ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PESTICIDE GENERAL PERMIT (PGP)

FOR POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES FROM THE APPLICATION OF 

PESTICIDES

October 28, 2011

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460
i October 2011

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................VI

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

1.1. Background..................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. States, Territories, and Federal 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 (Part 2.0)......................................................... 4

2.1.1. Applicators’ Responsibilities (Part 2.1).................................................................... 4

2.1.2. Decision-makers’ Responsibilities (Part 2.2) ........................................................... 4

2.1.2.1 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control (Part 2.2.1)............................. 5

2.1.2.2 Weed and Algae Pest Control (Part 2.2.2)......................................................... 6

2.1.2.3 Animal Pest Control (Part 2.2.3) ....................................................................... 7

2.1.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control (Part 2.2.4)............................................................ 8

2.2. Administrative and Monitoring Requirements............................................................... 8

2.2.1. Notice of Intent (Part 1.2.2)...................................................................................... 9

2.2.2. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (Part 5)...................................................... 11

2.2.3. Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet (Part 7.3)............................................ 11

2.2.4. Annual Reporting (Part 7.6 and Part 7.7) ............................................................... 11

2.2.5. Recordkeeping (Part 7) ........................................................................................... 12

2.2.6. Monitoring (Part 4) ................................................................................................. 13

2.2.7. Summary................................................................................................................. 13

3. IDENTIFICATION OF LIKELY AFFECTED ENTITIES................................ 14

3.1. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control ........................................................... 14

3.1.1. Agencies.................................................................................................................. 15

3.1.2. Mosquito Control Districts and Similar Pest Control Districts .............................. 15

3.1.3. Local Governments and Other Entities................................................................... 17

3.1.4. Summary................................................................................................................. 18

3.2. Weed and Algae Pest Control....................................................................................... 19

3.2.1. Agencies.................................................................................................................. 19

3.2.2. Irrigation and Weed Control Districts or Similar Pest Control Districts................ 21

3.2.3. Local Governments and Other Entities................................................................... 22

3.2.4. Summary................................................................................................................. 34

3.3. Animal Pest Control...................................................................................................... 34

3.3.1. Agencies.................................................................................................................. 35

3.3.2. Local Governments and Other Entities................................................................... 35

3.3.3. Summary................................................................................................................. 37

3.4. Forest Canopy Pest Control .......................................................................................... 37

3.4.1. Agencies.................................................................................................................. 38

3.4.2. Local Governments and Other Entities................................................................... 38

3.4.3. Summary................................................................................................................. 40

3.5. Summary....................................................................................................................... 41

4. OVERLAP WITH EXISTING REQUIREMENTS ............................................. 42
ii October 2011

4.1. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control ........................................................... 42

4.2. Weed and Algae Pest Control....................................................................................... 45

4.3. Animal Pest Control...................................................................................................... 47

4.4. Forest Canopy Pest Control .......................................................................................... 49

5. ANALYSIS OF COSTS........................................................................................... 50

5.1. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations....................................................................... 50

5.1.1. Applicators’ Responsibilities.................................................................................. 50

5.1.2. Decision-makers’ Responsibilities.......................................................................... 50

5.1.2.1 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control .............................................. 51

5.1.2.2 Weed and Algae Pest Control.......................................................................... 58

5.1.2.3 Animal Pest Control ........................................................................................ 65

5.1.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control............................................................................. 68

5.1.3. Summary of Technology-Based Effluent Limitation Costs.................................... 71

5.2. Administrative and Monitoring .................................................................................... 73

5.2.1. Notice of Intent ....................................................................................................... 75

5.2.2. Recordkeeping ........................................................................................................ 76

5.2.3. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan................................................................... 79

5.2.4. Annual Reports ....................................................................................................... 80

5.2.5. Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 80

5.2.6. Corrective Action Documentation .......................................................................... 81

5.2.7. Total Annual Costs ................................................................................................. 82

5.3. Summary of Costs......................................................................................................... 87

6. SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS................................................................................ 92

6.1. Identification of Small Entities..................................................................................... 92

6.2. Evaluating Potential Economic Impact......................................................................... 93

6.3. Summary....................................................................................................................... 96

7. QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFITS .................................................. 97

7.1. Potential for Reduced Discharges................................................................................. 97

7.2. Environmental Benefits ................................................................................................ 97

7.2.1. Ecological Benefits................................................................................................. 98

7.2.2. Ecological Benefit Values....................................................................................... 98

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................100
iii October 2011

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1-1: NPDES Unauthorized States, Territories, and Federal Facilities (2009)...................... 2

Table 2-1: Summary of Pesticide General Permit Requirements................................................. 13

Table 3-1: Potentially Affected Entities: Mosquito and Other Flying Pest Control..................... 18

Table 3-2: Potentially Affected Entities Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of 

Concern: Mosquito and Other Flying Pest Control .......................................................... 19

Table 3-3: Agencies: Weed and Algae Pest Control .................................................................... 21

Table 3-4: Agencies Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern: Weed and Algae 

Pest Control....................................................................................................................... 21

Table 3-5: Summary of Potentially Affected Irrigation Districts................................................. 22

Table 3-6: Summary of Potentially Affected Irrigation Districts Which Overlap With NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern ............................................................................................ 22

Table 3-7: Estimate of Number of Governments Using Pesticides to Control Weeds and Algae in 

Surface Waters.................................................................................................................. 24

Table 3-8: Estimate of Number of Governments Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources 

of Concern......................................................................................................................... 25

Table 3-9: Number of Counties Using Pesticides for Right-of-Way Ditches .............................. 25

Table 3-10: Number of Counties Using Pesticides for Right-of-Way Ditches Which Overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern ................................................................................ 26

Table 3-11: Estimated Number of Public Drinking Water Utilities with Surface Water Intakes127

Table 3-12: Estimated Number of Public Drinking Water Utilities with Surface Water Intakes 

Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern1............................................ 27

Table 3-13: Estimated Number of Industrial Facilities with Surface Water Intakes.................... 28

Table 3-14: Estimated Number of Industrial Facilities with Surface Water Intakes Which 

Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern ......................................................... 29

Table 3-15: Irrigated Farms in Unauthorized States..................................................................... 29

Table 3-16: Irrigated Farms in Unauthorized States Which Overlap With NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern ....................................................................................................... 30

Table 3-17: Summary of Local Governments and Other Entities Above and Below Annual 

Treatment Area Thresholds............................................................................................... 31

Table 3-18: Summary of Local Governments and Other Entities Above and Below Annual 

Treatment Area Thresholds Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. 33

Table 3-19: Potentially Affected Entities: Weed and Algae Pest Control.................................... 34

Table 3-20: Potentially Affected Entities Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of 

Concern: Weed and Algae Pest Control ........................................................................... 34

Table 3-21: Estimated Number of Potentially Affected Entities with Surface Water Intakes ..... 36

Table 3-22: Estimated Number of Potentially Affected Entities with Surface Water Intakes 

Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.............................................. 36

Table 3-23: Potential Number of Affected Entities: Animal Pest Control ................................... 37

Table 3-24: Potential Number of Affected Entities Which Overlap With NFMS Listed Resources 

of Concern: Animal Pest Control...................................................................................... 37

Table 3-25: Estimated Number of Private Forests Treated with Insecticides .............................. 39

Table 3-26: Estimated Percentage of Private Forests Less than 5,000 Acres............................... 40

Table 3-27: Potentially Affected Entities: Forest Canopy Pest Control....................................... 40
iv October 2011

Table 3-28: Potentially Affected Entities Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of 

Concern: Forest Canopy Pest Control............................................................................... 40

Table 3-29: Summary of Potentially Affected Entities1............................................................... 41

Table 3-30: Summary of Potentially Affected Entities Which Overlap With NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern ....................................................................................................... 41

Table 4-1: Current Implementation of Part 2.2 for Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

........................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 4-2: Current Implementation of Part 2.2 Measures in Agencies and Local Governments: 

Weed and Algae Pest Control........................................................................................... 46

Table 4-3: Current Implementation of Part 2.2 Measures for Weed and Algae Pest Control ...... 47

Table 4-4: Current Implementation of Part 2.2 Measures for Weed and Algae Pest Control: 

Percentage of Entities Not in Compliance ........................................................................ 47

Table 5-1: Massachusetts Mosquito Control District Expenditures............................................. 51

Table 5-2: Estimated Incremental Costs to Regional/District Entities: Identifying the Problem, 

Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control ............................................................... 54

Table 5-3: Estimated Incremental Costs to Municipal Entities: Identifying the Problem, Mosquito 

and Other Flying Insect Pest Control................................................................................ 54

Table 5-4: Estimated Incremental Costs: Pest Management Options, Mosquito and Other Flying 

Insect Pest Control ............................................................................................................ 57

Table 5-5: Potential Costs: Identifying the Problem, Weed and Algae Pest Control................... 60

Table 5-6: Potential Affected Acres and Feasible Costs: Pest Management Options, Weed and 

Algae Pest Control1........................................................................................................... 63

Table 5-7: Potential Costs: Pesticide Use, Weed and Algae Pest Control.................................... 65

Table 5-8: Potential Costs: Identifying the Problem, Animal Pest Control.................................. 66

Table 5-9: Potential Affected Acres and Feasible Costs: Pest Management Options, Animal Pest 

Control .............................................................................................................................. 67

Table 5-10: Potential Costs: Pesticide Use, Animal Pest Control ................................................ 68

Table 5-11: Potential Costs: Identify the Problem, Forest Canopy Pest Control ......................... 69

Table 5-12: Potential Costs: Pest Management, Forest Canopy Pest Control.............................. 70

Table 5-13: Summary of Estimated Unit Costs............................................................................ 72

Table 5-14: Summary of Estimated Annual Technology-Based Effluent Limitation Costs ($/yr)

........................................................................................................................................... 73

Table 5-15: Summary of PGP Administrative Requirements....................................................... 74

Table 5-16: Estimated Labor Cost ($/hour).................................................................................. 75

Table 5-17: Potential Costs for NOI Submittal............................................................................. 75

Table 5-18: Potential Costs for Additional NOI Assessment (Criterion E and F only) ............... 76

Table 5-19: Potential Recordkeeping Costs.................................................................................. 79

Table 5-20: Potential Level of Effort to Prepare PDMP............................................................... 80

Table 5-21: Potential Cost to Produce PDMP .............................................................................. 80

Table 5-22: Potential Reporting Cost ........................................................................................... 80

Table 5-23: Potential Monitoring Cost ......................................................................................... 81

Table 5-24: Unit Costs for Corrective Action Documentation..................................................... 82

Table 5-25: Summary of Potential Annual Administrative and Monitoring Costs per Entity by 

Component........................................................................................................................ 83

Table 5-26: Administrative and Monitoring Costs ($/yr)............................................................. 85

Table 5-27: Potential Costs Associated with Corrective Action Documentation......................... 87
v October 2011

Table 5-28: Summary of Potential Annual Administrative and Monitoring Costs ($/yr)............ 87

Table 5-29: Summary of Total Estimated Costs ($/yr)1............................................................... 88

Table 5-30: Key Uncertainties of the Analysis............................................................................. 89

Table 5-31: Potential Average Entity Costs for Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control1

........................................................................................................................................... 90

Table 5-32: Potential Average Entity Costs for Weed and Algae Pest Control1.......................... 90

Table 5-33: Potential Average Entity Costs for Animal Pest Control1......................................... 91

Table 5-34: Potential Average Entity Costs for Forest Canopy Pest Control1............................. 91

Table 6-1: Average Compliance Costs for Entities with Part 2.2 Requirements and Potential 

Revenue Threshold Values for Characterizing Impacts to Small Entities........................ 94

Table 6-2: Average Compliance Costs for Entities without Part 2.2 Requirements and Potential 

Revenue Threshold Values for Characterizing Impacts to Small Governments .............. 94

Table 6-3: Municipality and County Revenues based on Average Per Capita Revenues1........... 95

Table 7-1: Types of Benefits Associated With Environmental Policies: Ecological Improvements

........................................................................................................................................... 98

Figure 1: Map of Massachusetts Mosquito Control Projects, 2009.............................................. 16
vi October 2011

Executive Summary

This report presents an evaluation of the potential costs and benefits associated with 

implementing the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for the application of biological pesticides, and 

chemical pesticides (―pesticides‖) resulting in discharges to Waters of the United States. 

Note that the administrative and monitoring costs presented herein likely are much less than if 

NPDES individual permits were issued to each of the affected entities in the areas for which the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing this NPDES general permit.

ES.1 Introduction

On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final regulation to codify its interpretation 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 and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirements.

After the rule was published, petitions for review were filed in 11 Circuit Courts. These petitions 

were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 7, 2009, the Sixth Circuit 

Court in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA vacated the CWA Pesticides Rule. On April 9, 

2009, the Department of Justice filed a motion to stay issuance of the Court’s mandate for two 

years. In addition, industry petitioners filed a motion to seek a rehearing of the Sixth Circuit 

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 making available general permits to Operators for point source dischargers 

for pesticide applications that result in a direct discharge of pesticides (biological pesticides, and 

chemical pesticides that leave a residue) to Waters of the United States for certain pesticide use 

patterns. Point source dischargers not eligible for the general permits may apply for individual 

permits. The PGP is being issued for states, federal facilities, tribal lands, and territories where 

EPA has NPDES permitting authority. 

An Operator can seek coverage under the PGP for discharges to Waters of the United States from 

the application of biological pesticides, and chemical pesticides that leave a residue under the 

following pesticide use patterns:

Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Weed and Algae Pest Control

Animal Pest Control

Forest Canopy Pest Control

The PGP includes eligibility requirements, technology-based and water quality-based effluent 

limitations (TBELs and WQBELs), and administrative1and monitoring conditions. Only 

Operators meeting the eligibility requirements outlined in Part 1.1 of the permit may be covered 

under the PGP. As mentioned above, the PGP covers the discharge of pesticides (biological 

pesticides and chemical pesticides which leave a residue) to the Waters of the United States 

 

1

Includes activities such as maintaining documentation, preparing annual reports, developing pesticide discharge 

management plan, completing pesticide discharge evaluation worksheets, and submitting a notice of intent.
vii October 2011

resulting from the four pesticide use patterns. The TBELs require all Operators to minimize the 

discharge to Waters of the United States from the application of pesticides. Part 2.1 of the 

permit requires all Applicators to use only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide 

application necessary to control the target pest, maintain pesticide application equipment, and 

assess weather conditions to ensure application is consistent with all applicable federal 

requirements. Part 2.2 of the permit requires all Decision-makers to use only the amount of 

pesticide and frequency of pesticide application necessary to control the target pest. In addition, 

under Part 2.2 of the permit, for each of the four identified pesticide use patterns, certain 

Decision-makers (except those Decision-makers that will need to submit an NOI only because 

they discharge to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern 

and that also comply with provisions in Part 1.6 of the permit) are required to identify the 

problem, implement pest management options, and adhere to certain pesticide use provisions. 

Administrative requirements differ by entity and are dependent on certain criteria, and may 

include the submission of a notice of intent (NOI) to be covered under the permit, monitoring, 

development and implementation of a pesticide discharge management plan (PDMP), annual 

reports, and recordkeeping, including pesticide discharge evaluation worksheet. The 

applicability of the different permit requirements depends on the type of Operators (Decisionmakers versus Applicators), type of Decision-makers (i.e., Agencies, irrigation districts, etc.), 

size of Decision-makers (large versus small entities), location (the discharge is to Tier 3 waters 

or to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern), and extent of 

pesticide applications (annual treatment area thresholds which vary by pesticide use patterns).

The PGP applies only to states and territories where EPA has NPDES permitting authority for 

pesticide discharges; states and territories with complete NPDES permitting authority are 

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 Hampshire, and New Mexico. EPA has full NPDES permitting authority for these 

states; additionally, EPA is the permitting authority over pesticide discharges to waters in Alaska 

and Oklahoma. In addition, EPA has permitting authority over all U.S. territories (except the 

Virgin Islands), tribal lands within 31 states, and federal facilities within 4 states. Hereinafter, 

EPA uses the terms ―unauthorized areas‖ to refer to the areas where EPA is the authorized 

permitting authority. 

ES.2 Potentially Affected Entities

This is the first time that EPA is issuing NPDES permits for discharges to Waters of the United 

States resulting from the application of pesticides. Thus, there is some uncertainty in this 

analysis regarding who will seek permit coverage. Although EPA believes it has captured the 

majority of potential Operators under the four pesticide use patterns in the PGP, there may be 

some entities not accounted for. However, EPA believes that the cost incurred by any additional 

entities would be similar to the costs incurred by those similar entities for which EPA has 

provided cost estimates. Based on information obtained during the five-year permit cycle, EPA 

will adjust these estimated costs, as necessary, for any future permit reissuance.

The types of entities or Operators that may be affected by the PGP vary by pesticide use pattern 

and may include federal and tribal governments, state and local governments (including 

territories), mosquito control districts, utilities, irrigation districts, weed control districts, forest 

owners, and other private entities. In the PGP, an Operator includes both ―Applicators‖ and 

―Decision-makers.‖ An Applicator is an entity who performs the application of a pesticide or 

who has day-to-day control of the application (i.e., they are authorized to direct workers to carry 
viii October 2011

out those activities) that results in a discharge to Waters of the United States. A Decision-maker 

is an entity with control over the decision to perform pesticide applications, including the ability 

to modify those decisions that result in discharges to Waters of the United States. As such, more 

than one Operator may be responsible for compliance with the permit for any single discharge 

from the application of pesticides.

There is no central source of data to facilitate identification of potentially affected entities. EPA 

therefore relied on information available from the unauthorized areas. Where specific 

information was not available, EPA made assumptions based on other available data to estimate 

the number or types of likely affected entities. Using more accurate estimates for the 

unauthorized areas could yield different results and possibly different conclusions. However, in 

the absence of better data, EPA’s analysis represents a rough estimate of the number and types of 

potentially affected entities. In addition, EPA also received and reviewed public comments on 

the proposed permit and incorporated, as appropriate, any data from these comments into the 

analysis.

Table ES-1 shows the estimates of potentially affected entities by unauthorized area and 

pesticide use pattern. Nearly 97% of these entities are in the weed and algae pest control use 

pattern. However, there is uncertainty regarding whether all of these entities will be affected by 

the PGP (e.g., irrigated farmers). Moreover, based on the best available information, EPA does 

not expect that most of the weed and algae pest control entities will exceed the annual treatment 

area threshold established in the PGP for the pesticide use pattern. 

Table ES-1: Summary of Potentially Affected Entities1

Unauthorized Area

Mosquito and 

Other Flying 

Insect Pest 

Control

Weed and 

Algae Pest 

Control

Animal Pest 

Control

Forest 

Canopy 

Pest Control

Total

Alaska 2 350 15 18 385

Idaho 23 16,489 12 48 16,572

Massachusetts 9 2,153 26 214 2,402

New Hampshire 44 640 10 85 779

New Mexico 13 10,286 8 26 10,333

Oklahoma 1 3,889 74 159 4,123

District of Columbia 1 8 2 0 11

Territories 1 314 38 4 357

Tribes 17 93 25 34 169

Federal Facilities 65 65 65 50 245

Total 176 34,287 275 638 35,376

1. Includes large and small entities as well as those above and below the annual treatment area thresholds.

ES.3 Potential Costs

Potentially affected entities may incur costs associated with the requirements of the PGP. For 

example, the PGP will only result in incremental costs associated with the technology-based 

effluent limitation provisions in instances where the requirements represent activities that are not 

already being implemented by affected entities (voluntarily or in compliance with existing 

pesticide regulations). EPA used existing information provided by representatives from a 

number of the unauthorized areas to estimate the extent of current compliance with components 

of the PGP. In instances where information was not available, EPA generally assumes that 
ix October 2011

entities are not currently implementing the required activities and would therefore incur 

incremental costs to comply with the PGP (see Chapter 4 for further details).

Technology-Based Effluent Limitations

Under Part 2.1 of the permit, the technology-based effluent limitations of the PGP require all 

Applicators to minimize the discharge of pollutants to Waters of the United States from the 

application of pesticides by complying with the following requirements: (1) use only the amount 

of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application necessary to control the target pest; (2) 

maintain pesticide application equipment; and (3) assess weather conditions to ensure application 

is consistent with all applicable federal requirements. Estimates of the costs associated with these 

activities, as currently being implemented by Applicators, are not available. However, given the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) pesticide label requirements 

already stipulate the amount of the product per application (along with the frequency) and 

information from Idaho, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire indicating that all entities are 

currently performing maintenance (including equipment calibration) as a part of normal 

operating procedures (ISDA, 2009; MADEP, 2009; and NHDAMF, 2009), incremental 

compliance costs are likely close to zero.

Under Part 2.2 of the permit, all Decision-makers must minimize the discharge of pesticides to 

Waters of the United States from the application of pesticides. All Decision-makers, to the 

extent Decision-makers determine the amount of pesticide or frequency of pesticide applications, 

must minimize the discharge of pesticides to Waters of the United States from the application of 

pesticides by using only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application necessary 

to control the target pest. All Decision-makers that are required to submit NOIs must meet 

additional technology-based effluent limitations (except those Decision-makers that will need to 

submit an NOI only because they discharge to Waters of the United States containing NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern and that also comply with provisions in Part 1.6 of the permit). See 

PGP’s Table 1-1, Decision-makers Required to Submit NOIs. Decision-makers that do not have 

to submit NOIs, and are also Applicators only have to meet the effluent limitations in Part 2.1 of 

the permit, which are less burdensome than Part 2.2 of the permit. Additionally, the 

administrative costs will be less for these Decision-makers as well. The effluent limitations in 

Part 2.2 of the permit may or may not result in incremental costs, depending on the level of 

current compliance with the new requirements, the extent of pesticide applications (e.g., number 

of acres or linear miles treated), and the feasibility of alternatives to pesticide. Required 

activities in each of the four pesticide use patterns that may result in incremental costs include 

identifying the problem, implementing pest management options, and pesticide use requirements.

Some information on the potential unit costs of the requirements of Part 2.2 of the permit is 

available from the unauthorized states and other sources (e.g., entities performing pesticide 

applications in the unauthorized states). However, because the feasibility and cost of alternatives 

to pesticide will be highly site- and entity- specific, EPA could only develop illustrative 

estimates based on potential incremental unit costs for some PGP components. For this reason, 

actual costs incurred may vary.

Identification of the problem and pest management options may result in incremental costs for 

mosquito and other flying insect pest control and weed and algae pest control use patterns 

because Decision-makers may not be currently performing such actions under existing 

requirements. This may also be the case for incremental costs associated with pesticide 

application for weed and algae pest control entities. For the remaining categories (including 
x October 2011

requirements for animal pest control and forest canopy pest control, technology-based effluent 

limitations are not likely to be associated with incremental costs. However, entities that are 

required to submit an NOI solely because the discharge overlaps with NMFS Listed Resources of 

Concern (mainly entities which do not exceed the annual treatment area threshold and are now 

required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit) may not already be implementing the 

requirements due to their small treatment areas. These entities, from any of the four use patterns, 

may incur incremental costs.

