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/pest1.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 25th, 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/oppefed1/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 and
washed 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 AM

To: Gaul, Steve; Bernards, Mark; Kolok, Alan; 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.jordan@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/pest1.htm

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

Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:42 AM

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 their 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, Alaska, and tribal lands. However, it will 

likely serve as a template for the remaining 45 states to develop 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 permit and what is required under the 

CWA. 

Over all, the meeting went very well and the permit approach taken by the Agency appears to be 

something that most states were amenable to.  I hope to be provided 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/information that demonstrates that the 
technology‐based effluent limits (TBEL) actively employed today (i.e., FIFRA labels) are sufficient to

protect surface water quality and meet many state requirements of “no toxics in toxic amounts”. 

Further, the EPA hopes to be able to demonstrate, if needed, that the TBELs proposed in the draft 

permit (FIFRA‐approved labels combined with IPM and various BMP requirements) will be 

increasingly sufficient to protect waters of the US. Recall, the EPA is proposing to use TBEL, rather 

than water quality‐based limits.

EPA is specifically interested in receiving any surface water monitoring data on pesticide active 

ingredients. Although, data from more controlled studies, where application rates, dates, etc. are 

known, are preferred, the EPA would be interested in any ambient monitoring data demonstrating 

protection of water resources. They did not specify whether they only want data from pesticide use 

scenarios covered under the permit (aquatic weed control), so I would see what data you have 

available and provide it to the Agency. 

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 confused anyone, please do not hesitate to 

contact me. I can be reached by e‐mail or at the following number.

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. Any 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.