FW: Request for Surface Water Quality Data Associated with Aquatic Pesticide Applications

Romary, Craig t

o

: Jordan Page 02/12/2010 02:19 PM

Cc: "Creger, Tim", "Daiker, Dave", William Jordan, Susan Lewis

From: "Romary, Craig" <craig.romary@nebraska.gov>

To: Jordan Page/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Creger, Tim" <tim.creger@nebraska.gov>, " Daiker, Dave" <daikerd@doacs.state.fl.us>, William Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Susan Lewis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA



### Dear Jordan,

Attached is a report of water quality sampling and analysis associated with an aquatic noxious weed control project in Nebraska. In addition, there is additional information in answer to follow-up questions below. Please note this sampling was not done using a scientific study design or with the intent of detailing water quality impacts – only to get a feel for concentrations of imazapyr in water following treatment. However, I think this information may be useful to OPP and OW in the aquatic pesticide NPDES permit development process. If you have questions regarding this specific project, please contact Rich Walters, with the Nature Conservancy ( rwalters @ TNC

. ORG

, http :// www

. nature

. org / wherewework / northamerica / states / nebraska / contact / ).

Sincerely, 

# Craig Romary

Environmental Programs Specialist Pesticide Program, Nebraska Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 94756 Lincoln, NE 68509-4756

402-471-6883 craig

. romary @ nebraska

. gov ( NOTE: New email address )

visit http :// www

. agr

. ne

. gov / division / bpi / pes / pest 1

. htm

From: Romary, Craig [mailto:craig.romary@nebraska.gov]

Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 12:20 PM

To: Rich Walters; Russ Shultz Subject: RE: Request for Surface Water Quality Data Associated with Aquatic Pesticide Applications



### Thanks, Rich. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The following are some questions and comments that could be addressed before this is forwarded on to EPA. I think this type of information would help them in evaluating your report and the data

### collected. If this isn’t too much trouble, please take some time to look these over. This information can simply be sent to me in another message rather than redoing your
report. EPA has requested info be sent in by February 25 th 

### , if possible.

Please let me know if there are questions on this and thanks for your help!

Craig

• The residue concentrations in the table on page 2 are reported as ppb but are listed as ug/ml (micrograms per milliliter). Parts per billion is micrograms per liter (ug/l) – this should be clarified in the table. The summary seems to be correct, if the readings are being reported in ppb.

It is ppb, this was pointed out in a presentation I gave last week as well.

• FYI – EPA has an ‘aquatic benchmark table for various species, including plant life ( http :// www

. epa

. gov / oppefed 1 / ecorisk

_ ders / aquatic

_ life

_ benchmark

. htm ). For imazapyr, the vascular plant ‘benchmark’ is 18 ppb. A ‘benchmark’ is not a regulatory level – it’s just a value based on the literature that has been reviewed, and is an indicator of potential effects to the aquatic plant community. This particular benchmark was developed for duckweed, I believe, and is an short-term EC50. I don’t believe there should be too much concern with your findings because the high concentrations were found in only a portion of the channel, and it’s unclear how long these concentrations would be maintained. And I think this is the kind of information EPA is looking for to better draft an outline for these NPDES permits.

The highest concentration were in a slack water area surrounded by Phragmites and the entire

area was sprayed. I was trying to find the highest concentrations (if there would be any). The
helicopter sprayed and within two minutes I went in and collected the water sample. Again, was trying to find high concentrations if there was any. The samples were also spread across the

channel.



### • Maps of the sample sites in relation to the application sites would be helpful.

Hard to show small sample locations on a larger landscape and make the map look good



### • Name of the laboratory and analytical methods would be good, if possible.

BASF corporation did analytical tests in their lab. They were supplied the bottles and sample

numbers. They had no idea what sample was from what location.



### • What kind of field QA/QC was used to prevent contamination of the sample? I’m not an expert with this, but it would include things like preventing sample equipment and the person doing the sampling from being exposed to the chemical before, during, and after application.
Sample kit was supplied by BASF which included instructions. Each sample vile was new andwashed with river water at the independent location before collection. Samples were labeled

with a number and a data sheet with the corresponding number had the description of location

and timing of previous application.



### • This is assumed to be the case, but a statement from the project coordinator about the precautions taken with equipment calibration and maintenance, as well as how label directions/precautions were followed. The specific type of equipment for aerial applications was one thing I saw on the label and there may be other label restrictions/precautions for preventing drift and/or protecting water quality.