Table ES-2 provides a summary of the potential annual incremental costs associated with the 

different practices (unit costs for various PGP requirements) in each pesticide use pattern. For 

mosquito and other flying insect pest control, the potential unit costs provided are midpoints for 

ranges of potential costs. For weed and algae pest control, unit costs are based on the area 

treated. EPA assumes some of the practices for animal pest control are similar to weed control. 

Therefore, in the absence of unit cost estimates, EPA uses the low-end costs identified for weed 

control as representative of unit costs for animal control. Because entities for forest canopy pest 

control are below the annual treatment area threshold (thus their treated area is small) and their 

aerial applications are similar to mosquito control, EPA uses half of the mosquito unit costs for 

municipalities as representative of the unit costs for forest canopy pest control.
xi October 2011

Table ES-2: Summary of Estimated Unit Costs for Technology-Based Effluent Limitations ($/yr)

Requirement Potential Unit Cost Description and Source

Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Identify the problem:

Pests/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 Massachusetts (MADEP, 2009; 

MDAR, 2008)

Midpoint of expenditures in mosquito control districts 

in Massachusetts (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 options:

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 Massachusetts (MADEP, 2009; 

MDAR, 2008)

Low end of range for implementing water 

management and vegetation and sediment removal 

in mosquito control districts in Massachusetts 

(MADEP, 2009; MDAR, 2008)

Weed and Algae Pest Control

Identify the problem $100/acre Surveying costs (Coble, 2009)

Pest management options $50/acre -

$500/acre1

Illustrative only; represents potential feasible cost 

difference between pesticide and use of alternative 

method2

Pesticide use $100/acre Surveillance monitoring of aquatic weed treatments 

(ISDA, 2009)

Animal Pest Control

Identify the problem $100/acre EPA assumption of low-end unit costs from weed 

control

Pest management options $50/acre1 EPA assumption of low-end unit costs from weed 

control

Pesticide use $100/acre EPA assumption of low-end unit costs from weed 

control

Forest Canopy Pest Control

Identify the problem $10,000/entity EPA assumption of 50% of Municipality-level costs 

from mosquito control

Pest management options $400/entity EPA assumption of 50% of Municipality-level costs 

from mosquito control

NA = not applicable (no incremental costs identified).

1. Assumed for half of affected acres, for illustration. 

2. Actual costs of feasible alternatives to pesticide will be site- and entity-specific.

As shown in the table, the availability and prevalence of cost data varies for each permit 

requirement and pesticide use pattern. 

Table ES-3 shows the potential annual costs by unauthorized area and pesticide use pattern. As 

shown in Table ES-3, total technology-based effluent limitation costs in the unauthorized areas 

may be in the range of $8 million to $9 million annually. Note that most of the costs are 

attributable to identifying the problem and pest management options under the mosquito control 
xii October 2011

use pattern, and that these costs are highly uncertain and entity-specific; actual costs may be 

higher or lower than estimated.

Table ES-3: Summary of Potential Annual Cost of Technology-Based Effluent Limitation ($/yr)

Unauthorized 

Area

Mosquito 

and Other 

Flying 

Insect Pest1

Weed and Algae Pest 

Control1

Animal 

Pest 

Control

Forest 

Canopy 

Pest 

Control

Total Costs

Alaska $42,000 $0 $0 $0 $42,000

Idaho $4,017,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,017,000

Massachusetts $0 $130,000 - $364,000 $0 $0 $130,000 - $364,000

New Hampshire $34,000 $50,000 - $284,000 $0 $0 $84,000 - $318,000

New Mexico $2,535,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,535,000

Oklahoma $21,000 $414,000 - $828,000 $0 $0 $435,000 - $849,000

District of Columbia $195,000 $0 $0 $0 $195,000

Territories $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Tribes $354,000 $162,000 - $324,000 $0 $0 $516,000 - $678,000

Federal Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

NMFS Listed 

Resources2 $0 $61,000 $13,500 $72,800 $147,300

Total $7,198,000 $817,000 $1,861,000 $13,500 $72,800 $8,101,300 $9,145,300

1. Includes illustrative cost estimate for pest management based on potential feasible net incremental costs; actual costs will be site- and 

entity-specific.

2. Includes other Decision-makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to Waters of the United States 

containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern (except those Decision-makers that will need to submit an NOI only because they discharge to 

Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and that also comply with provisions in Part 1.6 of the permit). 

.

Administrative and Monitoring

The total magnitude of administrative and monitoring costs depends on the number of entities 

seeking coverage under the PGP, and the applicability of the different requirements. For 

example, EPA assumed that 0.01% of entities would experience an adverse incident, 0.1% of 

entities would experience a spill or leak, and 0.1% of entities would experience some other 

incident requiring corrective action, with an approximate total of 0.21% of all entities 

experiencing an incident requiring corrective action (see Section 5.2.6 for details). 

Affected entities may accrue administrative costs as a result of requirements addressing NOI, 

recordkeeping, pesticide discharge management plans, annual reporting, monitoring, and 

pesticide discharge evaluation worksheet requirements. To estimate these potential 

administrative and monitoring costs, EPA identified the likely level of effort (e.g., number of 

hours associated with performing each activity) and the potential cost of that effort (e.g., average 

wage rate). Table ES-4 provides a summary of the potential annual incremental costs for the 

different activities. 
xiii October 2011

Table ES-4: Potential Annual Administrative and Monitoring Unit Costs per Entity ($/yr.)

Requirement

Agencies, Large 

MCD/IDs, Large 

Entities 

Exceeding 

Thresholds

Small MCDs/IDs 

and Small 

Entities 

Exceeding 

Thresholds

Entities which 

overlap with 

NMFS Listed 

Resources of 

Concern3

Other Entities 

Below 

Thresholds

NOI $30 $30 $30 NA

NOI Assessment (Criterion E) NA NA $330 NA

NOI Assessment (Criterion F) NA NA $100 NA

PDMP $430 NA NA NA

Recordkeeping for All Entities 

(Part 7.1)1and (Part 7.5) $40 $40 $40 $40 

Equipment Recordkeeping 

(Part 7.2.a)2 $100 $100 NA NA

Recordkeeping for Small Entities 

(Part 7,3; PDEW) NA $200 NA NA

Recordkeeping for Large Entities 

(Part 7.4) $820 NA NA NA

Annual Reporting $410 NA $410 NA

Monitoring $10 $10 $10 $10 

Total $1,840 $380 $920 $50

Note: Numbers in table are rounded for ease of calculation.

ID = Irrigation district (including weed control districts)

MCD = Mosquito control district

NA = not applicable

NOI = Notice of Intent

PDEW = Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet

PDMP = Pesticide Discharge Management Plan

1. Only incurred as a result of an adverse incident, spill/leak, or other incident requiring corrective action.

2. Equipment recordkeeping (Part 7.2 of the permit) also applies to Decision-makers if they are also an Applicator.

3. Cost of NOI, recordkeeping, annual reporting, and monitoring are only for selected Decision-makers required to submit an NOI 

solely because discharge is to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. Cost for NOI assessment 

is only for selected Decision-makers certifying to Criterion E or Criterion F, respectively (see Part 2.2.1)

Table ES-5 shows total potential annual administrative and monitoring costs by pesticide use 

pattern and unauthorized area. Total costs may be approximately $2 million per year. These 

costs primarily reflect the cost associated with recordkeeping and annual reporting of pesticide 

discharges in ditch banks or irrigation canals to control weeds.
xiv October 2011

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

Unauthorized Area

Mosquito and 

Other Flying 

Insect Pest 

Control

Weed and 

Algae Pest 

Control

Animal Pest 

Control

Forest 

Canopy Pest 

Control

Total

Alaska $3,600 $27,419 $1,941 $1,972 $34,932

Idaho $23,882 $436,645 $1,911 $2,274 $464,712

Massachusetts $16,201 $78,571 $2,052 $3,948 $100,772

New Hampshire $45,294 $35,024 $1,891 $2,647 $84,856

New Mexico $17,561 $165,944 $1,871 $2,052 $187,428

Oklahoma $1,800 $192,797 $2,536 $3,393 $200,526

District of Columbia $1,800 $1,871 $1,810 $0 $5,481

Territories $1,800 $21,636 $11,123 $7,200 $41,760

Tribes $13,081 $19,028 $30,682 $57,623 $120,414

Federal Facilities $117,005 $117,005 $117,005 $90,004 $441,021

NMFS Listed 

Resources1 $4,610 $361,770 $4,780 $26,600 $397,760

Corrective Actions2$0 $11,010 $0 $310 $11,320

Total $246,635 $1,468,720 $177,603 $198,024 $2,090,982

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

1. Includes other Decision-makers required to submit NOIs and annual reports as well as comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely 

because of discharges to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, except those Decisionmakers that will need to submit an NOI only because they discharge to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern and that also comply with provisions in Part 1.6 of the permit (see Chapter 3 for how these entities are 

identified).

2. Note due to the assumed percentages of entities experiencing these actions, some use patterns may round to $0.

Total and Average Costs

Table ES-6 provides a summary of the technology-based effluent limitation and administrative 

and monitoring costs across the unauthorized areas and pesticide use patterns. Total annual 

costs as a result of the PGP may be in the range of $10 million to $11 million, with 

approximately 20% of these total costs representing administrative and monitoring costs. 

Estimated costs vary substantially by type of entity. For example, the highest costs are 

potentially borne by Agencies, large mosquito control districts, and large entities exceeding 

annual treatment area thresholds. These entities may have costs in the range of $2,000 to 

$200,000 annually, encompassing both TBEL costs and administrative and monitoring costs 

(assuming at least one corrective action per year). For the other pesticide use patterns, costs 

primarily reflect administrative and monitoring costs only.
xv October 2011

Table ES-6: Summary of Total Potential Annual Costs ($/yr)

Unauthorized 

Area

Mosquito 

and Other 

Flying Pest 

Insect

Weed and Algae Animal 

Pest

Forest 

Canopy Total

Alaska $45,600 $27,419 $1,941 $1,972 $76,932

Idaho $4,040,882 $436,645 $1,911 $2,274 $4,481,712

Massachusetts $16,201 $208,571 - $442,571 $2,052 $3,948 $230,772 - $464,772

New Hampshire $79,294 $85,024 - $319,024 $1,891 $2,647 $168,856 - $402,856

New Mexico $2,552,561 $165,944 $1,871 $2,052 $2,722,428

Oklahoma $22,800 $606,797 - $1,020,797 $2,536 $3,393 $635,526 - $1,049,526

District of Columbia $196,800 $1,871 $1,810 $0 $200,481

Territories $1,800 $21,636 $11,123 $7,200 $41,760

Tribes $367,081 $181,028 - $343,028 $30,682 $57,623 $636,414 - $798,414

Federal Facilities $117,005 $117,005 $117,005 $90,004 $441,021

NMFS Listed 

Resources1 $4,610 $422,770 $18,280 $99,400 $545,060

Total $7,444,635 $2,274,710 - 

$3,318,710 $191,103 $270,514

$10,180,962 - 

$11,224,962

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

ES.4 Small Entity Analysis

EPA conducted a screening analysis examining the potential impacts of the PGP on small 

entities. Because the permit contains different requirements for a subset of small public entities 

(defined in Appendix A as having populations fewer than 10,000) the potential impacts to those 

small public entities with fewer than 10,000 people are different from those with populations 

greater than 10,000 people and fewer than 50,000 people. 

Due to the very limited data available to identify the specific entities potentially affected by the 

PGP, EPA is not able to determine the exact number of entities considered to be small 

governments/businesses or their applicable revenues for comparison to potential compliance 

costs to determine the economic impact. Under a conservative (i.e., erring on the side of greater 

impacts) scenario, there could be 111 small entities under the mosquito and other flying insect 

pest control use pattern, 34,034 small entities (including those that would only incur costs 

associated with administrative and monitoring requirements) under the weed and algae pest 

control use pattern, 194 small entities under the animal pest control use pattern, and 576 small 

entities (mostly private forest owners) under the forest canopy pest control use pattern. Note that 

a number of these entities will have discharges below the annual treatment area thresholds and 

do not discharge into receiving Waters of the United States that overlap with NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern, and as a result, would not incur additional costs.

Lack of revenue data precludes estimating how many of these entities could incur significant 

economic impact based on a comparison of revenues to compliance costs. However, data on 

average revenues/sales for municipalities, counties, and irrigated farms provide some indication 

of the likelihood of level of impact, which varies greatly across the unauthorized areas and by 

pesticide use pattern. Public entities with Part 2.2 permit requirements could have populations 

above or below the threshold for the subset of small entities as defined in Appendix A of the 

permit (e.g., several mosquito control districts in New Mexico serve populations less than 10,000 

but the permit requires compliance with Part 2.2 of the permit because they are mosquito control 

districts).
xvi October 2011

The relative magnitude of per entity compliance cost in comparison to estimated revenues of 

different size small governments varies by area. For the subset of small entities as defined in 

Appendix A of the permit (i.e., small public entities with fewer than 10,000 people), those 

without Part 2.2 permit requirements would incur costs that exceed 1% of revenues only if they 

serve between 3 and 18 people (depending on the state) and 3% of revenues if they serve 

between 1 and 6 people based on average per capita revenues for municipalities with fewer than 

10,000 people. However, since it is unlikely that municipalities would have populations in these 

ranges, the cost impacts to these entities are not expected to be significant. 

For the subset of small entities with populations fewer than 10,000 people with Part 2.2 permit 

requirements, costs have the potential to exceed 1% of average revenues for small mosquito 

control entities in Idaho and New Mexico (costs would not exceed 3% of average revenues). 

However the estimated costs for these entities are based on costs to larger mosquito control 

districts and not entities that operate on a smaller, municipality-level. Thus, the estimate of 

average costs could be greatly overestimated if actual costs for mosquito control entities serving 

fewer than 10,000 people are closer to the municipality-level costs of $20,000 per year (in this 

case, costs would not exceed 1% of average revenues). 

For public entities with populations greater than 10,000 and fewer than 50,000 people, average 

costs could exceed 1% of revenues for mosquito control entities in Idaho with populations 

greater than 10,000 and fewer than 25,000. Again, actual compliance costs may be less than 

estimated, thus reducing the likelihood of significant impacts to small entities. For the remaining 

entities, average costs are not likely to exceed 1% or 3% of annual revenues.

For farms, estimated per-entity compliance costs are approximately $770, while average 

revenues in the relevant areas range from $48,374 to $228,343 and the national average annual 

revenue for small crop farms is $65,000 (USDA, 2007), suggesting that compliance costs are not 

likely to exceed 3% of revenues for these entities. However, there is no information indicating 

whether any of the ditch banks that are Waters of the United States are treated with pesticides. 

To be conservative (i.e., erring on the side of overstating impacts), EPA assumes that all irrigated 

farms use pesticides along ditch banks and that those ditches are to Waters of the United States. 

Similarly, private forest owners are not likely to incur costs above the 1% and 3% thresholds, 

given estimated compliance costs. 

ES.5 Potential Benefits

At this time, information is not available to quantify or monetize any beneficial impacts of this 

permit. Reducing the discharge of these pollutants to Waters of the United States, such as 

through compliance with the technology-based effluent limitations and documentation of Pest 

Management Measures implemented (PDMP) as required under the PGP, may lead to ecological 

benefits and associated values.

By minimizing discharges of the pesticides to Waters of the United States, the PGP will reduce 

the potential for adverse health and mortality impacts to aquatic wildlife. For any pollutants that 

accumulate in the system, 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. Although current data and information are insufficient to identify the 

extent or potential magnitude of benefits that will result from reducing pesticide loads to Waters 

of the United States, information gathered during the permit term may enable such an effort in 

the future.
1 October 2011

1. Introduction

This report presents an evaluation of the potential costs and benefits associated with 

implementing the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for the application of biological pesticides, and 

chemical pesticides (―pesticides‖) resulting in discharges to Waters of the United States.

Note that the administrative and monitoring costs presented herein likely are much less than if 

NPDES individual permits were issued to each of the affected entities in the areas for which the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing this NPDES general permit.

1.1. Background

On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final regulation to codify its interpretation 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 11 Circuit Courts. These petitions 

were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 7, 2009, the Sixth Circuit 

Court in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA vacated the CWA Pesticides Rule. On April 9, 

2009, the Department of Justice filed a motion to stay issuance of the Court’s mandate for two 

years. In addition, industry petitioners filed a motion to seek a rehearing of the Sixth Circuit 

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 making available general permits to Operators for point source discharges 

for pesticide applications that result in a direct discharge of pesticides (biological pesticides, and 

chemical pesticides that leave a residue) to Waters of the United States for certain pesticide use 

patterns. Point source dischargers not eligible for the general permits may apply for NPDES 

individual permits. The PGP is being issued for states, federal facilities, tribal lands, and 

territories where EPA has NPDES permitting authority. 

An Operator can seek coverage under the PGP for discharges to Waters of the United States from 

the application of biological pesticides, and chemical pesticides that leave a residue under the 

following pesticide use patterns:

Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control – to control public health/nuisance and other 

flying insect pests that develop or are present during a portion of their life cycle in or above 

standing or flowing water. Public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests in this use 

category include mosquitoes and black flies.

Weed and Algae Pest Control – to control weed, algae, and pathogens that are pests in water 

and at water’s edge, including ditches and/or canals.

Animal Pest Control – to control animal pests in water and at water’s edge. Animal pests in 

this use category include fish, lampreys, insects, mollusks, and pathogens.

Forest Canopy Pest Control – application of a pesticide to a forest canopy to control the 

population of a pest species (e.g., insect or pathogen) where to target the pests effectively, a 

portion of the pesticide unavoidably will be applied over and deposited to water.
2 October 2011

1.2. States, Territories, and Federal Facilities to be Covered

The PGP applies only to states and territories where EPA has NPDES permitting authority for 

pesticide discharges; states and territories with NPDES permitting authority are 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 

Hampshire, and New Mexico. EPA has full NPDES permitting authority for these states; 

additionally, EPA is the permitting authority for pesticide discharges in Alaska and Oklahoma. 

In this document, 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 facilities within four states. In this document, these areas and 

the unauthorized states are 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 Columbia1

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.

Section 3: Identification of Likely Affected Entities describes the types of entities that potentially 

apply pesticides under the four pesticide use patterns, and presents an assessment of the numbers 

and types of Operators potentially affected by the PGP.
3 October 2011

Section 4: Overlap with Existing Requirements summarizes current practices and regulations that 

already cover Operators in the areas of concern.

Section 5: Analysis of Costs presents an analysis of potential incremental costs to affected 

entities associated with compliance with the 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 environmental effects associated with 

pesticide discharges and the benefits of reducing these discharges.
4 October 2011

2. Overview of Pesticides General Permit

This section provides an overview of the requirements of the PGP, which covers point source 

discharges to Waters of the United States from applications of pesticides for specific pesticide 

use patterns. There are four general pesticide use patterns covered under the PGP: mosquito and 

other flying insect pest control, weed and algae pest control, animal pest control, and forest 

canopy pest control. The PGP includes technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs), for each 

pesticide use pattern, water quality-based effluent limitations and requirements associated with 

administrative2tasks and monitoring. 

In the PGP, an Operator includes both ―Applicators‖ and ―Decision-makers.‖ An Applicator is 

an entity who performs the application of a pesticide or who has day-to-day control of the 

application (i.e., they are authorized to direct workers to carry out those activities) that results in 

a discharge to Waters of the United States. A Decision-maker is an entity with control over the 

decision to perform pesticide applications, including the ability to modify those decisions that 

result in discharges to Waters of the United States. As such, more than one Operator may be 

responsible for compliance with the permit for any single discharge from the application of 

pesticides. 

2.1. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (Part 2.0)

TBELs apply to both the entity performing the pesticide application (i.e., Applicator) and the 

entity responsible for making the decision that pest control is necessary (i.e., Decision-maker); 

Applicators and Decision-makers may be the same entity. TBELs require all Operators to 

minimize the discharge to Waters of the United States from the application of pesticides through 

the use of Pest Management Measures. 

2.1.1. Applicators’ Responsibilities (Part 2.1)

Part 2.1 of the permit requires all Applicators to minimize the discharge of pesticides to Waters 

of the United States from the application of pesticides, through the use of Pest Management 

Measures, as defined in Appendix A of the permit. The PGP requires the following:

To the extent not determined by the Decision-maker, use only the amount of pesticide and 

frequency of pesticide application necessary to control the target pest, using equipment and 

application procedures appropriate for this task. 

Maintain pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition, including 

requirement to calibrate, clean, and repair such equipment and prevent leaks, spills, or other 

unintended discharges.

Assess weather conditions (e.g. temperature, precipitation and wind speed) in the treatment 

area to ensure application is consistent with all applicable federal requirements.

2.1.2. Decision-makers’ Responsibilities (Part 2.2)

Under Part 2.2 of the permit, all Decision-makers must minimize the discharge of pesticides to 

Waters of the United States from the application of pesticides, through the use of Pest 

 

2

Includes activities such as maintaining documentation, preparing and submitting annual reports, developing 

pesticide discharge management plan, completing pesticide discharge evaluation worksheets, and submitting a 

notice of intent.
5 October 2011

Management Measures, as defined in Appendix A of the permit. The PGP requires all Decisionmakers, to the extent Decision-makers determine the amount of pesticide or frequency of 

pesticide application, to minimize the discharge of pesticides to Waters of the United States from 

the application of pesticides by using only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide 

application necessary to control the target pest.

In addition, under Part 2.2 of the permit, Decision-makers required to submit a Notice of Intent 

(NOI), except those Decision-makers that will need to submit an NOI only because they 

discharge to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and that 

also comply with provisions in Part 1.6 of the permit, are required to identify the pest problem, 

implement effective and efficient pest management options, and adhere to certain pesticide use 

provisions. These requirements are aimed at reducing discharge of pesticides to Waters of the 

United States and lessening the effects of pesticides that are applied. Each pesticide use pattern 

has specific limitations, and these requirements are divided into three different sections: identify 

the problem, pest management options, and pesticide use provisions. For each pest management 

area, Decision-makers must identify the problem prior to pesticide application, consider using a 

combination of chemicals and non-chemical control measures, and perform surveillance before 

pesticide application.

