Propanoic acid, 2-(4-((5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyr idinyl)oxy)phenoxy)-, butyl ester, (R)- Propargite Propiconazole Propyzamide Pyraclostrobin Pyraflufen-ethyl Pyrethrins Pyridaben Pyriproxyfen QST 713 strain of bacillus subtilis Resmethrin Rimsulfuron Sethoxydim Silicon dioxide Simazine S-Methoprene Sodium cyanide Sodium hypochlorite Sodium nitrate Soybean oil Spinetoram Spinosad (Naturally occurring mixture of spinos yn A, pc code 110003 , CAS Reg. No. 131929-60-7 ; & spinosyn D, pc code 110004, CAS Reg. No. 1319 29-63-0) With CAS Reg. No. 168316-95-8 by SPINOSAD itself. Spirodiclofen Spirotetramat Streptomyces griseoviridis strain K61 Strychnine Sucrose octanoate Sulfentrazone Sulfometuron Sulfonic acids, C14-16-alkane hydro xy and C14-16-alkene, sodium salts Sulfosulfuron Sulfur Sulfuric acid Tall oil fatty acids, potassium salts Tebuconazole Tebufenozide Telone Terbufos Thiamethoxam Thiodicarb Thiophanate-methyl Topramezone Tralomethrin Triadimefon Trichoderma polysporum (ATCC 20475) Trichoderma viride (ATCC 20476) Triclopyr95 May 2010 Table A-4: List of Active Ingredients: Forest Canopy Pest Control (Forestry) Triclopyr, triethylamine salt Trifloxystrobin Triflumizole Trifluralin Triisopropanolamine salt of aminopyralid Trinexapac-ethyl Verbenone Yellow mustard seed (Brassica hirta) Zeta-Cypermethrin Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) Ziram