FW: November 12 State and Regional Call Followup

MOORE Beth to: Jack Faulk 12/15/2009 01:55 PM

Cc: "SVETKOVICH Christine"

In response to question 2, there are a few attachments for your

information. There are two pesticide use reports that the Oregon Dept.

of Agriculture has on their web site. The reports explain there

limitations but gives an idea of percentage of lbs of active ingredients

by site category such as forestry, aquatic, public health (which would

include mosquito control).

The other is a report that is not an interpretation of data and does not

provide a link back to the use patterns, but I have included it because

contain the commonly found pesticides in surface water for the sampling

that was done.

Hope this is helpful

Beth Moore

General Permits Coordinator

DEQ WQ-Surface Water Management

Phone: (503) 229-6402

Fax: (503) 229-6037

-----Original Message-----

From: MOORE Beth 

Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 3:23 PM

To: 'Faulk.Jack@epamail.epa.gov'

Cc: 'shum.kai@epa.gov'; SVETKOVICH Christine; STURDEVANT Debra

Subject: FW: November 12 State and Regional Call Followup

1. Please take a look at the file Ginny Garelick sent to you that

summarizes pesticide-specific state water quality standards as of 2002.

As we have discussed, we do not intend to rely on this to justify our

argument for the water quality based effluent limits we provide in the

permit but we do think it can bolster our argument to show that many

states have modified their standards to specifically address the types

of activities that we are covering under our permit and as such, we

believe that BAT will be adequate to protect water quality in most

instances. Please let us know if your state standards have changed or

if you have additional state guidance, policy, etc. that helps to

clarify the state standards in ways that may further support this

rationale.

In response to Question 1: Oregon has authorizing language for

variances with a variance procedure, but it is not specific like the

examples given for the other states. 

340-041-0061 Other Implementation of Water Quality Criteria 

(2) Water quality variances. The commission may grant point source

variances from the water quality standards in this Division where the

following requirements are met.

(a) The water quality variance may apply only to the point source for

which the variance is requested and only to the pollutant or pollutants
specified in the variance; the underlying water quality standard

otherwise remains in effect.

(b) A water quality standard variance may not be granted if:

(A) Standards will be attained by all point source dischargers

implementing effluent limitations required under sections 301(b) and 306

of the federal Clean Water Act and by nonpoint sources implementing

cost-effective and reasonable best management practices; or

(B) The variance would likely jeopardize the continued existence of any

threatened or endangered species listed under section 4 of the

Endangered Species Act or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of such species' critical habitat.

(c) Before a variance is granted, the applicant must demonstrate that

attaining the water quality standard is not feasible for one of the

following reasons:

(A) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment

of the use.

(B) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water

levels prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be

compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent

discharges to enable uses to be met without violating state water

conservation requirements.

(C) Human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the

attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more

environmental damage to correct than to leave in place.

(D) Dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologic modifications

preclude the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore

the water body to its original condition or to operate such modification

in a way which would result in the attainment of the use.

(E) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water

body, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools,

riffles, and unrelated to water quality preclude attainment of aquatic

life protection uses.

(F) Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) and

306 of the federal Clean Water Act would result in substantial and

widespread economic and social impact.

(d) Procedures. An applicant for a water quality standards variance must

submit a request for a variance to the department. The application must

include all relevant information showing that the requirements for a

variance have been satisfied. The burden is on the applicant to

demonstrate that the designated use is unattainable for one of the

reasons specified in subsection (c) of this section. If the department

preliminarily determines that grounds exist for granting a variance, it

must provide public notice of the proposed variance and an opportunity

for public comment.

(A) The department may condition the variance on the performance of

additional studies, monitoring, management practices, and other controls

deemed necessary. These terms and conditions will be incorporated into

the applicant's NPDES permit or department order.

(B) A variance may not exceed three years or the term of the NPDES

permit, whichever is less. A variance may be renewed if the applicant

reapplies and demonstrates that the use in question is still not

attainable. Renewal of the variance may be denied if the applicant does

not comply with the conditions of the original variance or otherwise

does not meet the requirements of this section.