2.1.2.1 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control (Part 2.2.1)

Mosquito and other flying insect pest control involves the control of public health/nuisance and 

other flying insect pests that develop or are present during a portion of their life cycle in or above 

standing or flowing water. Public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests in this use 

category include mosquitoes and black flies. The PGP requires the following:

Identify the Problem

 Establish densities for larval and adult mosquito or flying insect pest populations or 

identify environmental condition(s), either current or based on historical data, to serve as 

action threshold(s) for implementing Pest Management Measures;

 Identify target pest(s) to develop Pest Management Measures based on developmental 

and behavioral considerations for each pest;

 Identify known breeding sites for source reduction, larval control program, and habitat 

management;

 Analyze existing surveillance data to identify new or unidentified sources of mosquito or 

flying insect pest problems as well as sites that have recurring pest problems.

 In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use 

other available data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.1.a of the 

permit.

Pest Management Options

 Select and implement efficient and effective means of Pest Management Measures that 

minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control mosquitoes or 

other flying insect pests;
6 October 2011

 In developing the Pest Management Measures for each pest management area, evaluate 

the following management options, including combination of these management options, 

considering impact to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, feasibility, and cost 

effectiveness: no action, prevention, mechanical/ physical methods, cultural methods, 

biological control agents, and pesticides.

Pesticide Use

 Conduct larval and/or adult surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest 

problem or evaluate existing larval surveillance data, environmental conditions, or data 

from adjacent area prior to each pesticide application to assess the pest management area 

and to determine when action threshold(s) is met;

 Reduce the impact on the environment and on non-target organisms by applying the 

pesticide only when the action threshold(s) has been met;

 In situations or locations where practicable and feasible for efficacious control, use 

larvicides as a preferred pesticide for mosquito or flying insect pest control when larval 

action threshold(s) has been met;

 In situations or locations where larvicide use is not practicable or feasible for efficacious 

control, use adulticides for mosquito or flying insect pest control when adult action 

thresholds has been met.

2.1.2.2 Weed and Algae Pest Control (Part 2.2.2)

Weed and algae pest control involves the control weeds, algae, and pathogens that are pests in 

water and at water’s edge, including ditches and/or canals. The PGP requires the following:

Identify the Problem

 Identify areas with pest problems and characterize the extent of the problems, including, 

for example, water use goals not attained (e.g., wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, and 

recreation);

 Identify target pest(s);

 Identify possible factors causing or contributing to the pest problem (e.g., nutrients, 

invasive species, etc.);

 Establish any pest- and site-specific action threshold for implementing Part 2.2.2.b of the 

permit. 

 In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use 

other available data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.2.a of the 

permit.

Pest Management Options

 Select and implement efficient and effective means of pest management strategies that 

minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control pests.

 In developing the Pest Management Measures for each pest management area, evaluate 

the following management options, including combination of these management options, 

considering impact to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, feasibility, and cost 
7 October 2011

effectiveness: no action, prevention, mechanical/ physical methods, cultural methods, 

biological control agents, and pesticides.

Pesticide Use

 Conduct surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem prior to each 

pesticide application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the 

action threshold(s) is met; 

 Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by applying the 

pesticide only when the action threshold has been met.

2.1.2.3 Animal Pest Control (Part 2.2.3) 

Animal pest control involves the control of animal pests in water and at water’s edge. Animals 

in this use category include fish, lampreys, insects, mollusks, and pathogens. The PGP requires 

the following:

Identify the Problem 

 Identify areas with pest problems and characterize the extent of the problems, including, 

for example, water use goals not attained (e.g., wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, and 

recreation);

 Identify target animal pest(s);

 Identify possible factors causing or contributing to the problem (e.g., nutrients, invasive 

species);

 Establish any pest- and site-specific action threshold for implementing Part 2.2.3.b of the 

permit.

 In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use 

other available data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.3.a of the 

permit.

Pest Management Options

 Select and implement efficient and effective means of pest management strategies that 

minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control pests.

 In developing the Pest Management Measures for each pest management area, evaluate 

the following management options, including a combination of these management 

options, considering impact to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, feasibility, 

and cost effectiveness: no action, prevention, mechanical/ physical methods, biological 

control agents, and pesticides.

Pesticide Use 

 Conduct surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem prior to each 

application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the action 

threshold(s) is met; 
8 October 2011

 Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating site 

restrictions, application timing, and application method in addition to applying the 

pesticide only when the action threshold(s) has been met.

2.1.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control (Part 2.2.4)

Forest canopy pest control involves application of a pesticide to a forest canopy to control the 

population of a pest species (e.g., insect or pathogen) where to target the pests effectively, a 

portion of the pesticide unavoidably will be applied over and deposited to water. The PGP 

requires the following:

Identify the Problem 

 Establish any pest- and site-specific action threshold for implementing Part 2.2.4.b of the 

permit;

 Identify target pest(s) to develop Pest Management Measures based on developmental 

and behavioral considerations for each pest;

 Identify current distribution of the target pest and assess potential distribution in the 

absence of Pest Management Measures.

 In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use 

other available data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.4.a of the 

permit.

Pest Management Options

 Select and implement efficient and effective means of Pest Management Measures that 

minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control pests.

 In developing the Pest Management Measures for each pest management area, evaluate 

the following management options, including combination of these management options, 

considering impact to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, feasibility, and cost 

effectiveness: no action, prevention, mechanical/ physical methods, cultural methods, 

biological control agents, and pesticides.

Pesticide Use 

 Conduct surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem prior to each 

application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the pest action 

threshold is met;

 Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating the 

restrictions, application timing, and application methods in addition to applying the 

pesticide only when the action threshold(s) has been met; and

 Evaluate using pesticides against the most susceptible developmental stage.

2.2. Administrative and Monitoring Requirements

The PGP administrative requirements include submittal of an NOI, development of a Pesticide 

Discharge Management Plan (PDMP), submittal of annual reports, and recordkeeping, including 
9 October 2011

pesticide discharge evaluation worksheet. Also, all Operators must perform monitoring. The 

applicability of the different permit requirements depends on the type of Operator (Decisionmakers versus Applicators), type of Decision-makers (i.e., Agencies, irrigation districts, etc.), 

size of Decision-makers (large versus small entities), location (the discharge is to Tier 3 waters 

or to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern), and extent of 

pesticide applications (annual treatment area thresholds which vary by pesticide use patterns). 

2.2.1. Notice of Intent (Part 1.2.2)

Any Decision-maker who meets one or more of the following criteria must submit an NOI:

Any Agency for which pest management for land resource stewardship is an integral part of 

the organization’s operations.

Mosquito control districts, or similar pest control districts

Irrigation and weed control districts or similar pest control districts

Local government or other entities conducting weed/algae pest control or animal pest control 

and the annual treatment area is more than 80 acres or 20 linear miles;

Local government or other entities conducting mosquito control and adulticiding more than 

6,400 acres annually;

Local government or other entities conducting forest canopy pest control and treating more 

than 6,400 acres annually; 

the discharges from pesticide applications to Outstanding National Resource Waters (Tier 3) 

is made to restore or maintain water quality or to protect public health or the environment 

that either do not degrade water quality or only degrade water quality on a short-term or 

temporary basis; or 

the discharges from pesticide application is to Waters of the United States containing NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern.

Any Decision-maker proposing to discharge to Waters of the United States with NFMS 

Listed Resources of Concern must submit a Notice of Intent. Coverage under the permit 

is available only for discharges and discharge-related activities that are not likely to 

adversely affect species that are federally-listed as endangered or threatened (―listed‖) 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or habitat that is federally-designated as critical 

under the ESA (―critical habitat‖), except as provided in Criterion B, C, and, for 60 days, 

D, below. As one of the provision in the permit that help limit adverse effects to these 

resources, the six criteria (A-F) below relate to the impacts a prospective discharger's 

activities may have on a subset of these listed species and critical habitat. Specifically, the 

conditions below relate to potential impacts on NMFS Listed Resource of Concern, as 

defined in Appendix A of the permit. These are resources that have been identified through 

consultation with NMFS as having potential vulnerability that warrants the additional 

protections entailed in compliance with A-F. Other provisions that protect listed species 

more broadly include Section 1.6, which requires compliance with any conditions resulting 

from an ESA Section 7 consultation or ESA Section 10 permit, and the waiting period 

between NOI submittal and authorization to discharge, which provides an opportunity for 

NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, and members of the public to identify 

any potential impacts on listed species and for EPA to notify the permittee if further 

conditions or an individual permit are necessary. To demonstrate eligibility, Decision-
10 October 2011

makers must meet one or more of the following six criteria (A-F) for the entire term of 

coverage under the permit: 

Criterion A. Pesticide application activities will not result in a point source discharge to one 

or more Waters of the United States containing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

Listed Resources of Concern, as defined in Appendix A of the permit.

Criterion B. Pesticide application activities for which permit coverage is being requested 

will discharge to one or more receiving Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern, as defined in Appendix A of the permit, but consultation with NMFS 

under section 7 of the ESA has been concluded for pesticide application activities covered 

under the PGP. Consultations can be either formal or informal, and would have occurred only 

as a result of a separate federal action. The consultation addressed the effects of pesticide 

discharges and discharge-related activities on federally-listed threatened or endangered 

species and federally-designated critical habitat, and must have resulted in either: 

 A biological opinion from NMFS finding no jeopardy to federally-listed species and no 

destruction/adverse modification of federally-designated critical habitat; or 

 Written concurrence from NMFS with a finding that the pesticide discharges and 

discharge-related activities are not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species or 

federally-designated critical habitat. 

Criterion C. Pesticide application activities for which permit coverage is being requested 

will discharge to one or more Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern, as defined in Appendix A of the permit, but all ―take‖ of these 

resources associated with such pesticide application activities has been authorized through 

NMFS’ issuance of a permit under section 10 of the ESA, and authorization addresses the 

effects of the pesticide discharges and discharge-related activities on federally-listed species 

and federally-designated critical habitat. (The term ―take‖ means to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. 

See Section 3 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C § 1532(19).) 

Criterion D. Pesticide application activities were, or will be, discharged to one or more 

Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, as defined in 

Appendix A of the permit, but only in response to a Declared Pest Emergency Situation.

Decision-makers must provide EPA with their rationale supporting the determination whether the 

discharge is likely to adversely affect listed species, including the description of appropriate 

measures to be undertaken to avoid or eliminate the likelihood of adverse effects.

Criterion E. Pesticide application activities for which permit coverage is being requested in 

the NOI will discharge to one or more Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern, as defined in Appendix A of the permit. Eligible discharges include 

those where the Decision-maker includes in the NOI written correspondence from NMFS 

that pesticide application activities performed consistent with appropriate measures will 

avoid or eliminate the likelihood of adverse effects. Eligibility under this criterion is contingent 

upon the Decision-maker following the measures described in correspondence from NMFS 

designed to avoid or eliminate the likelihood of adverse effects.

Criterion F. Pesticide application activities for which permit coverage is being requested in 

the NOI will discharge to one or more Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern, as defined in Appendix A of the permit. Eligible discharges include 

those from pesticide application activities that are demonstrated by the Decision-maker as not 
11 October 2011

likely to adversely affect NMFS Listed Resources of Concern or that the pest poses a greater

threat to the NMFS Listed Resources of Concern than does the discharge of the pesticide. 

Decision-makers must provide EPA with their documentation demonstrating the basis for 

their finding.

The term ―state‖ as used above means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. One NOI is required for 

the term of the permit (five years) unless there is change of information. 

2.2.2. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (Part 5)

Any Decision-maker that is required to submit an NOI (except for Decision-makers that are 

required to submit NOIs solely because of discharges to Waters of the United States containing 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern) and is above the Small Business Administration (SBA) size 

standards for a small business or a public entity that serves a population greater than 10,0003

must develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP). A PDMP must include 

identification of the pesticide discharge management team, a description of the pest problem, and 

a description of the pest management options evaluation. Decision-makers must also provide 

response procedures for spill response and adverse incident response. 

2.2.3. Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet (Part 7.3)

Any Decision-maker that is required to submit an NOI (except for Decision-makers that are 

required to submit NOIs solely because of discharges to Waters of the United States containing 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern) and meets the permit definition for a small entity (i.e., 

small business as defined by SBA size standards or public entity that serves a population 10,000 

or less) must complete the pesticide discharge evaluation worksheet (PDEW). The PDEW 

documents the identification of the problem and implementation of Pest Management Measures 

to meet the technology-based effluent limitations.

2.2.4. Annual Reporting (Part 7.6 and Part 7.7)

Decision-makers that are required to develop a PDMP or required to submit NOIs because of 

discharges to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern must 

submit annual reports. The report must include Decision-maker’s name, NPDES permit tracking 

number(s), contact information, and, for each treatment area, the following must be reported: 

identification of any waters or other treatment area, including size, either by name or by location, 

to which pesticide(s) are discharged; pesticide use pattern(s); target pest(s); company name(s) 

and contact information for pesticide applicator(s), if different from the Decision-maker; total 

amount of each pesticide product applied for the reporting year by the EPA registration 

number(s) and by application method; whether the pest control activity was addressed in the 

PDMP prior to pesticide application, if applicable; report of any adverse incident; description of 

any corrective action(s); and the approximate date of any discharge (only for Decision-makers

that discharges to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern).

 

3 The permit provides specific requirements for a subset of small governments (with a population of 10,000 or 

fewer).
12 October 2011

2.2.5. Recordkeeping (Part 7)

All Operators must keep accurate and complete written records sufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with conditions of the PGP. Under Part 7.1 of the PGP, all Applicators and 

Decision-makers must keep the following records: a copy of any Adverse Incident Reports, 

records of any determination that reporting of an identified adverse incident is not required 

consistent with allowances in Part 6.4.1 of the permit, a copy of any corrective action 

documentation, and a copy of any spill and leak or other unpermitted discharge documentation. 

EPA recommends that all Decision-makers who are or may be required to submit NOIs based on 

their annual treatment area keep records of acres or linear miles treated for all applicable 

pesticide use patterns. The record should be kept up-to-date to help Decision-makers determine 

if they will meet the annual treatment area threshold values during any calendar year.

Under Part 7.3 of the PGP, any Decision-maker that is required to submit an NOI (except for 

Decision-makers that are required to submit NOIs solely because of discharges to Waters of the 

United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern) and is a small business as defined 

by the SBA size standards or a public entity that serves a population 10,000 or less must keep the 

following records: a copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence between permittee 

and EPA specific to coverage under the permit, a copy of the EPA acknowledgment letter with 

the permit tracking number; and information outlined in the pesticide discharge evaluation 

worksheet. Under Part 7.4 of the PGP, any Decision-maker that is required to submit an NOI 

(except for Decision-makers that are required to submit NOIs solely because of discharges to 

Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern) and is above the 

SBA size standards for a small business or a public entity that serves a population greater than 

10,000 must keep the following records: a copy of the NOI submitted to EPA; any 

correspondence between permittee and EPA specific to coverage under the permit; a copy of the 

EPA acknowledgment letter with the permit tracking number; company name and contact 

information for pesticide applicator; target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control; 

action threshold(s); method and/or data used to determine that action threshold(s) has been met; 

description of Pest Management Measure(s) implemented prior to the first pesticide application; 

pesticide application date(s); description of treatment area; pesticide use pattern(s); name of each 

pesticide product used including the EPA registration number; quantity of pesticide applied; a 

copy of the PDMP, including any modifications made to the PDMP during the term of the 

permit; copy of annual reports submitted to EPA; whether there are possible and observable 

adverse incidents; and whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide 

application and/or post-application and if not, why not. 

All Applicators must maintain documentation of any equipment calibration. These requirements 

apply to Decision-makers if they are also an Applicator. In addition, under Part 7.2 of the PGP, 

for-hire applicators must also keep the following records: pesticide application date(s); pesticide 

use pattern; target pest(s); description of treatment area and identification of any waters in the 

treatment area; name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number; 

quantity of pesticide applied, whether there are possible and observable adverse incidents, and 

whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or postapplication and if not, why not.
13 October 2011

2.2.6. Monitoring (Part 4)

All Operators covered under the PGP must perform monitoring. All Applicators must, when 

considerations for safety and feasibility allow, visually assess the area to and around where 

pesticides are applied for possible and observable adverse incidents caused by application of 

pesticides, including the unanticipated death or distress of non-target organisms and disruption of 

wildlife habitat, recreational or municipal water use. In addition during any post-application 

surveillance, all Operators must visually assess the area to and around where pesticides were 

applied for possible and observable adverse incidents caused by applications of pesticides, 

including the unanticipated death or distress of non-target organisms and disruption of wildlife 

habitat, recreational or municipal water use. 

2.2.7. Summary

As described above, the administrative requirements vary based on type and size of the entity. 

Table 2-1 summarizes the requirements for each type of entity.

Table 2-1: Summary of Pesticide General Permit Requirements

Entity Type Part 

2.1

Part 

2.2 PDMP Annual Report

Recordkeeping 

(Part 7.1) 1

Equipment 

Recordkeeping2

(Part 7.2)

Recordkeeping 

(Part 7.3)

Recordkeeping 

(Part 7.4)

Applicator Y N N N Y * N N

Decision-maker not 

required to submit an NOI N N N N Y Y N N

Decision-maker required to 

submit an NOI and is a 

small entity

N Y N N Y * Y N

Decision-maker required to 

submit an NOI and is a 

large entity

N Y Y Y Y * N Y

Decision-maker required to 

submit an NOI solely 

because discharge is to 

WOUS containing NMFS 

Listed Resources of 

Concern. 

N Y N Y Y * N N

Decision-maker required to 

submit an NOI solely 

because discharge is to 

WOUS containing NMFS 

Listed Resources of 

Concern and that also 

comply with provisions in

Part 1.6 of the permit

N N N N Y * N N

Under the PGP, all Operators are defined as either an Applicator or a Decision-maker or both. There may be instances when a single 

entity acts as both an Applicator and a Decision-maker.

NOI = Notice of Intent

PDMP = Pesticide Discharge Management Plan

1. Only incurred as a result of an adverse incident, spill/leak, or other incident requiring corrective action.

2. All for-hire applicators must keep record of equipment calibration. This requirement applies to Decision-makers that are required to 

submit an NOI if they are also Applicators.
14 October 2011

3. Identification of Likely Affected Entities

This section provides available information on the four pesticide use patterns in the unauthorized 

areas and identifies entities that may be required to comply with the PGP requirements. As noted 

in Chapter 2, only point source discharges of pollutants to Waters of the United require a permit 

and the PGP authorizes discharges associated with four pesticide use patterns: mosquito and 

other flying insect pest control, weed and algae pest control, animal pest control, forest canopy 

pest control. For weed and algae pest control and animal pest control pesticide use patterns, the 

permit specifies that covered activities include applications to control pests ―in water and at 

water’s edge.‖ EPA intends for the phrase ―at water’s edge‖ to allow coverage of activities 

targeting pests that are not necessarily ―in‖ the water but are near the water such that control of 

the pests may unavoidably involve a point-source discharge of pesticides to Waters of the United 

States. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to identify all specific activities that do or do not 

require a permit. However, to the extent that activities that fall within the four covered pesticide 

use patterns require a permit, they can be authorized by the PGP if all eligibility requirements are 

met.

There is no one central source of data to identify potentially affected entities. EPA therefore 

relied on information available from the unauthorized areas. Where specific information was not 

available, EPA made assumptions based on other available data to estimate the number or types 

of likely affected entities. Using more accurate estimates for the unauthorized areas could yield 

different results and possibly different conclusions. However, in the absence of better data, 

EPA’s analysis represents a rough estimate of the number and types of potentially affected 

entities. In addition, EPA also received and reviewed public comments on the proposed permit 

and incorporated, as appropriate, any data from these comments into the analysis. In identifying 

potential affected entities, EPA did not delineate which activities are specifically in, over, or near 

Waters of the United States. 

The term ―state‖ as used below means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The term ―Agencies‖ as 

use in this document is any Agency for which pest management for land resource stewardship is 

an integral part of the organization’s operations.

As a result of the ESA, some of the potentially affected entities may (in addition to other 

incremental costs as a result of the permit) incur costs solely because of discharges to Waters of 

the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. To determine the number of 

entities which overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the 

permit, EPA performed several GIS analyses. The results of these analyses along with any

assumptions made are detailed by use pattern and by entity type in the following sections.

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 chemical control, including ground and aerial control 

targeted at adult mosquitoes and larvae. PGP requirements for mosquito and other flying insect 

pest control are based on entity type (Agencies, mosquito control districts, or similar pest control 

districts, or local government/private), size (small businesses determinations are based on SBA 

size standards and small governments are those with populations 10,000 or fewer), location (the 
15 October 2011

discharge is to Tier 3 waters or to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern), and annual treatment area thresholds (6,400 acres of adulticiding). 

The annual treatment area threshold for mosquito control or other flying insect pest control in the 

PGP represents the total annual treatment areas in a given year. For example, adulticide 

treatment of 6,000 acres twice in a year represents an annual treatment area of 12,000 acres and 

would exceed the annual treatment area threshold of 6,400 acres. 

3.1.1. Agencies

For the District of Columbia, information on its Department of Health (DOH) website indicates 

that the District uses larvicides for mosquito control (DCDOH, 2005). 

For the territories, there is no information to indicate that any territory other than Puerto Rico 

uses pesticides for mosquito control. Thus, EPA assumes that only dischargers in Puerto Rico 

would be required to seek coverage for mosquito control under the PGP. 

There are over 300 federal facilities within the four states of interest (Colorado, Delaware, 

Vermont, and Washington), including National Parks (administered by U.S. National Park 

Service), National Wildlife Refuge Areas (administered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and 

National Forests (administered by U.S. Forest Service). Nine federal agencies are responsible 

for these facilities or land areas. However, there is no information on the number using 

pesticides for mosquito control. For this analysis, EPA assumes that each federal agency in each 

State with federal facilities for which EPA has Permitting Authority is using pesticides for 

mosquito control and would receive a single permit for all activities across facilities/land areas. 

Thus, EPA estimates costs for 65 unique federal agencies potentially affected by the PGP.

Of the potentially affected federal facilities, EPA estimates that 14 agencies with facilities in 

Idaho and Washington overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term 

of the permit.

4 Also, EPA assumes that DC’s mosquito control activities are likely to overlap 

with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

5

3.1.2. Mosquito Control Districts and Similar Pest Control Districts

Information from the unauthorized areas indicates Decision-makers for mosquito and other 

flying insect pest control are public entities; however, the level of government at which this type 

of pest control occurs varies. Many city and county governments implement mosquito control 

programs, often in collaboration with 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 that perform mosquito control 

independent of the state government. For example, Massachusetts has nine mosquito control 

districts, comprising between two 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 are not covered by a control district.

 

4 Based on GIS analysis of the overlap between the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and 

Federal Lands from National Atlas (www.nationalatlas.gov).