All herbicide label instructions were followed

From: Romary, Craig

Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:09 A M

To: Gaul, Steve; Bernards, Mark; Kolok, A lan; Hoback, William; 'Tom Janousek'; Coffin, Mitch

Cc: Creger, Tim; Goans, Steve Subject: FW: Request for Surface Water Quality Data Associated with Aquatic Pesticide Applications



### Dear All,

I’m sending this out to you because I know you are involved, or at least interested, in aquatic-type pesticide applications and/or water quality. EPA is requesting surface water quality data associated with aquatic pesticide applications such as aquatic weed control, invasive species control, and mosquito control. This will be used in developing a template for state permits for these types of pesticide applications for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System program (NPDES). In case you are unaware, EPA and the states are being required to develop these permits because of a recent court order which determined that aquatic pesticide applications (those applied in, over, or near water) can be considered a point source of pollution. Point sources of pollution are typically regulated under the NPDES program under the Clean Water Act, and have included things such as municipal wastewater treatment plants and industrial discharges. Pesticide applications until now have not been considered under this authority and have been regulated under FIFRA, usually through state statutes such as

our Nebraska Pesticide Act.

The water quality data will be used to determine if pesticide label controls (rates, timing, and method of application, etc) are sufficient in meeting water quality criteria or other human/aquatic health benchmark. If you know of projects where aquatic pesticides were applied and where associated water samples were collected and analyzed, these data would be useful in this process. Also of interest, though not specifically requested below, are post-application reports that document environmental effects, or the lack thereof, to non-target aquatic species. This type of visual monitoring has been discussed as part of the potential requirements of the NPDES permit process.

For your information, these links provide background on this issue:

• EPA’s Agriculture NPDES page (

### http :// cfpub

. epa

. gov / npdes / home

. cfm ? program

_ id = 41 ) – which gives a timeline and background of events leading to this permit development process.

• Public webcast/slide show ( http :// cfpub

. epa

. gov / npdes / courseinfo

. cfm ? program

_ id = 0 & outreach

_ id = 483 & sch

edule

_ id = 1072 ) which provides an indication of what might be involved in a permit for aquatic pesticide applications. Feel free to forward this to others in the state who may have information to provide. Data or related information can be sent directly to Jordan Page at

page

. j ordan @ epa

. gov . I would appreciate being kept in the loop, too, if possible. Thanks for your consideration! If you have questions on this issue or this request, please let me know.

Sincerely, 

# Craig Romary

Environmental Programs Specialist Pesticide Program, Nebraska Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 94756 Lincoln, NE 68509-4756

402-471-6883 craig

. romary @ nebraska

. gov ( NOTE: New email address )

visit http :// www

. agr

. ne

. gov / division / bpi / pes / pest 1

. htm

From: Daiker, Dave [mailto:daikerd@doacs.state.fl.us]

Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:42 A M

To: grier stayton Subject: NPDES

Dear state regulator, On January 20 and 21, I attended the second NPDES face‐to‐face meeting held by the USEPA in Dallas. The purpose of the meeting was for the EPA to present t heir second draft of their general NPDES permit and to solicit input from state regulators (FIFRA and CWA). Recall, the federal permit will be applicable to those 4 NPDES un‐authorized states, Alask a, and tribal lands. However, it will likely serve as a template for the remaining 45 states to devel op a permit through the regional EPA offices.  The format of the meeting was very similar to that of the Kansas City meeting, in that the EPA went section by section discussing the elements of the perm it and what is required under the

CWA.

Over all, the meeting went very well and the permit approach ta ken by the Agency appears to be something that most states were amenable to.  I hope to be prov ided with meeting notes from the EPA’s consultant soon and can try to make those available.

Today I am writing on behalf of EPA’s request for surface water monitoring data or even modeling efforts conducted by your program. The EPA is seeking data/info rmation that demonstrates that thetechnology‐based effluent limits (TBEL) actively employed toda y (i.e., FIFRA labels) are sufficient to protect surface water quality and meet many state requirements of “no toxics in toxic amounts”. Further, the EPA hopes to be able to demonstrate, if needed, th at the TBELs proposed in the draft permit (FIFRA‐approved labels combined with IPM and various BMP requirements) will be increasingly sufficient to protect waters of the US. Recall, th e EPA is proposing to use TBEL, rather than water quality‐based limits.

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

Data can be submitted to Jordan Page at page

. jordan @ epa

. gov

I’ve tried to word this as clearly as possible, but if I have c onfused anyone, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached by e‐mail or at the following numb er.

Davis H. Daiker, Ph.D. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. A ny unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.