(C) DEQ approval of a variance for a point source is not effective under

the federal Clean Water Act until submitted to and approved by EPA.
340-041-0004 ANTIDEGRADATION

(5) EXEMPTIONS TO THE ANTIDEGRADATION REQUIREMENT. SOME ACTIVITIES MAY,

ON A SHORT TERM BASIS, CAUSE TEMPORARY WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION.

HOWEVER, THESE SAME ACTIVITIES MAY ALSO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL AND DESIRABLE

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS. THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES AND SITUATIONS FALL

INTO THIS CATEGORY. SUCH ACTIVITIES AND SITUATIONS REMAIN SUBJECT TO

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, AND MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE MINIMIZED

ADVERSE AFFECTS TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN ORDER TO BE

EXEMPT FROM THE ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW UNDER THIS RULE:

(A) RIPARIAN RESTORATION ACTIVITIES. ACTIVITIES THAT ARE INTENDED TO

RESTORE THE GEOMORPHOLOGY OR RIPARIAN VEGETATION OF A WATER BODY, OR

CONTROL INVASIVE SPECIES NEED NOT UNDERGO AN ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW SO

LONG AS THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THERE IS A NET ECOLOGICAL BENEFIT

TO THE RESTORATION ACTIVITY. REASONABLE MEASURES THAT ARE CONSISTENT

WITH THE RESTORATION OBJECTIVES FOR THE WATER BODY MUST BE USED TO

MINIMIZE THE DEGRADATION;

(B) EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. THE DIRECTOR OR A DESIGNEE MAY, FOR A PERIOD

OF TIME NO GREATER THAN 6 MONTHS, ALLOW LOWER WATER QUALITY WITHOUT AN

ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW UNDER THIS RULE IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC

HEALTH AND WELFARE EMERGENCIES (FOR EXAMPLE, A SIGNIFICANT THREAT OF

LOSS OF LIFE, PERSONAL INJURY OR SEVERE PROPERTY DAMAGE); AND

(C) EXCEPTIONS. EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSION OR DEPARTMENT

UNDER (9) OF THIS RULE.

-----Original Message-----

2. Our rationale for the water quality based effluent limits in the

permit focuses on a 2006 USGS NAWQA study that looked at pesticides

concentrations in ambient water between 1992-2001. We are looking for

any additional state-wide or large regional-wide studies or data sources

of pesticide monitoring in ambient water quality. The better these

studies tie the data back to the expected sources the more useful those

data will be for us but any studies may help us develop appropriate

permit conditions.

In response to Question 2: Have to have more time question is out there

to the right folks on any studies that may be out there, I will let you

know when I find out the time frame.

----- Message from "HARVEY Julie" <HARVEY.Julie@deq.state.or.us> on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:56:48 

-0800 -----

To:

"MASTERSON Kevin" <MASTERSON.Kevin@deq.state.or.us>, "ADES Dennis R" <ADES.Dennis@

"URBANOWICZ Karla" <URBANOWICZ.Karla@deq.state.or.us>, "KISHIDA Koto" <Kishida.Koto@

Eugene P" <FOSTER.Eugene@deq.state.or.us>, "MOORE Beth" <MOORE.Beth@deq.state.or.us>

cc: "STEWART Sheree" <STEWART.Sheree@deq.state.or.us>

Subject

:

Pesticide data analysis results

As you remember, Gail Shibley at DHS had asked us for "an Oregon list by

basin of most frequently found pesticides". I just completed the
analysis last week and thought that you all may be interested as well.

This analysis was performed using DEQ's LASAR and DHS' SDWIS results

(SDWIS is the Safe Drinking Water Information System for Public water

systems). I have to give a big shout out of thanks to Robb Keller for

his assistance with the LASAR query (as I spent many hours trying to

access the data on the public site).

The list of pesticides analyzed, as well as the qualifications

pertaining to data method limits, etc., are explained in the summary

report attached. Now that we have the data in one spot, it's fairly

easy to pull information on specific pesticides, specific basins by the

year of detections so let me know if you need access to the data! 

We have sent this on to DHS as well and know that the data will be used

to make the case for drinking water protection. Let Sheree or me know

if you have any questions!

Julie

Julie Harvey

Drinking Water Protection Specialist

Oregon DEQ Water Quality Division

811 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204

503-229-5664

In Oregon: 1-800-452-4011

harvey.julie@deq.state.or.us

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/dwp.htm