5

For DC, EPA assumes that mosquito control activities are likely to overlap with the Potomac River which has 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.
16 October 2011

Figure 1: Map of Massachusetts Mosquito Control Projects, 2009

Source: MADEP, 2009

To determine the number of entities that could be affected by the PGP, EPA relied on 

information provided by the unauthorized states and other publicly available data. The Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC, 2009) indicates that there is no organized 

effort to control mosquitoes, and only two locations in the state have issued mosquito control 

permits in the past. For this analysis, EPA assumes that both locations represent large cities in 

Alaska with populations greater than 10,000.

The Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) indicates that there are 23 mosquito control 

districts in the state (ISDA, 2009). The South Central Public Health District of Idaho (2003) 

contains a list of the mosquito control districts in the state. Based on 2000 Census populations 

for the areas covered by each district, EPA determined that approximately half of the control 

districts serve populations greater than 10,000 (Census, 2000).

As stated previously, there are nine mosquito control districts in Massachusetts (MADEP, 2009). 

Based on detailed data on the specific municipalities covered by each district and population data 

from the 2000 Census, EPA determined that all of the districts serve populations greater than 

10,000 (Census, 2000).

The New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food indicates that there are 43 

mosquito control districts in the state (NHDAMF, 2009). There are 10 counties in New 

Hampshire, all with populations greater than 10,000, and 308 municipalities, with only 10% with 

populations greater than 10,000. Because EPA does not have data to indicate which 
17 October 2011

municipalities or counties are served by the various mosquito control districts, EPA assumes that 

half of the districts serve fewer than 10,000 people and half serve greater than 10,000 people. 

New Mexico has 13 mosquito control districts (Conlon, 2009). Population data on 11 of the 

districts indicate that approximately 30% serve fewer than 10,000 people. Thus, using this 

percentage, EPA estimates that four of the districts serve fewer than 10,000 and nine serve 

populations greater than 10,000. 

The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry indicates that Tulsa is the only 

city in the state that currently performs mosquito control (ODAFF, 2009).6 Data from the 

Census Bureau indicates that Tulsa has a population greater than 10,000 (Census, 2000).

Of the potentially affected mosquito control districts, EPA determined that three districts in 

Idaho and two districts in Massachusetts overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over 

the five-year term of the permit. In Idaho, many of the control districts are roughly equivalent to 

county boundaries and EPA examined the overlap between these counties and NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern.7 All three districts serve fewer than 10,000 people. In Massachusetts, the 

district boundaries are comprised of specific town boundaries (as shown in Figure 1). Therefore, 

EPA examined the towns and the districts that overlap with NFMS Listed Resources of 

Concern.

8

 Both districts which overlap serve a population greater than 10,000. 

3.1.3. Local Governments and Other Entities

There are 174 unique Indian reservations in 26 authorized states.9EPA searched for mosquito 

control information for tribal reservations with land areas greater than 100,000 acres (52 in total) 

and found that only eight are using pesticides to control for mosquitoes. However, a number of 

reservations in Arizona (an authorized state) perform mosquito control with the assistance of 

state partnerships. Tribes working with authorized states to control mosquitoes would most 

likely be permitted under the state’s NPDES program and not under the PGP. Thus, EPA found 

evidence of only five tribal reservations in which mosquito control with pesticides is taking place 

independent of state assistance. This represents approximately 10% of the number of unique 

Indian reservations with areas greater than 100,000 acres (five out of 52). Assuming that

percentage is representative of reservations with fewer than 100,000 acres (122 total), there 

could be 17 tribal entities potentially affected by the PGP [5 + (122 × 10%)]. EPA assumed that 

all of the tribes would exceed the annual treatment area threshold and that those with more than 

100,000 acres would serve populations greater than 10,000 and those with fewer than 100,000 

acres would serve populations fewer than 10,000.

The New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food (NHDAMF, 2009) indicates 

that the University of New Hampshire has a permit for mosquito control. The University of New 

Hampshire has over 15,000 students and faculty; however, information on pesticide applications 

indicates that the university does not adulticide (only uses larvicides) and thus, would not exceed 

the annual treatment area threshold.

 

6

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).

7 Using GIS data of the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

8

For Massachusetts, NMFS Listed Resources of Concern are mainly found in two specific rivers; therefore, the GIS 

analysis is based on the towns bordering those rivers.

9 Based on GIS data from National Atlas (www.nationalatlas.gov).
18 October 2011

In addition, there may be other private entities conducting mosquito control such as private 

campgrounds, and golf courses. The majority of these entities are likely to have annual treatment 

areas below the applicable threshold. However, due to a lack of specific information on these 

types of entities, EPA is not able to quantify the number using pesticides in or near Waters of the 

United States.

Of the other entities performing mosquito control, EPA determined that 39 unique tribes (about 

21% of affected unique tribes) have NMFS Listed Resources of Concern on their lands.10 

Therefore, EPA assumes that, over the five-year term of the permit, four tribes (21% of the 17 

tribes) performing mosquito control will overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concerns and 

based on previous assumptions, all will exceed the annual treatment area threshold. Based on the 

overall proportion of tribes serving a population greater than 10,000 (52 of 174 tribes) and tribes 

serving fewer than 10,000 (122 of 174 tribes), EPA estimates that of one of the four tribes will 

serve greater than 10,000 and the rest will serve a population fewer than 10,000. 

3.1.4. Summary

Table 3-1 presents estimates of the number of potentially affected entities. Due to incomplete 

data on the extent of mosquito and other flying insect pest control activities involving pesticide 

applications eligible for the PGP, the number of potentially affected entities may be higher or 

lower than the amount shown. Nonetheless, the 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. Table 3-2 presents estimates of the number of 

potentially affected entities that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the fiveyear term of the permit.

Table 3-1: Potentially Affected Entities: Mosquito and Other Flying Pest Control

Unauthorized 

Area Agencies

Mosquito Control 

Districts

Others 

Below 

Threshold

Others Above 

Threshold Total

Pop. < 10k Pop. > 10k Pop. < 10k Pop. > 10k

Alaska 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Idaho 0 12 11 0 0 0 23

Massachusetts 0 0 9 0 0 0 9

New 

Hampshire 0 22 21 1 0 0 44

New Mexico 0 4 9 0 0 0 13

Oklahoma 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

District of 

Columbia 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Territories 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Tribes 0 0 0 0 12 5 17

Federal 

Facilities 65 0 0 0 0 0 65

Total 67 38 53 1 12 5 176

Pop. = population

10k = 10,000

 

10 Based on GIS analysis of overlap between the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and 

Indian Lands from National Atlas (www.nationalatlas.gov).
19 October 2011

Table 3-2: Potentially Affected Entities Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern: 

Mosquito and Other Flying Pest Control

Unauthorized 

Area Agencies

Mosquito Control 

Districts

Others 

Below 

Threshold

Others Above 

Threshold Total

Pop. < 10k Pop. > 10k Pop. < 10k Pop. > 10k

Idaho 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

Massachusetts 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

District of 

Columbia 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Tribes 0 0 0 0 3 1 4

Federal 

Facilities 14 0 0 0 0 0 14

Total 15 3 2 0 3 1 24

Pop. = population

10k = 10,000

3.2. Weed and Algae Pest Control

The weed and algae control use pattern refers to the application of pesticides to control weed, 

algae, and pathogens that are pests in water and at water’s edge, including ditches and/or canals. 

Typically these programs target specific weeds or invasive species and utilize a variety of 

techniques, including applying pesticides. The pesticides are applied in or near water, which 

results in discharge to Waters of the United States. Information from the unauthorized areas 

indicates that weed and algae pest control is conducted by irrigation and weed control districts or 

similar pest control districts and other entities such as federal, state, and local governments, 

individual farmers, industrial facilities, and drinking water utilities.

PGP requirements for weed and algae pest control are based on entity type (Agencies, irrigation 

or weed control districts, or similar pest control districts, or local government/private), size 

(small businesses determinations are based on SBA size standards and small governments are 

those serving populations 10,000 or fewer), location (the discharge is to Tier 3 waters or to 

Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern), and annual 

treatment area thresholds (80 acres or 20 linear miles). The annual treatment area thresholds for 

weed and algae pest control in the PGP represent the total area treated in a given year regardless 

of frequency. Thus, for example, treatment of 50 acres twice in a year represents an annual 

treatment area of 50 acres and does not exceed the annual treatment area threshold of 80 acres.

3.2.1. Agencies

In Idaho, ISDA manages a very aggressive water milfoil11 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). 

NMDA (2009) indicates that, along with the Bureau of Land Management, they are responsible 

for weed control within the state. NMDA (2009) also indicates that weeds and algae are not 

 

11 Milfoil is often considered a nuisance plant because it can alter a water’s ecology by forming very dense mats of 

vegetation on the surface of the water. These mats interfere with recreational activities such 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.
20 October 2011

problems in New Mexico, and that almost no aquatic pesticide use occurs to Waters of the 

United States. Based on this information, EPA assumes that there are no federal or state 

governments in New Mexico using pesticides directly in waters to control weeds and algae. 

Information is lacking on the extent of weed control in the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, 

and federal facilities. In the District of Columbia, the absence of information from the 

Department of the Environment website regarding weed and algae pest control suggests that no 

weed control programs are ongoing; however, EPA assumes that the District uses pesticides to 

control weeds in right-of-way ditches. 

There is no information confirming the practice of weed and algae pest control in the U.S. 

territories. For example, EPA found no evidence of spraying to control invasive species in 

Puerto Rico, Johnston Atoll, or American Samoa. Given this, EPA assumes that applying 

pesticides to Waters of the United States to control weed and algae is minimal or absent in U.S. 

territories. 

In addition, there is evidence that pesticide applications for weed and algae pest control are

occurring at federal facilities. For example, McChord Air Force Base in Tacoma, Washington, 

contracts out weed control to The Nature Conservancy (The Nature Conservancy, 2007). 

However, information on the extent of such activities is unavailable. For the purpose of this 

analysis, EPA assumes that each unique federal agency with facilities across the affected states 

(65 total) could be affected by the PGP.

Of the Agencies performing weed control, EPA determined that 14 Federal agencies with 

facilities in Idaho and Washington overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the 

five-year term of the permit.

12

 Also, EPA assumes that ISDA’s water milfoil control program 

and DC’s weed control activities are likely to overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern

over the five-year term of the permit.

13

Table 3-3 summarizes the number of Agencies using pesticides to control weeds and algae. 

Table 3-4 presents the number of Agencies performing weed control that overlaps with NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

 

12 Based on GIS analysis of overlap between the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and 

Federal Lands from National Atlas (www.nationalatlas.gov).

13 Based on ISDA’s ―2008 Statewide Strategic Plan for Eurasian Watermilfoil in Idaho,‖ EPA determined that the 

agency activities are likely to overlap with the NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. The plan presents the counties 

within the state where watermilfoil is present and these counties are among those which overlap with the NMFS 

Listed Resources. For DC, EPA assumes that weed control activities are likely to overlap with the Potomac River 

which has NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.
21 October 2011

Table 3-3: Agencies: Weed and Algae Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Number of Agencies

Alaska 0

Idaho 1

Massachusetts 0

New Hampshire 0

New Mexico 0

Oklahoma 0

District of Columbia 1

Territories 0

Tribes NA

Federal Facilities 65

Total 67

Table 3-4: Agencies Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern: Weed and Algae 

Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Number of Agencies

Idaho 1

Massachusetts 0

District of Columbia 1

Tribes NA

Federal Facilities 14

Total 16

3.2.2. Irrigation and Weed Control Districts or Similar Pest Control Districts

This category includes irrigation districts, weed control districts, and any other similar pest 

control districts.

Information from EPA indicates that there are no irrigation or weed control districts in Alaska, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. There are 10 irrigation districts in New Mexico and one 

irrigation district in Oklahoma. In Idaho, there are 59 public irrigation districts, 44 county weed 

control districts, and 100 private canal companies in the state. EPA has no information regarding 

the service populations of these districts. Thus, EPA assumes that 50% of the districts serve 

fewer than 10,000 people and 50% serve more than 10,000 people. 

In order to estimate the number of ―districts‖ in Idaho that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources 

of Concern, EPA examined the percentage of National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) waterbodies 

that overlap to the total number of waterbodies in the state (approximately 22%).14 Then 

applying this percentage to the number of districts, EPA assumes that approximately 44 districts 

overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit (and 

continuing with the assumption of population served, EPA estimates that 50% or 22 of these 

districts serve fewer than 10,000 people and the remaining 50% or 22 serve greater than 10,000 

people).

 

14 Based on GIS analysis of the overlap between the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern 

and waterbodies from the National Hydrography Dataset (http://nhd.usgs.gov/), EPA estimated that 8,582 

waterbodies out of a total of 39,258 waterbodies in the state overlap. 
22 October 2011

Table 3-5 shows the potentially affected irrigation and weed control districts, while Table 3-6

presents the districts that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year 

term of the permit.

Table 3-5: Summary of Potentially Affected Irrigation Districts

Unauthorized 

Area Small Water Delivery Service Large Water Delivery Service Total

Alaska 0 0 0

Idaho 101 102 203

Massachusetts 0 0 0

New Hampshire 0 0 0

New Mexico 5 5 10

Oklahoma 1 0 1

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Territories 0 0 0

Tribes 0 0 0

Federal Facilities 0 0 0

Total 107 107 214

Table 3-6: Summary of Potentially Affected Irrigation Districts Which Overlap With NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern

Unauthorized 

Area Small Water Delivery Service Large Water Delivery Service Total

Idaho 22 22 44

Massachusetts 0 0 0

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Tribes 0 0 0

Federal Facilities 0 0 0

Total 22 22 44

3.2.3. Local Governments and Other Entities

Other entities that make use of pesticides for weed and algae pest control may include local 

governments, county departments responsible for right-of-way ditches, public drinking water 

utilities and industrial facilities using pesticides to prevent clogging of surface water intakes, 

farms that use pesticides for controlling weeds along ditch banks, and others using pesticides for 

aesthetic or recreational purposes in private lakes/ponds.

Local Governments

ADEC (2009) indicates that application of pesticides to water in the state of Alaska requires a 

state issued pesticide use permit; and ADEC has not issued any permits for weed control in the 

past. 

In Massachusetts, treatment for weeds occurs in approximately 8% of waters (permits issued for 

260 out of 3,100 waterbodies) (MADEP, 2009). Available information from Massachusetts 

indicates that the majority of the 260 permits were issued to private entities; EPA assumes that 

only about 26 (or 10%) are local governments. The average lake size in Massachusetts is 7.5 

acres (USGS, 2009), which is below the annual treatment area threshold. Because EPA has no 

data to indicate the size of water treated under each permit the state has issued, it assumes that 

approximately half are above the annual treatment area threshold and half are below the annual 
23 October 2011

treatment area threshold. In addition, population data from the 2000 Census indicate that 

approximately 60% of municipalities in the state have populations fewer than 10,000 (Census, 

2000). Thus, due to a lack of data regarding the specific municipalities responsible for weed and 

algae pest control, EPA assumes that 60% entities exceeding the annual treatment area threshold 

have populations fewer than 10,000 and the remaining 40% of entities exceeding the annual 

treatment area threshold have populations greater than 10,000. 

In New Hampshire, the state issues 20 to 25 permits annually for treatment of invasive exotic 

weeds; EPA assumes that all 25 of these entities are local governments. As for Massachusetts, 

the average lake size is below the annual treatment area threshold (7.6 acres; USGS, 2009) and 

EPA does not have data to indicate the size of water treated under each state permit. Thus, EPA 

assumes that half of the 25 permits are treating areas above the annual treatment area threshold 

and half are treating areas below the annual treatment area threshold. Population data from the 

2000 Census indicate that approximately 90% of municipalities in the state have populations 

fewer than 10,000 (Census, 2000). Thus, due to a lack of data regarding the specific 

municipalities responsible for weed and algae pest control, EPA assumes that 90% of entities 

exceeding the annual treatment area threshold have populations fewer than 10,000 and the 

remaining 10 of entities exceeding the annual treatment area threshold have populations greater 

than 10,000. 

NMDAMF (2009) indicates that, along with the Bureau of Land Management, they are 

responsible for weed control within the state. NMDAMF (2010) also indicates that weeds and 

algae are not problems in New Mexico, and that almost no aquatic pesticide use occurs to Waters 

of the United States. Based on this information, EPA assumes that there are no entities in New 

Mexico discharging pesticides to Waters of the United States to control weeds. 

The State of Oklahoma issued 60 licenses – mostly to municipalities – to perform weed control 

(ODAFF, 2009) on specific water bodies. The average lake size in Oklahoma is 2.4 acres 

(USGS, 2009), which is considerably below the annual treatment area threshold of 80 acres. 

Thus, due to a lack of specific data, EPA assumes that half of the licenses are for treatment of 

water areas above the annual treatment area threshold and half are for treatment of water below 

the threshold. Population data from the 2000 Census indicate that over 90% of municipalities in 

the state have populations fewer than 10,000 (Census, 2000). Thus, due to a lack of data 

regarding the specific municipalities responsible for weed and algae pest control, EPA assumes 

that 90% of entities exceeding the annual treatment area threshold have populations fewer than 

10,000 and the remaining 10% of entities exceeding the annual treatment area thresholds have 

populations greater than 10,000. 

Information is lacking on the extent of weed and algae pest control in tribal lands. The 

Southwest Vegetation Management Association’s trade listing indicates that two of the largest 

tribes in the 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 control weeds. To err on the side of potentially higher costs, EPA assumes that 

10% of tribes (or 17 of 174) use pesticides to control weeds and algae in lakes and rivers. The 

average lake size across tribal lands is 9.5 acres (USGS, 2009), which is below the annual 

treatment area threshold. Thus, for consistency with the other state assumptions, EPA assumes 

half treat water areas above the annual treatment area threshold and half treat water areas below 

the annual treatment area threshold. EPA assumes that all of these tribes have populations 

greater than 10,000. 
24 October 2011

In order to estimate the number of local governments in Massachusetts that overlap with NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern, EPA examined the proportion of river miles, which contain NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern to the total number of river miles in the state (approximately 

11%).15 Then applying this percentage to the number of governments, EPA assumes that, over 

the five-year term of the permit, approximately three local governments overlap with NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern (and continuing with the assumptions concerning governments 

exceeding the annual treatment area threshold as well as population served, EPA estimates that 

one government does not exceed the threshold and of the two that do exceed the threshold, one 

serves fewer than 10,000 people and one serves greater than 10,000 people).

Of the tribal governments performing weed control, EPA determined that 39 unique tribes (about 

21% of affected unique tribes) have NMFS Listed Resources of Concern on their lands.16 

Therefore, EPA assumes that, over the five-year term of the permit, four tribes (21% of the 17 

tribes) performing weed control will overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and based 

on previous assumptions, half, or two tribes, will not exceed the annual treatment area threshold 

and the other half will exceed the threshold (and all tribes have populations greater than 10,000). 

Table 3-7 summarizes the number of local governments using pesticides to control weeds and 

algae in surface water bodies. Table 3-8 presents the number of local governments, which 

overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

Table 3-7: Estimate of Number of Governments Using Pesticides to Control Weeds and Algae in 

Surface Waters

Unauthorized Area Local Governments 

Below Threshold

Local Governments Above Threshold Total Population <10k Population >10k

Alaska 0 0 0 0

Idaho 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts113 8 5 26

New Hampshire 12 12 1 25

New Mexico 0 0 0 0

Oklahoma 30 27 3 60

District of Columbia NA NA NA NA

Territories NA NA NA NA

Tribes28 0 9 17

Federal Facilities NA NA NA NA

Total 63 47 18 128

Sources: ADEC, 2009; MADEP, 2009; NHDAMF, 2009; NMDOH, 2009; ODAFF, 2009; and USGS, 2009.

10k = 10,000

NA = not applicable

1. Assuming 10% of weed permits are public and 90% are private.

2. Estimate based on 10% of the number of unique Indian reservation listings for 23 states (excludes unauthorized states).

 

15 EPA estimated that 102 miles out of a total of 958 miles in the state contain NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. 

16 Based on GIS analysis of the overlap between the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern 

and Indian Lands from National Atlas (www.nationalatlas.gov).
25 October 2011

Table 3-8: Estimate of Number of Governments Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of 

Concern

Unauthorized Area Local Governments 

Below Threshold

Local Governments Above Threshold Total Population <10k Population >10k

Idaho 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts11 1 1 3

District of Columbia NA NA NA NA

Tribes22 0 2 4

Federal Facilities NA NA NA NA

Total 3 1 3 7

10k = 10,000

NA = not applicable

1. Assuming 10% of weed permits are public and 90% are private.

2. Estimate based on 10% of the number of unique Indian reservation listings for 23 states (excludes unauthorized states).

Right-of-Way Ditch Weed Control

Pesticide may be used for weed control in right-of-way ditches. 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 covered by the PGP. However, EPA assumes that pesticide application to right-ofway ditches is conducted at the county level (rather than the state or municipality level), and 

EPA includes a single entity for each county in the affected states, as shown in Table 3-9. EPA 

used the 2000 Census to determine population and assumes that each county would exceed the 

annual treatment area threshold. Note that the Census also contains information on water area 

within each county. For a number of municipalities the water area is zero; however, EPA 

assumes that even in areas with no surface waters, to err on the side of potentially higher costs, 

these entities would be affected by the PGP.

Table 3-9: Number of Counties Using Pesticides for Right-of-Way Ditches

Unauthorized Area Number of Counties Above Threshold

Population <10,000 Population >10,000 Total

Alaska 19 8 27

Idaho 19 25 44

Massachusetts 1 13 14

New Hampshire 0 10 10

New Mexico 7 26 33

Oklahoma 17 60 77

Total 63 142 205

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 

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 entities 

controlling weeds.

Of the counties using pesticides for right-of-way ditches, EPA determined that 14 counties in 

Idaho and five counties in Massachusetts overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over 
26 October 2011

the five-year term of the permit.

17

 These counties are determined based on population in Table 

3-10.

Table 3-10: Number of Counties Using Pesticides for Right-of-Way Ditches Which Overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern

Unauthorized Area Number of Counties Above Threshold

Population <10,000 Population >10,000 Total

Idaho 8 6 14

Massachusetts 0 5 5

Total 8 11 19

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 

Public Drinking Water Utilities

A number of public drinking water utilities withdraw surface water for domestic use through 

intake structures. Depending on the level of biological activity in the source water, these entities 

may find it necessary to use chemical controls at the intake structure to reduce biofouling 

organisms, such as algae or zebra mussels (see Section 3.3 for discussion of animal pest control). 

They may also use herbicide to treat weeds around the banks of their reservoir, and algaecide 

(copper sulfate) to treat areas near the intake for algae bloom. 

EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) contains information on public 

drinking water systems; the data are based on information for the fiscal year that ended 

September 2008, as reported to EPA by the states (SDWIS, 2008). Table 3-11 shows the number 

of drinking water systems that use surface waters (includes direct surface water and purchased 

surface water) potentially affected by the PGP.18 Drinking water utilities are likely treating less 

than an acre of water around the surface water intake structure. In addition, EPA assumes that 

algae and weed control along banks would be limited to the most problematic or significant 

areas. While most drinking water utilities are likely to be treating less than 80 acres of water per 

year, to account for those potentially exceeding the annual treatment area threshold, EPA 

assumes that 10% of utilities would treat more than 80 acres in a given year, particularly those 

treating large reservoirs for algae control.

In order to determine the number of utilities that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of 

Concern, EPA examined their physical locations reported in SDWIS for in Idaho, Massachusetts, 

DC and tribal lands (SDWIS, 2008).

19

 For Idaho, over the five-year term of the permit, 14 

utilities overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and continuing with the assumption 

that only 10% treat more than 80 acres in a given year, 13 utilities will not exceed the annual 

treatment area threshold and one will exceed the threshold (estimated to serve less than 10,000 

people based on the overall proportion of the populations served by each utility). For 

Massachusetts, over the five-year term of the permit, nine utilities overlap with NMFS Listed 

 

17 Based on GIS analysis of the overlap between the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern 

and county boundaries in Idaho and the counties including the two rivers in Massachusetts that contain NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern.

18 Non-community water systems (both transient and non-transient) are excluded because they serve only a small 

portion of the population, and it is not clear whether most of these systems use a surface water intake.

19 Based on GIS analysis of the physical location of each facility (using the address where possible or the zip code) 

in relation to the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. For DC and MA, where the NFMS 

Listed Resources of Concern occur in only one or two rivers, respectively, EPA assumes that public drinking water 

utilities will be affected if they are within one mile of the applicable rivers.
27 October 2011

Resources of Concern and using the same assumptions, eight utilities will not exceed the annual 

treatment area threshold and the one that will exceed the threshold is estimated to serve greater 

than 10,000 people (similarly based on the overall proportion of the populations served by each 

utility). For DC, over the five-year term of the permit, only one facility overlaps with NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern (and EPA assumes it will not exceed the annual treatment area 

threshold). Lastly, over the five-year term of the permit, nine tribal utilities overlap with NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern and using the same assumptions, eight utilities will not exceed the 

annual treatment area threshold and the one that will exceed the threshold is estimated to serve 

fewer than 10,000 people (based on the overall proportion of the populations served by each 

utility). Table 3-12 presents the number of public drinking water utilities that overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

Table 3-11: Estimated Number of Public Drinking Water Utilities with Surface Water Intakes1

Unauthorized Area

Number of Utilities with Surface Water Intakes 

Below Treatment 

Threshold

Above Threshold 

Serving <10,000

Above Threshold 

Serving >10,000 Total

Alaska 92 10 0 102

Idaho 50 5 0 55

Massachusetts 151 6 11 168

New Hampshire 51 4 2 57

New Mexico 38 3 1 42

Oklahoma 544 57 4 605

District of Columbia 5 0 0 5

Territories 224 18 7 249

Tribes 59 6 0 65

Federal Facilities 0 0 0 0

Total 1,214 109 25 1,348

Source: EPA SDWIS, 2008.

1. Assumes 90% of entities are below the annual treatment area threshold.

Table 3-12: Estimated Number of Public Drinking Water Utilities with Surface Water Intakes 

Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern1

Unauthorized Area

Number of Utilities with Surface Water Intakes 

Below Treatment 

Threshold

Above Threshold 

Serving <10,000

Above Threshold 

Serving >10,000 Total

Idaho 13 1 0 14

Massachusetts 8 0 1 9

District of Columbia 1 0 0 1

Tribes 8 1 0 9

Federal Facilities 0 0 0 0

Total 30 2 1 33

Source: EPA SDWIS, 2008.

1. Assumes 90% of entities are below the annual treatment area threshold.

Industrial Facilities

Industrial facilities withdraw surface water for a variety of purposes. For example, power plants 

withdraw water for cooling. Regardless of the end 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 chemical controls at the intake structure to reduce 
28 October 2011

biofouling organisms, such as algae or zebra mussels (see Section 3.3 for discussion of animal 

pest control). 

In 1999, EPA issued a screener survey to over 2,500 industrial facilities, including power plants 

and a wide range of manufacturing sectors20 as part of its 316(b) rulemaking to identify facilities 

that operate a cooling water intake 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 with surface water intake structures in the 

unauthorized states (Table 3-13). EPA assumes that all of these industrial facilities could 

potentially be affected by the PGP. Industrial facilities are likely treating less than an acre of 

water around the surface water intake structure, and would be well below the annual treatment 

area threshold of 80 acres. Thus, EPA assumes all industrial facilities would be below the annual 

treatment area threshold. 

In order to determine the number of industrial facilities that overlap with NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern, EPA examined the physical location as reported in EPA’s Integrated 

Compliance Information System (ICIS) of each facility in Idaho, Massachusetts, DC, and tribal 

lands.21 EPA found that, over the five-year term of the permit, 46 facilities in Idaho, 31 facilities 

in Massachusetts, four facilities in DC, and no facilities on tribal lands overlap with NMFS 

Listed Resources of Concern. EPA continues to assume that approximately 25% of dischargers 

have surface water intakes and all would not exceed the annual treatment area threshold. Table 

3-14 presents the number of industrial facilities with surface water intakes that overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

Table 3-13: Estimated Number of Industrial Facilities with Surface Water Intakes

Unauthorized Area Total NPDES Permits1 Estimated Number with Surface 

Water Intake2

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 65

Tribes 42 11

Total 1,705 426

1. General permits, storm water-only permits, and inactive permit excluded.

2. Based on assumption that approximately 25% of industrial dischargers have surface water intakes.

 

20 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 United States. The 

screener survey did not address drinking water intakes.

21 Based on GIS analysis of physical location of each facility (using the latitude and longitude where possible) in 

relation to the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. For DC and MA, where the NFMS 

Listed Resources of Concern occur in only one or two rivers, respectively, EPA assumes that facilities will be 

affected if they are within one mile of the applicable rivers.
29 October 2011

Table 3-14: Estimated Number of Industrial Facilities with Surface Water Intakes Which Overlap 

With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern

Unauthorized Area Total NPDES Permits Estimated Number with Surface 

Water Intake2

Idaho 46 12

Massachusetts 31 8

District of Columbia 4 1

Tribes 0 0

Total 81 21

1. Based on assumption that approximately 25% of industrial dischargers have surface water intakes.

Private Irrigation Ditches and Canals

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 3-15. These farms likely use irrigation ditches to 

transport water to crops. However, there is no information indicating whether any of the ditch 

banks that are Waters of the United States are treated with pesticides. To be conservative (i.e., 

erring on the side of overstating impacts), EPA assumes that all irrigated farms use pesticides 

along ditch banks and that those ditches are Waters of the United States. 

The average farm size of irrigated farms in any of the unauthorized states is fewer than 100 

square miles; thus, the presence of a ditch bank over 20 linear miles long is unlikely. Thus, EPA 

assumes that all farms are below the annual treatment area threshold.

In order to determine the number of irrigated farms that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of 

Concern, EPA first calculated the proportion of each county’s area, which overlaps with the 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern to the total area of each county. These proportions are then 

applied to Census of Agriculture data on the number of irrigated farms per county, respectively. 

Assuming an even distribution of farms across each county, EPA determined that, over the fiveyear term of the permit, there are 723 affected irrigated farms in Idaho and 132 farms in 

Massachusetts. However, EPA assumes that only 50% of the affected irrigated farms will need 

to contact NMFS for assistance. EPA continues to assume that all farms are below the annual 

treatment area threshold. Table 3-16 presents the number of irrigated farms, which overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

Table 3-15: Irrigated Farms in Unauthorized States

Unauthorized Area Number of Irrigated Farms1

Alaska 184

Idaho 16,124

Massachusetts 1,630

New Hampshire 505

New Mexico 10,167

Oklahoma 3,026

Total 31,636

Source: USDA, 2007. 

1. EPA assumes all farms do not exceed annual treatment area threshold based on average 

irrigated farm size in each state.
30 October 2011

Table 3-16: Irrigated Farms in Unauthorized States Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources 

of Concern

Unauthorized Area Number of Irrigated Farms1

Idaho 362

Massachusetts 66

Total 428

Source: USDA, 2007. 

1. EPA assumes all farms do not exceed annual treatment area threshold based on average 

irrigated farm size in each state.

Other Private Entities

There may also be private property owners that use pesticides to control for weeds and algae that 

could potentially be affected by the PGP. For example, in Idaho, private land owners treat a total 

of approximately 100 acres per year for aquatic plants such as milfoil. Based on the average lake 

size of 8.3 acres in Idaho (USGS, 2009), and assuming that each entity treats a single waterbody, 

EPA estimates that there are approximately 12 private land owners using pesticides to control 

weeds and algae in Idaho. 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 

owners (MADEP, 2009). In New Hampshire, the state issued 17 permits in 2009 to treat private 

ponds. Historically only 5% to 10% of the one- to two-acre average-sized ponds are treated in a 

given season (NHDAMF, 2009). However, because the PGP lasts for five years regardless of the 

frequency of pesticide applications, EPA assumes that there are 17 private entities in New 

Hampshire potentially affected by the PGP. EPA does not have information indicating that 

private property owners in Alaska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma are using pesticides for weed 

control. Because most of these entities are private property owners or organizations, EPA 

assumes that they would be considered small and would not exceed the annual treatment area 

threshold.

In order to determine the number of private property owners in Idaho and Massachusetts that 

overlap with NFMS Listed Resources of Concern, EPA utilizes the percentage of NHD 

waterbodies affected (approximately 22%) and the percentage of river miles affected 

(approximately 11%), respectively, as previously discussed.22 Therefore, over the five-year term 

of the permit, in Idaho, three private land owners and in Massachusetts, 25 owners will overlap 

with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. EPA continues to assume that all private property 

owners will not exceed the annual treatment area threshold. 

Summary of Other Entities

Table 3-17 provides a summary of the number and types of other entities potentially affected by 

the PGP. Table 3-18 provides a summary of the number and types of other entities that overlap 

with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

 

22 EPA estimates that 8,582 NHD waterbodies out of a total of 39,258 NHD waterbodies in Idaho overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. EPA estimates that 102 miles out of a total of 958 miles in Massachusetts 

contain NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.
31 October 2011

Table 3-17: Summary of Local Governments and Other Entities Above and Below Annual 

Treatment Area Thresholds

Unauthorized Area Below Threshold Above Threshold, 

Populations <10,000

Above Threshold, 

Populations >10,000

Local Governments

Alaska 0 0 0

Idaho 0 0 0

Massachusetts 13 8 5

New Hampshire 12 12 1

New Mexico 0 0 0

Oklahoma 30 27 3

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Territories 0 0 0

Tribes 8 0 9

County Right-of-Way Ditches

Alaska 0 19 8

Idaho 0 19 25

Massachusetts 0 1 13

New Hampshire 0 0 10

New Mexico 0 7 26

Oklahoma 0 17 60

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Territories 0 0 0

Tribes 0 0 0

Public Drinking Water

Alaska 92 10 0

Idaho 50 5 0

Massachusetts 151 6 11

New Hampshire 51 4 2

New Mexico 38 3 1

Oklahoma 544 57 4

District of Columbia 5 0 0

Territories 224 18 7

Tribes 59 6 0

Industrial Facility Intakes

Alaska 37 0 0

Idaho 50 0 0

Massachusetts 81 0 0

New Hampshire 28 0 0

New Mexico 33 0 0

Oklahoma 119 0 0

District of Columbia 2 0 0

Territories 65 0 0

Tribes 11 0 0

Private Irrigation Ditches and Canals

Alaska 184 0 0

Idaho 16,124 0 0

Massachusetts 1,630 0 0

New Hampshire 505 0 0
32 October 2011

Table 3-17: Summary of Local Governments and Other Entities Above and Below Annual 

Treatment Area Thresholds

Unauthorized Area Below Threshold Above Threshold, 

Populations <10,000

Above Threshold, 

Populations >10,000

New Mexico 10,167 0 0

Oklahoma 3,026 0 0

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Territories 0 0 0

Tribes 0 0 0

Other Private Entities

Alaska 0 0 0

Idaho 12 0 0

Massachusetts 234 0 0

New Hampshire 17 0 0

New Mexico 0 0 0

Oklahoma 0 0 0

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Territories 0 0 0

Tribes 0 0 0

Total 33,602 219 185
33 October 2011

Table 3-18: Summary of Local Governments and Other Entities Above and Below Annual 

Treatment Area Thresholds Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern

Unauthorized Area Below Threshold Above Threshold, 

Populations <10,000

Above Threshold, 

Populations >10,000

Local Governments

Idaho 0 0 0

Massachusetts 1 1 1

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Tribes 2 0 2

County Right-of-Way Ditches

Idaho 0 8 6

Massachusetts 0 0 5

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Tribes 0 0 0

Public Drinking Water

Idaho 13 1 0

Massachusetts 8 0 1

District of Columbia 1 0 0

Tribes 8 1 0

Industrial Facility Intakes

Idaho 12 0 0

Massachusetts 8 0 0

District of Columbia 1 0 0

Tribes 0 0 0

Private Irrigation Ditches and Canals

Idaho 362 0 0

Massachusetts 66 0 0

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Tribes 0 0 0

Other Private Entities

Idaho 3 0 0

Massachusetts 25 0 0

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Tribes 0 0 0

Total 510 11 15
34 October 2011

3.2.4. Summary

Various types of entities could be affected by the PGP, as discussed above. Table 3-19

summarizes the estimated number of potentially affected entities under the weed and algae pest 

control use pattern. In instances in which only information regarding the number of acres treated 

is available, the number of affected entities shown in the table reflects estimates based on the 

potential number of waters treated (derived by dividing the total acreage by the average acres for 

waters in the state) and assuming that each represents an affected entity. 

Table 3-20 presents estimates of the number of potentially affected entities that overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

Table 3-19: Potentially Affected Entities: Weed and Algae Pest Control

Unauthorized 

Area Agencies

Irrigation and Weed 

Control Districts

Other Entities1

Below Total

Threshold

Above Threshold

Small Large Small Large

Alaska 0 0 0 313 29 8 350

Idaho 1 101 102 16,236 24 25 16,489

Massachusetts 0 0 0 2,109 15 29 2,153

New Hampshire 0 0 0 613 16 13 642

New Mexico 0 5 5 10,238 10 27 10,285

Oklahoma 0 1 0 3,719 101 67 3,888

District of Columbia 1 0 0 7 0 0 8

Territories 0 0 0 289 18 7 314

Tribes 0 0 0 78 6 9 93

Federal Facilities 65 0 0 0 0 0 65

Total 67 107 107 33,602 219 185 34,287

1. Includes local governments, county right-of-way ditch control entities (e.g., departments of transportation), public drinking water 

intakes, industrial surface water intakes, farmers, and other private entities.

Table 3-20: Potentially Affected Entities Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern: 

Weed and Algae Pest Control

Unauthorized 

Area Agencies

Irrigation and Weed 

Control Districts

Other Entities1

Below Total

Threshold

Above Threshold

Small Large Small Large

Idaho 1 22 22 390 9 6 450

Massachusetts 0 0 0 108 1 7 116

District of Columbia 1 0 0 2 0 0 3

Tribes 0 0 0 10 1 2 13

Federal Facilities 14 0 0 0 0 0 14

Total 16 22 22 510 11 15 596

1. Includes local governments, county right-of-way ditch control entities (e.g., departments of transportation), public drinking water 

intakes, industrial surface water intakes, farmers, and other private entities.

3.3. Animal Pest Control

The animal pest control use pattern refers to the application of pesticides to control species that 

negatively impacts aquatic biodiversity including lampreys, mollusks, and fish. The type of 

control required for an animal depends on the biology of the target species and the environmental 
35 October 2011

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 

numbers, but also restore native species and habitats and prevent future invasions. 

PGP requirements for animal control are based on entity type (Agencies, or local 

government/private), size (small businesses determinations are based on SBA size standards and 

small governments are those with populations 10,000 or fewer), location (the discharge is to Tier 

3 waters or to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern), and 

annual area treatment thresholds (80 acres or 20 linear miles). The annual treatment area 

thresholds for animal control in the PGP represent the total area treated in a given year regardless 

of frequency. Thus, for example, treatment of 50 acres twice in a year represents an annual 

treatment area of 50 acres and does not exceed the annual treatment area threshold of 80 acres.

3.3.1. Agencies

There is limited information on the number and types of entities responsible for animal pest 

control in the unauthorized areas. However, because there may be some level of animal pest 

control within each of the unauthorized areas at the government level (see Section 4.3 regarding 

the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990), EPA assumes that each state or 

territory is conducting animal pest control at the state level. For federal entities, EPA assumes 

that each unique agency (65 in total) is using pesticides for animal pest control. 

Of these agencies, EPA determined that 14 federal entities with facilities in Idaho and 

Washington overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the 

permit.

23 In addition, EPA assumes that animal control activities of the state agencies in Idaho 

and Massachusetts and DC, are likely to overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

3.3.2. Local Governments and Other Entities

For tribes, in the absence of more specific information, EPA assumes that 10% of total entities 

use pesticides for animal pest control. EPA also assumes that all affected tribes exceed the 

annual treatment area and serve populations greater than 10,000.

Public drinking water utilities and industrial facilities with surface water intakes (Table 3-11 and 

Table 3-13) may also use pesticides for animal pest control. In marine or estuarine waters, 

hydrozoans, anemones, barnacles, bryozoans, entoproct, tunicates, polychaetes, 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 Asiatic clams in Alaska but they are prevalent in Massachusetts; 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 animal pests at intake structures, EPA assumes that 10% of public 

drinking water utilities and industrial facilities with surface water intakes could be affected by 

the PGP (Table 3-21). Because drinking water utilities and industrial facilities with surface 

water intakes are likely to only treat in the vicinity of the intake structure to control for animal 

pests, they would not be above the annual treatment area threshold. 

 

23Based on GIS analysis of the overlap between the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and 

Federal Lands from National Atlas (www.nationalatlas.gov).
36 October 2011

In order to estimate the number of ―other entities‖ for animal pest control that overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, EPA first determined that 39 unique tribes (about 21% of 

affected unique tribes) have NMFS Listed Resources of Concern on their lands.24 Therefore, 

EPA assumes that, over the five-year term of the permit, four tribes (21% of the 17 tribes) 

performing animal control will overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and based on 

previous assumptions, all will exceed the annual treatment area threshold and serve populations 

greater than 10,000. 

EPA continues to assume that 10% of public drinking water utilities and industrial facilities with 

surface water intakes could be affected by the PGP. So, based on the numbers previously 

identified under weed control for entities which overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of 

Concern, over the five-year term of the permit, a total of three utilities and two industrial 

facilities are estimated to overlap as well for animal pest control (see Table 3-22 for breakdown 

by affected unauthorized area). 

Table 3-21: Estimated Number of Potentially Affected Entities with Surface Water Intakes 

Unauthorized Area

Public Drinking Water Utilities Industrial Facilities

With Surface 

Water Intake1

Potentially Affected, 

Below Threshold2

With Surface 

Water Intake3

Potentially Affected, 

Below Threshold2

Alaska 102 10 37 4

Idaho 55 6 50 5

Massachusetts 168 17 81 8

New Hampshire 57 6 28 3

New Mexico 42 4 33 3

Oklahoma 605 61 119 12

District of Columbia 5 1 2 0

Territories 249 25 65 7

Tribes 65 7 11 1

Federal Facilities 0 0 0 0

Total 1,348 137 426 43

1. See Table 3-11.

2. Based on assumption that approximately 10% could be affected by PGP; assumes all below annual treatment area threshold.

3. See Table 3-13.

Table 3-22: Estimated Number of Potentially Affected Entities with Surface Water Intakes Which 

Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern

Unauthorized Area

Public Drinking Water Utilities Industrial Facilities

With Surface 

Water Intake1

Potentially Affected, 

Below Threshold2

With Surface 

Water Intake3

Potentially Affected, 

Below Threshold2

Idaho 14 1 12 1

Massachusetts 9 1 8 1

District of Columbia 1 0 1 0

Tribes 9 1 0 0

Federal Facilities 0 0 0 0

Total 33 3 21 2

1. See Table 3-12.

2. Based on assumption that approximately 10% could be affected by PGP; assumes all below annual treatment area threshold.

3. See Table 3-14

 

24 Based on GIS analysis of the overlap between the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern 

and Indian Lands from National Atlas (www.nationalatlas.gov).
37 October 2011

3.3.3. Summary

Table 3-23 summarizes the total number of potentially affected entities for the animal pest 

control use pattern. This table incorporates the number of potentially affected entities from 

Table 3-21 and the number of government entities based on the assumption that animal pest 

control is performed at the state/government level by a single public entity. Table 3-24 presents 

estimates of the number of potentially affected entities that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources 

of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

Table 3-23: Potential Number of Affected Entities: Animal Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Agencies1

Local Governments and Other Entities

Below Total

Threshold2

Small Above 

Threshold

Large Above 

Threshold3

Alaska 1 14 0 0 15

Idaho 1 11 0 0 12

Massachusetts 1 25 0 0 26

New Hampshire 1 9 0 0 10

New Mexico 1 7 0 0 8

Oklahoma 1 73 0 0 74

District of Columbia 1 1 0 0 2

Territories 6 32 0 0 38

Tribes 0 8 0 17 25

Federal Facilities 65 0 0 0 65

Total 78 180 0 17 275

1. Based on assumption that animal pest control is performed at state level by a single public entity. For federal facilities, EPA 

based estimated number of entities on assumption that 10% of entities could be affected by the PGP.

2. Represents 10% of public drinking water and industrial facilities with surface water intakes. EPA assumes that all are below the 

annual treatment area thresholds.

3. Represents 10% of total number of tribes in applicable states.

Table 3-24: Potential Number of Affected Entities Which Overlap With NFMS Listed Resources of 

Concern: Animal Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Agencies

Local Governments and Other Entities

Below Total

Threshold

Small Above 

Threshold

Large Above 

Threshold

Idaho 1 2 0 0 3

Massachusetts 1 2 0 0 3

District of Columbia 1 0 0 0 1

Tribes 0 1 0 4 5

Federal Facilities 14 0 0 0 14

Total 17 5 0 4 26

3.4. Forest Canopy Pest Control

The forest canopy pest control use pattern refers to the application of pesticides activities such as

the use of insecticides to control pests in and over forest canopies where there are Waters of the 

United States below the canopy. Under this pesticide use pattern, pesticides will be unavoidably 

discharged to waters in the course of controlling pests (but not necessarily aquatic) over or in a 

forest canopy as a result of pesticide applications. These pests may include airborne nonaquatic insects, and other non-aquatic organisms detrimental to industry, the environment, or 

public health. Pesticide applications can be performed seasonally or periodically as the need 
38 October 2011

arises and is generally triggered by surveillance data indicating a problem. Although there are 

mechanical and physical techniques that can help control widely dispersed infestations, these 

techniques are often cost prohibitive. 

There is no specific information on the use of forest canopy pest control in the unauthorized 

areas. However, EPA has information indicating the presence of state and national parks as well 

as private forest land. PGP requirements for forest canopy pest control are based on entity type 

(Agencies, or local government/private), size (small businesses determinations are based on SBA 

size standards and small governments are those with populations 10,000 or fewer), location (the 

discharge is to Tier 3 waters or to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern), and annual treatment area thresholds (6,400 acres). The annual 

treatment area threshold for forest canopy control in the PGP represents the total annual 

treatment areas in a given year. For example, treatment of 6,000 acres twice in a year represents 

an annual treatment area of 12,000 acres and would exceed the annual treatment area threshold 

of 6,400 acres.

3.4.1. Agencies

EPA assumes that public forest land is managed at the state government level, and that there is at 

least one public entity in each unauthorized state affected by the PGP for forest canopy pest 

control. For territories, EPA relied on publicly available data from territory websites (FAO, 

2005) and the National Forest Service (USDA, 2001; 2002) to identify whether forested land 

exists. For federal facilities, EPA used GIS data (from National Atlas Federal Lands layer) to 

locate national forests in the unauthorized states. 

Of these 50 national forests, EPA determined that 20 forest overlap with NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

25

 EPA also assumes that control 

activities performed by the state agencies in Idaho and Massachusetts are likely to overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. 

3.4.2. Local Governments and Other Entities

For tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA, 2005) identifies 34 Category 1 tribes (i.e., 

reservations of sufficient size and market value to justify the investment of a year-round forest 

management program with local management staff) with forest/timberland management plans. 

EPA assumes that all tribes with management plans could be affected by the PGP. BIA (2005) 

indicates that 32 of the 34 Category 1 tribes have total timberland and woodland acreage above 

the annual treatment area threshold. Thus, in the absence of data indicating the percentage or 

number of those acres treated with insecticides, EPA conservatively assumes that all forest acres 

are treated with insecticides and would be covered under the PGP. EPA also assumes that all 

tribes serve populations greater than 10,000 due to their Category 1 status. 

For private forest land, EPA used data from Birch (1994) to identify the number of private forest 

property owners in each state. Survey results of four NAFO member companies with the largest 

forest land ownership indicate that pesticides are used on approximately 5% of land and that 

insecticides are used on 2% of treated land (NAFO, 2009). Table 3-25 shows the number of 

 

25 Based on GIS analysis of the overlap between the 12 species identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern 

and Federal Lands including National Forests from National Atlas (www.nationalatlas.gov).
39 October 2011

private forests, the number using pesticides (5% of total), and the number using insecticides (2% 

of those treated with pesticides). 

Of the 34 tribes with forest management plans, EPA determined that 11 tribes overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. Two of these 11 tribes have less than 6,400 acres of 

timberland resources, therefore are considered to be below the annual treatment area threshold 

(the remaining nine are above the threshold). In order to determine the number of private forest 

owners that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, EPA examined the forested land 

use from the most recent National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For Idaho, EPA determined the 

percentage of forested land area that overlaps with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern versus 

the total forest land area in the state (not including National Forest area). This value 

(approximately 55%) then applied to the number of private forest owners provided an estimate of 

26 owners that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the 

permit.

26

 For Massachusetts, EPA determined the percentage of river miles in forested land area 

that overlaps with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern versus the total river miles in forest land 

area in the state. This value (approximately 4%) then applied to the number of owners provided 

an estimate of nine owners that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the fiveyear term of the permit.

27

Table 3-25: Estimated Number of Private Forests Treated with Insecticides

Unauthorized Area Total Forest 

Owners1

Forests Treated for 

Pests2

Insecticide-Treated 

Forests3

Alaska 16,600 830 17

Idaho 47,400 2,370 47

Massachusetts 212,800 10,640 213

New Hampshire 83,700 4,185 84

New Mexico 24,600 1,230 25

Oklahoma 158,000 7,900 158

1. Number of forest owners in each state from Birch (1994).

2. Number of treated forests based on the NAFO (2009) assumption that 5% of forests are treated for pests.

3. Based on the EPA assumption that 2% of treated forests are treated with insecticides.

For private forest owners, Birch (1994) provides data on the number of forests greater than and 

less than 5,000 acres for various regions (this is the closest breakout of size to the annual 

treatment area threshold of 6,400 acres available in the report). Table 3-26 shows the estimated 

percent of private forests with fewer than 5,000 acres. However, the acreages presented in Birch,

1994 represent total regional forest acreage (not by unauthorized state). Also, the relative area 

treated determines the annual threshold (6,400 acres), not the total forest acreage. For instance, 

for the New England Region, EPA does not have data to determine the number of forests in

Massachusetts or New Hampshire that treat greater than 6,400 acres. Therefore, for lack of data 

EPA assumed that no private forests are likely to exceed the annual treatment area threshold.

 

26 Based on the 2006 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), EPA estimates there are 10,580 square miles of forest 

in Idaho (not including national forest areas). Of this forested area, EPA found that 55.3% or 5,855 square miles 

overlap with the NMFS Listed Resources.

27 Based on the 2006 NLCD, EPA estimated there are 358.1 river miles in forested land cover in Massachusetts 

(there are no national forests in the state). Of these river miles, EPA found that 4.3% or 15.5 miles overlap with the 

NMFS Listed Resources.
40 October 2011

Table 3-26: Estimated Percentage of Private Forests Less than 5,000 Acres

Region1 Total Number of 

Forests

Number of Forests 

Greater than 5,000 Acres

Percent of Forests Less 

than 5,000 Acres

New England 761,300 200 99.97%

Southern 2,499,200 1,300 99.95%

Rocky Mountain 272,200 700 99.74%

Pacific 644,600 500 99.92%

Source: Birch, 1994.

1. Massachusetts and New Hampshire in New England Region; Oklahoma in Southern Region. Idaho and New Mexico in Rocky 

Mountain Region, and Alaska is in the Pacific Region.

 

3.4.3. Summary

Table 3-27 summarizes the number of potentially affected entities for the forest canopy use 

pattern in the unauthorized areas. Table 3-28 presents the number of potentially affected entities 

that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the five-year term of the permit.

Table 3-27: Potentially Affected Entities: Forest Canopy Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Agencies1 Other Entities Above 

Threshold2

Private Forest Owners 

Below Threshold2 Total

Alaska 1 0 17 18

Idaho 1 0 47 48

Massachusetts 1 0 213 214

New Hampshire 1 0 84 85

New Mexico 1 0 25 26

Oklahoma 1 0 158 159

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0

Territories 4 0 0 4

Tribes 0 32 2 34

Federal Facilities 50 0 0 50

Total 60 32 546 638

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, territories, 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 forest land owners in each unauthorized state; NAFO (2009) suggests that 

pesticides may be used on 5% of lands, and that insecticides are applied on 2% of these lands.

Table 3-28: Potentially Affected Entities Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern: 

Forest Canopy Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Agencies Other Entities Above 

Threshold

Private Forest Owners 

Below Threshold Total

Idaho 1 0 26 27

Massachusetts 1 0 9 10

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0

Tribes 0 9 2 11

Federal Facilities 20 0 0 20

Total 22 9 37 68
41 October 2011

3.5. Summary

Table 3-29 summarizes the estimates of potentially affected entities by unauthorized area and 

pesticide use pattern. Approximately 97% of these entities are in the weed and algae pest control 

use pattern. There is substantial uncertainty regarding whether all of these entities will be 

affected by the PGP (e.g., private irrigation ditches and canals). Table 3-30 presents the number 

of potentially affected entities that overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern over the 

five-year term of the permit, by use pattern. 

Table 3-29: Summary of Potentially Affected Entities1

Unauthorized Area

Mosquito and 

Other Flying Insect 

Pest Control

Weed and 

Algae Pest 

Control

Animal Pest 

Control

Forest 

Canopy Pest 

Control

Total

Alaska 2 350 15 18 385

Idaho 23 16,489 12 48 16,572

Massachusetts 9 2,153 26 214 2,402

New Hampshire 44 642 10 85 781

New Mexico 13 10,285 8 26 10,332

Oklahoma 1 3,888 74 159 4,122

District of Columbia 1 8 2 0 11

Territories 1 314 38 4 357

Tribes 17 93 25 34 169

Federal Facilities 65 65 65 50 245

Total 176 34,287 275 638 35,376

1. Includes large and small entities as well as those above and below the annual treatment area thresholds.

 

Table 3-30: Summary of Potentially Affected Entities Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources 

of Concern

Unauthorized Area

Mosquito and 

Other Flying Insect 

Pest Control

Weed and 

Algae Pest 

Control

Animal Pest 

Control

Forest 

Canopy Pest 

Control

Total

Idaho 3 450 3 27 483

Massachusetts 2 116 3 10 131

District of Columbia 1 3 1 0 5

Tribes 4 13 5 11 33

Federal Facilities 14 14 14 20 62

Total 24 596 26 68 714
42 October 2011

4. Overlap with Existing Requirements

The PGP will only result in incremental costs associated with the technology-based effluent 

limitation provisions in instances in which the requirements represent activities not already being 

implemented by affected entities. This section summarizes publicly available data and 

information provided by the unauthorized states regarding existing (i.e., baseline) pesticide 

regulations and practices in relation to PGP requirements for the four pesticide use patterns for 

those Decision-makers required to comply with technology-based effluent limitations (e.g., 

Agencies, mosquito control districts, irrigation and weed control districts, entities that discharges 

to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, and any other 

entities exceeding annual treatment area thresholds).

However, given that the entities required to comply with additional TBELs solely because of 

discharges to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern are 

entities not exceeding the annual treatment area thresholds, and EPA assumes that current 

compliance with these requirements is minimal. 

Under FIFRA, the Federal government regulates the licensing, sale, and use of pesticides. 

FIFRA requires Applicators to use pesticides in accordance with the product’s labeling. 

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 PGP related to mosquito and other flying insect control as a 

result of existing state requirements. As described below, the level of implementation varies 

greatly throughout unauthorized areas. In instances of insufficient information to assess current 

compliance with the requirements of the PGP, EPA assumes that, in general, entities are not 

already implementing these requirements.

Alaska does not require any mapping 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 entities in Alaska are not currently implementing 

requirements for mosquito and other flying insect pest control in the PGP.

In Idaho, ISDA (2009) indicates that 18 of 23 control districts in the state currently identify pests 

and establish target population densities. In addition, ISDA (2009) suggests that approximately 

10% of the districts in the state currently map breeding sites (two of 23), and that between 75% 

and 100% of districts currently perform source reduction and habitat modification activities; to 

be conservative (i.e., erring on the side of higher costs), EPA assumes that only 75% (17 of 23) 

districts are currently performing these activities. Finally, ISDA (2009) indicates that no districts 

practice vegetation management.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection indicates that each of nine mosquito 

control districts must identify the species of concern in their area (MADEP, 2009); as part of 

those activities, the districts use light traps (MDAR, 2008). Each of the nine districts currently 

uses GIS mapping as a part of its existing 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 nine districts indicate that they 

conduct some source reduction activities including ditch management programs, Open Marsh 

Water Management, and tire/container removal. While the Berkshire District does not indicate 
43 October 2011

the use of source reduction activities, it (along with all other districts) performs specific ditch 

maintenance. Ditch maintenance programs within each district include inland/freshwater and 

salt marsh maintenance, as applicable, using either hand tools or mechanized equipment. Five of 

the nine districts also indicate the use of biological control measures, including introducing 

predatory fish and invertebrates to waters. These data suggest that the districts are largely 

already implementing the most efficient and effective means of pest management and are 

considering impact on non-target organisms, feasibility, and cost effectiveness.

For New Hampshire, NHDAMF (2009) indicates that all of the 43 mosquito control districts 

currently identify species and establish densities. Only two commercial companies currently 

serve towns/cities within these districts, and both perform survey work as a part of their 

activities. The state also has compelled commercial applicators to add capabilities for producing 

maps electronically. Currently, New Hampshire permit applications routinely include very 

detailed electronic maps that identify potential breeding sites. NHDAMF (2009) indicates that 

little to no management measures beyond pesticide applications for mosquito control are used 

within the state. The information suggests that existing entities are likely to be in compliance 

with permit requirements to identify the problem (i.e., will not incur additional costs related to 

these requirements), but existing capacity to perform other management measures (e.g., pest 

management options and pesticide use requirements) may be minimal.

The New Mexico Department of Health requires all county and municipal mosquito control 

programs to: (1) identify the source of the problem (i.e., locate breeding sources); (2) perform 

continuous surveillance; and (3) perform the periodic collection of adult mosquitoes for 

arbovirus testing (NMDOH, 2009). These requirements would likely result in compliance with 

requirements for identifying the problem in the PGP. The New Mexico Department of 

Agriculture (NMDA) did not provide data on existing pest management practices. Thus, it is 

uncertain whether current methods comply with PGP requirements. To be conservative (i.e., 

erring on the side of higher costs), EPA assumes that no districts in New Mexico are 

implementing measures consistent with the pest management options and pesticide use 

requirements in the PGP.

In Oklahoma, the ODAFF (2009) indicates that Tulsa (the only city in OK performing mosquito 

control) is not currently using surveillance or mapping as required in the PGP. ODAFF (2009) 

did not provide data on existing pest management practices. It is therefore uncertain whether 

current methods comply with PGP requirements. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes 

that Tulsa is not currently implementing measures consistent with any of the requirements in the 

PGP.

For the District of Columbia, information from the DOH indicates that the city performs 

surveillance, trapping, and testing (DCDOH, 2005). While it is likely that the DOH is already in 

compliance with the problem identification requirements of the PGP, given the lack of 

information on existing practices related to pest management options and pesticide use 

requirements, EPA assumes that the District of Columbia is not currently implementing the pest 

management options and pesticide use requirements.

For tribes, there is some indication that those using pesticides to control mosquitoes and other 

flying insect pests may be implementing some of the requirements in the PGP. For example, the 

Arizona Department of Health Services works with tribes and Indian Health Service programs 

throughout Arizona on implementing West Nile Virus surveillance and control. The program 
44 October 2011

provides surveillance equipment, training, mosquito speciation and testing support, and larvicidal 

products (AZDHS, 2005). However, due to uncertainty related to the exact number of tribes 

using pesticides for mosquito control, EPA is unable to determine the extent of existing 

compliance with PGP requirements. To be conservative, EPA assumes in this analysis that no 

affected tribes are currently implementing PGP requirements to the extent necessary.

In territories, there is limited information regarding existing pesticide practices for mosquito 

control. In Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDOH) collaborates with the 

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to implement mosquito control practices 

for the purpose of preventing the spread of West Nile Virus and Dengue Fever. Efforts include 

animal and mosquito surveillance, non-insecticide control measures, and limited use of 

pesticides. Much of the West Nile Virus response plan indicates non-centralized efforts; 

however there is an overall mosquito control apparatus in place 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 options requirements, and 

that none of the territories are implementing the pesticide use requirements of the PGP.

Executive Order 13514 (October 5, 2009) requires the head of each federal agency to implement 

integrated pest management and other appropriate landscape management practices as a means to 

promote pollution prevention and eliminate waste. Because the effluent limitations in the PGP 

are based on integrated pest management principles, EPA assumes that federal facilities are 

currently implementing measures consistent with most, if not all of the permit.

Table 4-1 summarizes the information and assumptions regarding current compliance with the 

individual Part 2.2 permit requirements for mosquito and other flying insect pest control for the 

potentially affected entities. 
45 October 2011

Table 4-1: Current Implementation of Part 2.2 for Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Unauthorized Area

Number of 

Potentially 

Affected 

Entities1

Estimated Number of Entities in Compliance

Identify the Problem Pest 

Management 

Options

Pesticide 

Use

Identifying Pest 

and Targeting 

Densities

Identifying and 

Mapping 

Breeding Sites

Alaska 2 0 0 0 0

Idaho 23 18 2 17 0

Massachusetts 9 9 9 9 0

New Hampshire 43 43 43 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 17 0 0 0 0

Federal Facilities 65 65 65 65 65

Total 175 150 134 92 65

Sources: ADEC, 2009; ISDA , 2009; MADEP, 2009; NHDAMF, 2009; NMDOH, 2009; ODAFF, 2009.

1. Includes Agencies, mosquito control districts and any affected entities that exceed annual treatment area thresholds (see Table 

3-1).

4.2. Weed and Algae Pest Control

Information from the unauthorized areas indicates that certain entities are already implementing 

some of the requirements of the PGP related to weed and algae pest control as a result of existing 

state requirements. As described below, the level of implementation varies greatly in the 

unauthorized areas. 

Under Idaho’s water milfoil program, Idaho State Department of Agriculture (2009) suggests 

60% current compliance with activities to identify the problem and 40% compliance with 

application surveillance requirements of the PGP. In addition, ISDA (2009) suggests low use of 

mechanical and biological controls for weeds and mechanical/physical control methods are cost 

prohibitive in most areas.

In Massachusetts, MADEP (2009) indicates 100% compliance with activities to identify problem 

areas for its 260 weed control permits (only 13 of which EPA assumes would need to comply 

with Part 2.2 of the permit). MADEP (2009) also indicates widespread use of mechanical 

controls and habitat modification practices prior to pesticide application, and limited use of 

methods to maintain, enhance, and promote 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 13 local government 

agencies with weed control permits exceeding the annual treatment area threshold are currently 

compliant with PGP problem identification requirements (NHDAMF, 2009). EPA uses a 

midpoint of 75% compliance for problem identification activities (based on the midpoint 

between 50-100% which was provided by NHDAMF). NHDAMF (2009) indicates that where 

practical, New Hampshire applicators engage in use of mechanical controls, habitat modification 

practices, and methods to maintain, enhance, and promote biological controls. In addition, 

current compliance in application surveillance is 100% due to the current New Hampshire 

permitting system (NHDAMF, 2009). 
46 October 2011

Information available from Oklahoma indicates that 15% to 30% of the 30 local government 

entities exceeding the annual treatment area threshold to which it issues weed control licenses are 

in compliance with the problem identification provisions of the PGP (ODAFF, 2009). ODAFF 

(2009) also indicates a 10% compliance 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).

Executive Order 13514 (October 5, 2009) requires the head of each federal agency to implement 

integrated pest management and other appropriate landscape management practices as a means to 

promote pollution prevention and eliminate waste. Because the effluent limitations in the PGP 

are based on integrated pest management principles, EPA assumes that federal facilities are 

currently implementing measures consistent with most, if not all of the permit. The information 

on existing practices provides some information on potentially affected entities and current 

compliance (Table 4-2).

Table 4-2: Current Implementation of Part 2.2 Measures in Agencies and Local Governments: 

Weed and Algae Pest Control

Unauthorized Area

Percent of Agencies and Local Governments in Compliance1

Identifying the Problem Pest Management 

Options 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 100% 100% 100%

Sources: ADEC, 2009; ISDA, 2009; MADEP, 2009; NHDAMF, 2009; NMDA, 2009; ODAFF, 2009.

1. “No entities” indicates the unauthorized area does not have any entities performing weed control. While, 0% indicates the 

unauthorized area does not have any entities currently implementing this requirement, 

EPA assumes problem identification is being done by irrigation districts, weed control districts, 

right-of-way pesticide applicators, and public drinking water utilities in order to determine what 

pest management practice (pesticide or mechanical) is necessary to deal with the pest problem 

and that the applicators are using the pesticide in compliance with FIFRA. It is uncertain 

whether the entities are implementing all of the pest management options requirements. 

However, given that pest management options provisions in the PGP require use of pesticide 

alternatives where feasible, EPA assumes these entities are already using the most feasible or 

cost-effective methods available.

Decision-makers that are required to submit NOIs solely because of discharges to Waters of the 

United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern are required to comply with Part 

2.2 of the permit. Potentially affected entities are those ―other entities‖ Decision-makers with 

discharges that are below the annual treatment area threshold values but discharge to Waters of 

the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. EPA expects 102 (510/5) 

Decision-makers to be required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of 
47 October 2011

discharges to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern 

annually (see Chapter 3).

Table 4-3: Current Implementation of Part 2.2 Measures for Weed and Algae Pest Control

Unauthorized Area No. of Potentially 

Affected Entities1

Estimated Number of Entities in Compliance2

Identify the Problem Pest Management 

Options Pesticide Use

Alaska 37 37 37 37

Idaho 253 253 253 253

Massachusetts 44 44 31 31

New Hampshire 29 26 16 29

New Mexico 47 47 47 47

Oklahoma 169 146 146 146

District of Columbia 1 1 1 1

Territories 25 25 25 25

Tribes 15 6 6 6

Federal Facilities 65 65 65 65

NMFS Listed 

Resources3102 0 0 0

Total 787 650 627 640

Sources: ADEC, 2009; ISDA, 2009; MADEP, 2009; NHDAMF, 2009; NMDOH, 2009; ODAFF, 2009.

1. Potential affected entities required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit (see Table 3-19 and Table 3-20).

2. Based on discussion in Section 4.1.

3. Includes other Decision-makers required to comply Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to Waters of the United 

States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

Table 4-4: Current Implementation of Part 2.2 Measures for Weed and Algae Pest Control: 

Percentage of Entities Not in Compliance

Unauthorized Area No. of Potentially

Affected Entities

Overall Percentage of Entities Not in Compliance1

Identify the Problem Pest Management 

Options Pesticide Use

Alaska 37 0% 0% 0%

Idaho 253 0% 0% 0%

Massachusetts 44 0% 30% 30%

New Hampshire 29 10% 45% 0%

New Mexico 47 0% 0% 0%

Oklahoma 169 14% 14% 14%

District of Columbia 1 0% 0% 0%

Territories 25 0% 0% 0%

Tribes 15 60% 60% 60%

Federal Facilities 65 0% 0% 0%

NMFS Listed 

Resources 102 100% 100% 100%

Sources: ADEC, 2009; ISDA, 2009; MADEP, 2009; NHDAMF, 2009; NMDOH, 2009; ODAFF, 2009.

1. These percentages are calculated by comparing the estimated number of entities in compliance to the number of potentially 

affected entities (from Table 4-3).

4.3. Animal Pest Control

Current federal regulations, specifically Section 1204 of the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 

Control Act of 1990 (amended as the National Invasive Species Act of 1996), require states to 
48 October 2011

develop comprehensive Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance 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 nuisance species problems and concerns within the 

state as well as any pathways for the current and future introductions of species; 

management actions include sections concerning prevention of new species as well as 

detecting, monitoring, containing, reducing, or eradicating populations as quickly as 

possible with the lowest environmental impact (ADF&G, 2002).

Idaho – the plan presents high-priority animal species (both native and non-native to 

Idaho); plan sections cover early intervention-prevention, early detection and rapid 

response, and containment, control and restoration (IISC, 2007).

Massachusetts – the plan identifies the priority species (or species groups) for established 

freshwater and coastal species and threatening freshwater and coastal species including 

animals (mussels, clams, fish, etc.); management actions and objectives include 

prevention, monitoring, early detection/eradication, and control (MA AIS Working 

Group, 2002).

New Hampshire – the aquatic nuisance species (ANS) communication plan indicates that 

an overall management plan for ANS 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 determining 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, detecting, monitoring, and eradicating pioneer 

AIS, and where feasible, controlling and eradicating established AIS that have significant 

impacts (NMAISAC, 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, monitoring, and eradicating ANS; and controlling and 

eradicating established ANS that have significant impacts (ODWC, 2008). 

In addition, Executive Order 13112 (February 1999) established the National Invasive Species 

Council (NISC), which was tasked with preparing and issuing a national plan to deal with 

invasive species, among other things. Completed in 2001, the National Invasive Species 

Management Plan serves as a comprehensive ―blueprint‖ for federal action on invasive species. 

NISC (2008) estimates that 59% of the plan’s 170 specific actions have been completed or are in 

progress. The national plan has five strategic goals intended to be completed by 2012: 

prevention; early detection and rapid response; control and management; restoration; and 

organizational collaboration. Given the presence of the National Invasive Species Management 

Plan and the requirement for states to develop their own management 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 covered 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 PGP as it relates to activities to control invasive species. Given the 

potential for current compliance with pesticide use requirements under state and national 
49 October 2011

invasive species management plans (which include management of invasive weeds), incremental 

compliance costs associated with pesticide use requirements for animal pest control are unlikely. 

EPA assumes that public drinking water utilities and industrial facilities using pesticides to 

control animals at surface water intakes are already in compliance with problem identification 

and pesticide use requirements, because both are necessary to successfully eradicate the pests 

and eliminate the problem. It is uncertain whether the utilities are implementing all of the pest 

management options requirements. However, given that pest management options provisions 

require use of pesticide alternatives where feasible, EPA assumes these entities are already using 

the most feasible or cost-effective methods available.

Decision-makers that are required to submit NOIs solely because of discharges to Waters of the 

United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern are required to comply with Part 

2.2 of the permit. Potentially affected entities are those Decision-makers with discharges that are 

below the annual treatment area threshold values and discharges to Waters of the United States 

containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. EPA expects 1 (5/5) other Decision-maker 

annually to be required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to 

Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

4.4. Forest Canopy Pest Control

There is no specific information on whether any current forest canopy applications are compliant 

with permit requirements. In general, the use of forest canopy pest control necessitates a 

coordinated, controlled approach, including proper surveillance (e.g., identifying pests, 

identifying distribution 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 PGP. For pest management options, alternative methods are likely not to be feasible across 

large areas; thus, costs associated with pest management options for forest canopy pest control 

may be minimal. 

Decision-makers that are required to submit NOIs because of discharges to Waters of the United 

States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern are required to comply with Part 2.2 of the 

permit. Potentially affected entities are those small, private forest Decision-makers with 

discharges that are below the annual treatment area threshold values and discharges to Waters of 

the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. EPA expects 7 (37/5) other 

Decision-makers annually to be required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of 

discharges to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.
50 October 2011

5. Analysis of Costs

This section provides an analysis of the potential incremental costs that may be associated with 

the PGP. Incremental costs represent expenditures above those required for existing regulations 

and current practices (i.e., baseline conditions) up to compliance with the PGP. The costs are 

divided into technology-based effluent limitation controls costs and administrative and 

monitoring costs. 

5.1. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations

The method for estimating the potential incremental costs associated with the technology-based 

effluent limitation provisions in the PGP involves identifying entities that may be affected by the 

particular provision, determining incremental control activities (i.e., activities above and beyond 

those necessary under existing regulations) needed for compliance with the PGP, and estimating 

unit costs of those activities. Unit costs for the incremental activities multiplied by the number 

of affected entities performing the respective incremental activities provide an estimate of the 

incremental cost. Note that the costs presented in this section represent estimates; actual 

incremental costs may differ depending on the number of entities affected, current compliance 

costs, and existing level of controls. 

5.1.1. Applicators’ Responsibilities

The extent to which minimizing pesticide discharges to Waters of the United States result in 

incremental compliance costs to Applicators will depend on: (1) whether Applicators continue to 

use pesticides as a result of the permit (see requirements in the PGP Part 2.2 where Decisionmakers must consider pest management options), (2) whether Applicators are currently in 

compliance with the requirements, and (3) the unit costs of the activities.

Estimates of the costs associated with the activities required under Section 2.1 of the PGP, as 

currently being implemented by Applicators, are not available. However, given FIFRA pesticide 

label requirements that already stipulate how pesticides can be used (e.g., amount of the product 

per application (along with the frequency)) and information from Idaho, Massachusetts, and New 

Hampshire indicating that all entities are currently performing maintenance (including equipment 

calibration) as a part of normal operating procedures (ISDA, 2009; MADEP, 2009; and 

NHDAMF, 2009), incremental compliance costs for applicators are likely zero.

5.1.2. Decision-makers’ Responsibilities

The PGP requires all Decision-makers to use only the amount of pesticide and frequency of 

pesticide application necessary to control the target pest. However, given pesticide label 

requirements already stipulate how the pesticide can be used, and that EPA assumes that, in 

general, only the amount of the product necessary to control pest is being used, incremental 

compliance costs for this permit requirement are likely zero. 

The PGP requires Decision-makers that must submit an NOI to comply with additional permit 

conditions (except those Decision-makers that will need to submit an NOI only because they 

discharge to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and that 

also comply with provisions in Part 1.6 of the permit). Compliance costs for Decision-makers 

required to submit NOIs are discussed below.
51 October 2011

5.1.2.1 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Mosquito control activities are not performed at the same level (e.g., city, district) across the 

unauthorized areas, and information is not available on the area treated by those entities 

performing such activities. Thus, it is difficult to estimate costs to entities potentially affected by 

the PGP based on available cost or expenditure data. For example, program expenditures by 

mosquito control districts in Massachusetts (Table 5-1; MADEP, 2009) include a variety of 

activities required under the PGP (mapping breeding sites, surveillance, analyzing surveillance 

data, and alternatives to traditional pesticide). 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 District). Differences in cost are most likely the result of different 

district sizes (e.g., population and area served/treated), and to a lesser extent, other issues such as 

different standard surveillance practices. 

Table 5-1: Massachusetts Mosquito Control District Expenditures

Cost 

Category

Massachusetts Mosquito Control Districts

Bristol Berkshire Cape 

Cod Central Norfolk Northeast Plymouth Suffolk

Breeding 

Sites, 

Mapping

$79,539 $43,335 $180,081 $145,483 $126,711 $144,404 $124,013 -

Surveillance1$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 $199,637 $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 $151,833 $36,443 $245,061 $37,788

Larval Control $234,223 $50,039 $193,347 $131,690 $420,983 $359,404 $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 $61,425 $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

Sources: MADEP, 2009; MDAR, 2008. No expenditure data reported for the East Middlesex District. 

„‟-“ = information unavailable. 

ULV = Ultra Low Volume (fogging)

1. Also includes data analysis for some districts, although specific information on which districts and how much analysis cost is 

included is not available.
52 October 2011

For example, the control districts vary in size and make-up (Figure 1). Each district covers 

vastly different territory, ranging in density from rural to suburban sprawl to urban, and from 

heavily forested area to coastal salt marshes. 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 forested towns. Central, East Middlesex, 

Norfolk are all primarily suburban districts, while Bristol, Plymouth, and Northeast are mainly 

suburban-to-rural districts. All districts use larvicides, and all districts, except Cape Cod, use 

adulticides. In addition, all districts perform ditch maintenance (water management), and all, 

except East Middlesex, perform source reduction. The cost to perform different activities for 

each district reflects the budget for each district as well as the districts’ geographic area, local 

community values, topography, and urban/suburban/rural characteristics (MADEP, 2009; 

MDAR, 2008).

Available information on unit costs suggests that incremental costs to comply with the permit 

requirements for entities not currently performing these activities will vary substantially. 

Examples of factors that may affect incremental costs include land area, population density, 

water area, climate, geography, existing government expenditures and program capabilities, and 

opportunities to share capabilities 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 some entities (e.g., towns, federal facilities) are likely to utilize 

commercial services rather than develop capabilities in house.

The following requirements apply to Decision-makers that are required to submit an NOI (except 

those Decision-makers that will need to submit an NOI only because they discharge to Waters of 

the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and that also comply with 

provisions in Part 1.6 of the permit).

Identify the Problem

To identify the problem, the PGP requires Decision-makers to do the following:

Establish densities for larval and adult mosquito or flying insect pest populations or identify 

environmental condition(s), either current or based on historical data, to serve as action 

threshold(s) for implementing Pest Management Measures;

Identify target pest(s) to develop Pest Management Measures based on developmental and 

behavioral considerations for each pest;

Identify known breeding sites for source reduction, larval control program, and habitat 

management;

Analyze existing surveillance data to identify new or unidentified sources of mosquito or 

flying insect pest problems as well as sites that have recurring pest problems;

In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use 

other available data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.1.a of the permit.

The potential for incremental compliance costs related to identifying the problem depends on the 

extent to which mosquito and other flying insect pest control activities are currently being 

implemented by entities subject to Part 2.2 of the permit in the unauthorized areas and the extent 

to which the required Part 2.2 activities—identifying mosquito or other flying insects, 

establishing target densities, identifying known breeding sites, and analyzing surveillance data—

are already being performed under existing pest management programs.
53 October 2011

Potential Unit Costs

For this analysis, EPA assumed that all entities subject to Part 2.2 under the PGP are already 

identifying pests because otherwise there would be no need for pest control. Whether entities are 

establishing target densities, identifying breeding sites, and analyzing surveillance data is entityspecific. 

Information on mosquito control efforts in Massachusetts indicates that the districts already 

establish target densities. Based on this information, the three cost categories for surveillance 

may reflect the permit requirements to identify the problem and analyze data. These costs range 

from $8,000 (Suffolk District) to approximately $190,000 (Central District), with a midpoint of 

approximately $99,000. For identifying and mapping breeding sites, the Massachusetts control 

district costs range from $43,000 to $180,000, with a midpoint of approximately $112,000. 

Additional analysis would be needed to meaningfully normalize these expenditures by factors 

such as land area or population. However, EPA expects the above estimates to be representative 

of typical county- or regional-level expenditures related to problem identification for mosquito 

and other flying insect pest control.

New Hampshire mosquito control occurs at the municipal level, and is currently performed by 

two commercial companies. Municipalities’ budgets can be as low as $15,000 per year and as 

high as $105,000 per year, but generally average $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 town to town, but most likely exceeds the cost to 

perform adult surveillance (McGregor, 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 

estimates the cost of performing annual 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 municipality (compared with 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 Mexico, District of Columbia, territories, and 

federal agencies) may incur costs for establishing target densities on the order of $99,000 and 

costs for identification and mapping of breeding sites on the order of $112,000. Entities that 

operate on a smaller, municipal level (e.g., those in Alaska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and 

tribal lands) may incur incremental costs for establishment of densities and mapping of 

approximately $20,000.

Potential Total Costs

Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 present estimates of the number of affected entities, potential 

incremental costs of surveillance and mapping compliance 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 complying with Part 2.2 permit requirements (Table 4-1) from the total number of 

affected entities (Table 3-1). 
54 October 2011

Table 5-2: Estimated Incremental Costs to Regional/District Entities: Identifying the Problem, 

Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Unauthorized 

Area

Identifying Pest and Targeting 

Densities

Identifying and Mapping Breeding 

Sites Total 

Potential 

Cost

Estimated 

No. of 

Entities1

Unit Cost 

($/entity)

Potential 

Cost

Estimated 

No. of 

Entities1

Unit Cost 

($/entity)

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 0 $99,000 $0 0 $112,000 $0 $0

Total 5 - $495,000 21 - $2,352,000 $2,847,000

1. Based on the difference between the number of potentially affected entities and the number of entities currently performing each 

activity (Table 4-1). 

Table 5-3: Estimated Incremental Costs to Municipal Entities: Identifying the Problem, Mosquito 

and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Estimated No. of 

Entities1 Unit Cost ($/entity) Potential Cost

Alaska 2 $20,000 $40,000

New Hampshire 0 $20,000 $0

Oklahoma 1 $20,000 $20,000

Tribes 17 $20,000 $340,000

NMFS Listed 

Resources3 0 $20,000 $0

Total 18 NA $400,000 

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 municipal-level entities are not broken out by species identification and 

breeding site mapping.

3. Includes other Decision-makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to Waters of the 

United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

Total cost associated with problem identification for mosquito and other flying insect control 

could be approximately $3,247,000 (sum of regional/district entity costs and municipality entity 

costs).

Pest Management Options

For pest management options, the PGP requires Decision-makers to select and implement, for 

each pest management area, efficient and effective means of Pest Management Measures that 

minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control mosquitoes or other 

flying insect pests. In developing the Pest Management Measures, Decision-makers must 

evaluate the following management options, including a combination of these management 

options, considering impact to water quality, impact to non-target organisms, feasibility, and cost 

effectiveness: no action; prevention; mechanical/physical methods; cultural methods; biological

control agents; and/or pesticides. 

Whether or not these requirements result in incremental costs will depend on the extent to which 

Decision-makers with the function to control mosquitoes and flying insects are currently 
55 October 2011

implementing the most efficient and effective means of Pest Management Measures to minimize 

pesticide discharges, and the net incremental cost of such methods (i.e., compared to 

conventional pesticide use). 

No Action: No action is to be taken, although a problem has been identified. This may be 

appropriate in cases where, for example, available control methods may cause secondary or nontarget impacts that are not justified or no available control methods exist.

Prevention: Prevention strategies are program activities that eliminate developing pest 

populations through environmental modifications and/or habitat management. For mosquito 

control, these activities are physical methods, such as habitat 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 and 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 restrictions. 

Cultural Methods: Cultural methods can reduce sources of mosquitoes and can be as simple as 

properly discarding old containers that hold water capable of producing Aedes aegypti, Ae. 

Albopictus, or Culex spp. or as complex as implementing Rotational Impoundment Management 

(RIM) or Open Marsh Water Management techniques. 

Biological Control Agents: Biocontrol is utilization of parasites, predators, and pathogens to 

regulate pest populations; the major mechanism 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 pesticide are efficient and effective means of Pest 

Management Measures is site specific. For example, the City of Davis, California, although not 

one of the unauthorized areas, established an integrated pest management (IPM) program in 1989 

(similar to the requirements of Part 2.2 under the PGP), and in 2005 developed an IPM policy 

that included less reliance on chemical controls as well as balancing weed controls within 

economic constraints (City of Davis, 2008). Several alternative pest control methods were 

continued in 2008 to reduce reliance on pesticides and meet IPM objectives, including 

mechanical removal, hand removal, flooding, and weed habitat removal. However, the City of 

Davis notes that future reliance on these methods could be curtailed by budgetary constraints. 

(The City of Davis also used volunteer labor for some IPM program components.)

Unit costs may also depend on the extent of the current use of methods other than pesticides. For 

example, the allocation of expenditures between pesticide-related activities and other pest 

management activities varies greatly. Expenditures in the Suffolk District in Massachusetts are 

primarily related to pesticide application (approximately 97%). This may be an area to consider 

alternatives that may be more efficient or effective methods to minimize pesticide discharge. In 

comparison, only 22% of expenditures in the Cape Cod District in Massachusetts may be 
56 October 2011

attributable to pesticide use, as compared with 43% for water management and vegetation and 

sediment removal. Feasible and cost-effective uses of methods that minimize pesticide 

discharges may be greater in that district and opportunities to replace remaining pesticide use 

less feasible or cost-effective. 

As an estimate of potential expenditures related to the pest management options in the PGP, the 

expenditures in Table 5-1 for mosquito control districts in Massachusetts for water management 

and vegetation and sediment removal can be used. Costs of implementing these practices range 

widely (from $800 in the Suffolk District to $389,000 in the Cape Cod District). In addition, 

ISDA (2009) indicates an annual cost of $7,500 per district for water management practices. 

The effectiveness of these activities for minimizing pesticide discharges may vary by location. 

However, the midpoint of total costs 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 costs 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 entities from selecting any method for which the 

net incremental cost exceeds the cost of conventional pesticide application for a similar level of 

control. If all entities found other methods unfeasible or not cost effective, incremental 

compliance costs would be zero. On the other end of the spectrum, the net incremental cost 

(over and above the cost of pesticide 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 constraints and site-specific circumstances to 

implement alternative methods of control when funds are available and seek additional funding 

to accommodate methods that minimize pesticide 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 potentially affected entities and illustrative estimates of potential costs 

assuming that affected entities incur net incremental costs (costs of alternative methods less cost 

of conventional pesticide use) for water management and vegetation and sediment removal 

methods of approximately $195,000 for regional entities and $800 for municipalities. 
57 October 2011

Table 5-4: Estimated Incremental Costs: Pest Management Options, Mosquito and Other Flying 

Insect Pest Control 

Unauthorized Area Entities Potentially Incurring 

Incremental Cost1

Potential Feasible Net 

Incremental Cost2

Alaska 2 $2,000

Idaho 6 $1,170,000

Massachusetts 0 $0

New Hampshire 43 $34,000

New Mexico 13 $2,535,000

Oklahoma 1 $1,000

District of Columbia 1 $195,000

Territories 0 $0

Tribes 17 $14,000

Federal Facilities 0 $0

NMFS Listed Resources3

0 $0

Total 83 $3,951,000

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

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 number of 

regional entities potentially incurring net incremental costs (in Idaho, Massachusetts, New Mexico, District of Columbia, and

territories) by $195,000, and the number of municipalities potentially incurring net incremental costs (in Alaska, New Hampshire, 

Oklahoma, and tribes) by $800.

3. Includes other Decision-makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to Waters of the

United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

Pesticide Use

For pesticide use, the PGP requires Decision-makers to do the following:

Conduct larval and/or adult surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem 

or evaluate existing larval surveillance data, environmental conditions, or data from adjacent 

area prior to each pesticide application to assess the pest management area and to determine 

when action threshold(s) is met;

Reduce the impact on the environment and on non-target organisms by applying the pesticide 

only when the action threshold(s) has been met;

In situations or locations where practicable and feasible for efficacious control, use larvicides 

as a preferred pesticide for mosquito or flying insect pest control when larval action 

threshold(s) has been met;

In situations or locations where larvicide use is not practicable or feasible for efficacious 

control, use adulticides for mosquito or flying insect pest control when adult action 

thresholds has been met.

The potential for larval/adult surveillance prior to each application to result in incremental costs 

depends on the extent of current larval and adult surveillance, per-application 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. 

Because the effect of selecting the most efficient and effective method to minimize pesticide 

discharges on pesticide applications is not known, estimates of incremental compliance cost for 

surveillance would be speculative. Further, available information on current program 
58 October 2011

expenditures (e.g., information from Massachusetts and Idaho) is not sufficient to determine 

whether surveillance is performed before each application, or how many applications are 

reflected in existing program expenditures. For example, for entities currently conducting 

surveillance but not prior to each application, existing expenditures may not increase if nonpesticide methods replace some pesticide applications. For entities that do not currently conduct 

surveillance, incremental compliance costs are likely, but expenditures levels in other states may 

not be representative because pesticide application rates and amounts may differ. In addition, a 

portion of the surveillance costs may already be included in the surveillance estimates under 

problem identification. 

Costs associated with applying the pesticide only when the action threshold has been met and 

using adulticides when larvacides are not practicable are likely minimal or there may be a cost 

savings associated with only applying pesticides when an action threshold is met. 

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 that 

equipment costs associated with applying larvicides may be cheaper than applying adulticides 

(Town of Silver City, 2004), although labor requirements may differ as well. While there is also 

evidence to suggest that adoption of the requirements in Part 2.2 of the PGP leads to slightly 

greater chemical spending on average, pesticide applications may be reduced as a result of 

selecting the most efficient and effective method to minimize pesticide use (Norton and Maupin, 

2009). Therefore, potential incremental costs associated with pesticide use provisions are likely 

minimal. 

5.1.2.2 Weed and Algae Pest Control 

The following requirements apply to Decision-makers that are required to submit an NOI (except 

those Decision-makers that will need to submit an NOI only because they discharge to Waters of 

the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and that also comply with 

provisions in Part 1.6 of the permit). 

Identify the Problem

To identify the problem, the PGP requires Decision-makers to do the following:

Identify areas with pest problems and characterize the extent of the problems, including, for 

example, water use goals not attained (e.g., wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, and 

recreation);

Identify target pest(s);

Identify possible factors causing or contributing to the pest problem (e.g., nutrients, invasive 

species, etc.);

Establish any pest- and site-specific action threshold for implementing Part 2.2.2.b of the 

permit;

In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use 

other available data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.2.a of the permit. 

The potential for incremental compliance costs resulting from the PGP requirements to identify 

the problem will depend on the extent to which Decision-makers are currently conducting 

problem identification activities and the cost of such activities. In general, identifying target 

weeds, weed issues, and more general aquatic conditions falls under the category of scouting. 
59 October 2011

Scouting involves identifying target weeds and evaluating weed location and density, and is done 

on the ground by walking and/or riding in an all-terrain vehicle or boat (Blankinship, 2009). On 

the ground, surveyors will visually observe the plants and map out problem areas (Hamel, 2009). 

Some surveyors utilize viewing tubes, underwater cameras, or divers and snorkelers to 

investigate conditions under the surface. Scouting can also be accomplished by aerial survey 

using helicopter or plane, though this method is more expensive (Blankinship, 2009). Where 

submerged weeds are present, bathymetric surveys can be employed. Locations and densities of 

aquatic plant nuisances are typically plotted using GIS software. 

Potential Unit Costs

The amount of time necessary to scout an area depends on a variety of factors, including size and 

depth, access, type of weed, and time of year (Blankinship, 2009). A surveyor typically spends 

about one day per lake (200 acres or fewer) studying conditions and weed cover and assessing 

locations for herbicide application (Hamel, 2009). Typical costs range from $100 per acre for a 

small pond or lake to $1,000 per day for a larger 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 complexity of these studies, costs are, at a minimum, 

in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and can exceed millions of dollars per area. Hamel 

(2009) explains that most nutrient problems are due to a variety of watershed inputs and are 

largely out of the control of local populations or regulating agencies. Due to the impracticality 

of performing a long-term study to identify problems, EPA assumes that problem identification 

will be performed during surveillance 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 affected area for weed control based on information in 

Section 3.2 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 PGP requirements by the annual treatment 

area threshold of 80 acres. 
60 October 2011

Table 5-5: Potential Costs: Identifying the Problem, Weed and Algae Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Entities w/ Part 2.2 

Requirements1

Entities Not in 

Compliance2

Potential Acres Not 

in Compliance3

Total Potential 

Costs ($/yr)4

Alaska 37 0 0 $0

Idaho 253 0 0 $0

Massachusetts 44 0 0 $0

New Hampshire 29 3 240 $24,000

New Mexico 47 0 0 $0

Oklahoma 169 23 1,840 $184,000

District of Columbia 1 0 0 $0

Territories 25 0 0 $0

Tribes 15 9 720 $72,000

Federal Facilities 65 0 0 $0

NMFS Listed 

Resources5 102 102 268 $27,000

Total 787 137 3,068 $307,000

NA = not applicable

1. Includes Agencies, irrigation and weed control districts, and all other entities exceeding the annual treatment area thresholds 

and in addition, for NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, it also includes entities not exceeding the annual treatment area 

thresholds.

2. Represents the number of local governments not in compliance with permit requirements based on information in Section 4.2; 

assumes all irrigation and weed control districts and county right-of-way entities are already in compliance with problem 

identification requirements.

3. Calculated for all entities except NMFS Listed Resources of Concern by assuming that each affected entity represents one 

waterbody, and multiplying the number of entities/waterbodies not in compliance with PGP requirements by the annual treatment 

area threshold of 80 acres. For NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, the number of potential acres includes areas for farms, local 

government entities, public drinking water facilities, NPDES industrial dischargers and private property owners. For farms, EPA 

estimates the treatment size per state (for Idaho and Massachusetts) by calculating the average size per farm of the counties that 

overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern from the 2007 Census of Agriculture and assumed an average irrigation canal 

width of 5 feet. For government entities, public drinking water facilities, NPDES industrial dischargers, EPA assumes that each 

entity will treat an average of 20 acres. For private property owners, EPA assumes that each entity will only treat an average of 

one acre.

4. Represents number of potentially affected acres not in compliance with PGP multiplied by a unit cost of $100/acre (Coble, 

2009).

5. Includes other Decision-makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to Waters of the 

United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

Note that these costs are driven by EPA’s assumption that half of local government agencies

with state-issued pesticide permits are exceeding the annual treatment area threshold of 80 acres 

(see discussion in Section 3.2.3). Under a scenario in which all local governments exceed the 

annual treatment area threshold, potential annual costs could be $552,000 (based on 69 entities 

not currently in compliance; see Section 4.2 for percent of entities in each state currently in 

compliance with PGP requirements and each treating 80 acres). 

Pest Management Options

For pest management options, the PGP requires Decision-makers to select and implement, for 

each pest management area, efficient and effective means of Pest Management Measures that 

minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control pests. In developing 

the Pest Management Measures, Decision-makers must evaluate the following management 

options, including a combination of these management options, considering impact to water 

quality, impact to non-target organisms, feasibility, and cost effectiveness: no action; prevention; 

mechanical/physical methods; cultural methods; biological control agents; pesticides.

Whether or not these requirements result in incremental costs will depend on (1) the extent to 

which Decision-makers are currently implementing the most efficient and effective means of 
61 October 2011

Pest Management Measures to minimize pesticide discharges and (2) the net incremental cost of 

such methods (i.e., compared with conventional pesticide use).

The efficiency and effectiveness of Pest Management Measures that do not involve the use of 

pesticides will be site specific. 

No Action: No action is to be taken, although a problem has been identified. This may be 

appropriate in cases where, for example, available control methods may cause secondary or nontarget impacts that are not justified or no available controls exist. 

Prevention: Preventing introductions of possible weeds and algae is the most efficient way to 

reduce the threat of nuisance species (ANS Task Force, 2002). Identifying primary pathways of 

introduction and actions to cut off those pathways is essential to prevention. Through a better 

understanding of the transportation and introduction of weeds and algae, private entities 

(aquaculture) and the public have the necessary knowledge to assist in local weed and algae 

control by reducing conditions that encourage the spread of weeds and algae in their immediate 

surroundings. For example, recreational water users provide a pathway of unintentional 

introductions. Increasing public awareness of weeds and algae, their impacts, and what 

individuals can do to prevent their introduction and spread is critical for prevention. Other 

examples of prevention 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 

introduction of weeds and algae.

Mechanical and Biological Control: Mechanical and biological controls will be the appropriate 

method of control in some cases, or a part 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 execution of alternative strategies and proper best management practices. 

Mechanical control techniques will vary depending on the pest. Examples include dewatering, 

pressure washing, abrasive scrubbing, and weed removal by hand or machine. 

Biological control of weeds and algae may be achieved through the introduction of diseases, 

predators, or parasites. While biological control generally has limited application for control of 

weeds and algae, the operator should fully consider this option in evaluating pest management 

options. 

Cultural Methods: Cultural techniques include the use of pond dyes and water-level drawdown. 

Pond dyes are used to manage filamentous algae and submersed (underwater) vegetation. Several 

pond colorants and one or two dyes are EPA-registered for aquatic weed control. They are 

effective if there is little water 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 and water lilies and emergent (growing above the 

surface) plants like cattails and bulrushes. They are non-toxic 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.28 

Pesticides: Aquatic herbicides are chemicals specifically formulated for use in water to kill or 

control aquatic plants. Aquatic herbicides are sprayed directly onto floating or emergent aquatic 

 

28 http://www.grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_weeds_overboard/
62 October 2011

plants or are applied to the water in either a liquid or pellet form. Systemic herbicides are 

capable of killing the entire plant. Contact herbicides cause the parts of the plant in contact with 

the herbicide to die back, leaving the roots alive and able to regrow. Non-selective, broad 

spectrum herbicides will generally affect all plants that they come in contact with. Selective 

herbicides will affect only some plants.29

Potential Unit Costs

ISDA (2009), MADEP (2009), NHDAMF (2009), and ODAFF (2009) all provide various unit 

costs for weed management. For mechanical/physical methods of control, 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 between $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 efficient/effective method less the total cost of pesticide 

use (e.g., any surveillance costs that would not be incurred with other methods). However, 

information is not available on the current cost of pesticide use. Costs may also vary based on 

the extent of current use of alternative methods; operators already using the most feasible and 

cost-effective opportunities to minimize pesticide discharges would not likely 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 the net incremental cost exceeds the cost of 

pesticide application for a similar level of control. If all entities found non-pesticide methods 

infeasible/not cost effective, incremental compliance costs would be zero. However, more 

likely, entities will work within budget constraints 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.

The level of any positive net incremental cost that entities will bear in determining whether 

alternative methods are feasible and cost effective is speculative; the ability 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, either the selection of less targeted methods or no action may be 

more likely considering feasibility and cost effectiveness. In addition, information is lacking as 

to whether the current mix of methods will change under the permit. For example, NHDAMF 

(2009) suggests that methods that minimize pesticide discharges are currently being considered 

and employed where feasible. Similarly, available unit cost estimates vary by orders of 

magnitude, even for the same method, suggesting that site-specific conditions affect unit costs. 

Notwithstanding these uncertainties, Table 5-6 provides potential incremental cost estimates to 

government entities that are currently controlling weeds with pesticide 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 pesticide method and use of an alternative method) ranging from $50 per 

 

29 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/aqua028.html
63 October 2011

acre to $500 per acre on half of affected acres. The ability to incur such net incremental costs 

may be higher or lower depending on the specific entity and area treated. Costs to county 

departments of transportation responsible for right-of-way ditches are likely to be minimal based 

on the assumption that if more feasible or cost-effective methods were available they would 

already be in use.

Table 5-6: Potential Affected Acres and Feasible Costs: Pest Management Options, Weed and 

Algae Pest Control1

Unauthorized 

Area

Entities w/ Part 2.2 

Requirements2

Entities Not in 

Compliance3

Potential Acres 

Not in 

Compliance4

Net Incremental Cost 

($/yr)5

$50/acre $500/acre

Alaska 37 0 0 $0 $0

Idaho 253 0 0 $0 $0

Massachusetts 44 13 520 $26,000 $260,000

New Hampshire 29 13 520 $26,000 $260,000

New Mexico 47 0 0 $0 $0

Oklahoma 169 23 920 $46,000 $460,000

District of Columbia 1 0 0 $0 $0

Territories 25 0 0 $0 $0

Tribes 15 9 360 $18,000 $180,000

Federal Facilities 65 0 0 $0 $0

NMFS Listed 

Resources6 102 102 134 $7,000 NA

Total 787 160 2,454 $123,000 $1,160,000

1. Illustrative cost; feasible controls and costs will be site specific.

2. Includes Agencies, irrigation and weed control districts, and all other entities exceeding the annual treatment area thresholds and 

for NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, includes entities not exceeding the annual treatment area thresholds.

3. Represents the number of local governments not in compliance with permit requirements based on information in Section 4.2; 

assumes all irrigation and weed control districts and county right-of-way entities are already in compliance with problem identification 

requirements.

4. Calculated for all entities except NMFS Listed Resources of Concern based on assumption that each entity represents a single 

waterbody and multiplying number of entities/waterbodies not in compliance with PGP requirements by the annual treatment area 

threshold of 80 acres, and assuming that entities would be willing to incur a net incremental cost on 50% of the acres treated. For 

NMFS Listed Resources of the Concern, the number of potential acres includes areas for farms, local government entities, public 

drinking water facilities, NPDES industrial dischargers and private property owners. For farms, EPA estimates the treatment size per 

state (for Idaho and Massachusetts) by calculating the average size per farm of the counties that overlap with NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern from the 2007 Census of Agriculture and assumed an average irrigation canal width of 5 feet. For 

government entities, public drinking water facilities, NPDES industrial dischargers, EPA assumes that each entity will treat an 

average of 20 acres. For private property owners, EPA assumes that each entity will only treat an average of one acre. EPA 

continues to assume that entities would be willing to incur a net incremental cost on 50% of the acres treated.

5. Calculated based on assumption that entities would be willing and able to incur net incremental cost ranging from $50/acre to 

$500/acre. However, EPA assumes that entities counted under NMFS Listed Resources of Concern would only incur net 

incremental costs of $50/acre as these entities are below the annual treatment area threshold and likely treating small areas.

6. Includes other Decision-makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to Waters of the 

United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

Note that these costs are driven by EPA’s assumption that half of local government agencies 

with state-issued pesticide permits are exceeding the annual treatment area threshold of 80 acres 

(see discussion in Section 3.2.3). Under a scenario in which all local governments exceed the 

annual treatment area threshold, potential annual costs could range from $235,000 to $2,287,000 

(based on 57 entities not currently in compliance; see Section 4.2 for percent of entities in each 

state currently in compliance with PGP requirements and each treating 80 acres). 

Pesticide Use

For pesticide use, the PGP requires Decision-makers to do the following: 
64 October 2011

Conduct surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem prior to each 

pesticide application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the action 

threshold(s) is met; 

Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by applying the pesticide 

only when the action threshold has been met.

The potential for these requirements regarding 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 efficient/effective method to minimize pesticide discharges and the extent to which 

pesticide applicators are currently conducting application surveillance.

Potential Unit Costs

ISDA (2009) indicates a range of $100 per acre to $1,000 per waterbody for surveillance 

monitoring of weed treatments. Under the PGP, Decision-makers that are currently conducting 

surveillance and switch to other non-pesticide methods to minimize pesticide discharges will no 

longer incur costs. 
65 October 2011

Total Potential Costs

Table 5-7 presents potential costs associated with the PGP requirements for pesticide use 

assuming surveillance costs of approximately $100/acre (ISDA, 2009). 

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

Unauthorized 

Area

Entities w/ Part 2.2 

Requirements1

Entities Not in 

Compliance2

Potential Acres not 

in Compliance3

Total Potential 

Costs ($/yr)4

Alaska 37 0 0 $0

Idaho 253 0 0 $0

Massachusetts 44 13 1,040 $104,000

New Hampshire 29 0 0 $0

New Mexico 47 0 0 $0

Oklahoma 169 23 1,840 $184,000

District of Columbia 1 0 0 $0

Territories 25 0 0 $0

Tribes 15 9 720 $72,000

Federal Facilities 65 0 0 $0

NMFS Listed 

Resources5 102 102 268 $27,000

Total 787 147 3,868 $387,000

1. Includes Aagencies, irrigation and weed control districts, and other entities exceeding the annual treatment area thresholds and 

in addition, for NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, it includes entities not exceeding the annual treatment area thresholds.

2. Represents the number of local governments not in compliance with permit requirements based on information in Section 4.2; 

assumes all irrigation and weed control districts and county right-of-way entities are already in compliance with problem 

identification requirements.

3. Calculated for all entities except NMFS Listed Resources of Concern by assuming that each affected entity represents one 

waterbody, and multiplying the number of entities/waterbodies not in compliance with PGP requirements by the annual treatment 

area threshold of 80 acres. For NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, the number of potential acres includes areas for farms, local 

government entities, public drinking water facilities, NPDES industrial dischargers and private property owners. For farms, EPA 

estimates the treatment size per state (for Idaho and Massachusetts) by calculating the average size per farm of the counties that 

overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern from the 2007 Census of Agriculture and assumed an average irrigation canal 

width of 5 feet. For government entities, public drinking water facilities, NPDES industrial dischargers, EPA assumes that each 

entity will treat an average of 20 acres. For private property owners, EPA assumes that each entity will only treat an average of 

one acre.

4. Estimated by multiplying number of acres not in compliance with the PGP by unit cost of $100/acre (Coble, 2009).

5. Includes other Decision-makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to Waters of the 

United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

Note that these costs are driven by EPA’s assumption that half of local government agencies 

with state-issued pesticide permits are exceeding the annual treatment area threshold of 80 acres 

(see discussion in Section 3.2.3). Under a scenario in which all local governments exceed the 

annual treatment area threshold, potential annual costs could be $739,000 (based on 89 entities 

not currently in compliance; see Section 4.2 for percent of entities in each state currently in 

compliance with PGP requirements and each treating 80 acres).

5.1.2.3 Animal Pest Control 

The following requirements apply to Decision-makers that are required to submit an NOI (except 

those Decision-makers that will need to submit an NOI only because they discharge to Waters of 

the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and that also comply with 

provisions in Part 1.6 of the permit). 

Identify the Problem

To identify the problem, the PGP requires Decision-makers to do the following:
66 October 2011

Identify areas with pest problems and characterize the extent of the problems, including, for 

example, water use goals not attained (e.g., wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, and 

recreation);

Identify target animal pest(s);

Identify possible factors causing or contributing to the problem (e.g., nutrients, invasive 

species);

Establish any pest- and site-specific action threshold for implementing Part 2.2.3.b of the 

permit;

In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use 

other available data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.3.a of the permit.

The extent to which requirements to identify the problem will result in incremental compliance 

costs depends on the extent to which affected entities are currently conducting such activities, 

and the cost of the actions.

However, given the potential for current compliance with problem identification under state and 

national invasive species management plans (Section 4.3), incremental compliance costs 

associated with problem identification for animal pest control are unlikely.

However, for entities affected solely because the discharge overlaps with NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern, EPA assumes there could be incremental compliance costs associated 

with problem identification for animal pest control. EPA assumes some of the practices for 

animal pest control are similar to weed control. Therefore, in the absence of unit cost estimates, 

EPA uses the low-end costs identified for weed control as representative of unit costs for animal 

control; for problem identification this would be $100 per acre, on average (Table 5-8).

Table 5-8: Potential Costs: Identifying the Problem, Animal Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Entities w/ Part 2.2 

Requirements1

Entities Not in 

Compliance

Potential Acres Not 

in Compliance2

Total Potential 

Costs ($/yr)3

NMFS Listed 

Resources 1 1 60 $6,000

1. See Section 4.3 for details.

2. Calculated for by assuming that each affected entity represents one waterbody, and multiplying the number of 

entities/waterbodies not in compliance with PGP requirements by an average annual treatment area of 60 acres

3. Estimated by multiplying number of acres not in compliance with the PGP by unit cost of $100/acre (Coble, 2009).

Pest Management Options

For pest management options, the PGP requires Decision-makers to select and implement, for 

each pest management area, efficient and effective means of Pest Management Measures that 

minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control pests. In developing 

the Pest Management Measures, Decision-makers must evaluate the following management 

options, including a combination of these management options, considering impact to water 

quality, impact to non-target organisms, feasibility, and cost effectiveness: no action; prevention; 

mechanical/physical methods; biological control agents; pesticides.

No Action: No action is to be taken, although an animal pest problem has been identified. This 

may be appropriate in cases where, for example, available control methods may cause secondary 

or non-target impacts that are not justified or no available controls exist. 
67 October 2011

Prevention: Preventing introductions of possible nuisance species is the most efficient way to 

reduce the threat of aquatic nuisance animals (ANS Task Force, 2002). Identifying primary 

pathways of introduction and actions to cut off those pathways is essential to prevention. 

Through a better understanding of the transportation and introduction of animal pests, private 

entities (aquaculturists) and the public have the necessary knowledge to assist in local animal 

pest control by reducing conditions that encourage the spread of animal pests in their immediate 

surroundings. For example, recreational water users provide a pathway of unintentional 

introductions. Increasing public awareness of aquatic nuisance species, their impacts, and what 

individuals can do to prevent their introduction and spread is critical for prevention. Other 

examples of prevention 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 detection also play important roles in the prevention of the spread and 

introduction of animal pests. 

Mechanical and Biological Control: Mechanical and biological controls will be the appropriate 

methods of control in some cases, or a part 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 animal pests may be achieved through the introduction of diseases, 

predators, or parasites. While biological control generally has limited application for control of 

animal pests, operators should fully consider this option in evaluating pest management options.

Pesticide: Chemical and biological pesticides, such as lampricides, molluscides, and piscicides, 

are registered for use to control animal pests. These pesticides are specifically formulated for 

use in water where animal pests 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 already in compliance with permit requirements to 

minimize pesticide discharges, and the net incremental cost associated with alternative methods 

of pest control. However, given the potential for current compliance with pest management 

under state and national invasive species management plans (Section 4.3), incremental 

compliance costs associated with pest management for animal pest control are unlikely.

However, for entities affected solely because the discharge overlaps with NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern, EPA assumes there could be incremental compliance costs associated 

with pest management for animal pest control. As with problem identification, EPA assumes a 

unit cost equivalent to the low-end unit cost estimates for weed control as representative of these 

costs; for pest management this would be $50 per acre, on average (Table 5-9).

Table 5-9: Potential Affected Acres and Feasible Costs: Pest Management Options, Animal Pest 

Control

Unauthorized Area Entities w/ Part 2.2 

Requirements1

Entities Not in 

Compliance

Potential Acres Not 

in Compliance2

Total Potential 

Costs ($/yr)3

NMFS Listed 

Resources 1 1 30 $1,500

1. See Section 4.3 for details.

2. Calculated for by assuming that each affected entity represents one waterbody, and multiplying the number of 

entities/waterbodies not in compliance with PGP requirements by an average annual treatment area of 60 acres. EPA assumes 

that entities would be willing to incur a net incremental cost on 50% of the acres treated.

3. EPA assumes that NMFS Listed Resources of Concern would only incur net incremental costs of $50/acre.
68 October 2011

 

Pesticide Use

For pesticide use, the PGP requires Decision-makers to do the following:

Conduct surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem prior to each 

application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the action threshold(s) 

is met; 

Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating site 

restrictions, application timing, and application method in addition to applying the pesticide 

only when the action threshold(s) 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.

However, given the potential for current compliance with pesticide use requirements under state 

and national invasive species management plans (Section 4.3), incremental compliance costs 

associated with pesticide use requirements for animal pest control are unlikely.

However, for entities affected solely because the discharge overlaps with NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern, EPA assumes there could be incremental compliance costs associated 

with pesticide use requirements for animal pest control. As with the other requirements, EPA 

assumes a unit cost equivalent to the low-end unit cost estimates for weed control as 

representative of these costs; for pesticide use requirements this would be $100 per acre, on 

average (Table 5-10).

Table 5-10: Potential Costs: Pesticide Use, Animal Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Entities w/ Part 2.2 

Requirements1

Entities Not in 

Compliance

Potential Acres Not 

in Compliance2

Total Potential 

Costs ($/yr)3

NMFS Listed 

Resources 1 1 60 $6,000

1. See Section 4.3 for details.

2. Calculated for by assuming that each affected entity represents one waterbody, and multiplying the number of 

entities/waterbodies not in compliance with PGP requirements by an average annual treatment area of 60 acres

3. Estimated by multiplying number of acres not in compliance with the PGP by unit cost of $100/acre (Coble, 2009).

5.1.2.4 Forest Canopy Pest Control 

The following requirements apply to Decision-makers that are required to submit an NOI (except 

those Decision-makers that will need to submit an NOI only because they discharge to Waters of 

the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern and that also comply with 

provisions in Part 1.6 of the permit). 

Identify the Problem

To identify the problem, the PGP requires Decision-makers to do the following:

Establish any pest- and site-specific action threshold for implementing Part 2.2.4.b of the 

permit;

Identify target pest(s) to develop Pest Management Measures based on developmental and 

behavioral considerations for each pest;
69 October 2011

Identify current distribution of the target pest and assess potential distribution in the absence 

of Pest Management Measures

In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use 

other available data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions in Part 2.2.4.a of the permit.

Potential Unit Costs

The use of pesticides over the forest canopy necessitates a coordinated, controlled approach, 

including proper surveillance (e.g. identifying pests, identifying distribution of pests). Therefore, 

in the event that some forest canopy pest control is occurring in the unauthorized areas, 

incremental compliance costs associated with 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 pesticide use pattern will routinely conduct these 

activities as part of their tasks. Thus, total costs for identifying the problem for forest canopy 

pest control are likely minimal.

However, for entities affected solely because the discharge overlaps with NMFS Listed 

Resources of Concern, EPA assumes there could be incremental compliance costs associated 

with problem identification for forest canopy pest control. Because these entities are below the 

annual treatment area threshold (thus, they are treating a small area) and their aerial applications 

are similar to mosquito control, EPA uses half of the mosquito unit costs for municipalities as 

representative of the unit costs for forest canopy pest control. For problem identification, this 

cost would be $10,000 per year, on average (Table 5-11) 

Table 5-11: Potential Costs: Identify the Problem, Forest Canopy Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Estimated No. of 

Entities1 Unit Cost ($/entity) Potential Cost

NMFS Listed Resources 7 $10,000 $70,000

1. See Section 4.4 for details.

Pest Management Options

For pest management options, the PGP requires Decision-makers to select and implement for 

each pest management area efficient and effective means of Pest Management Measures that 

minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control pests. In developing 

the Pest Management Measures, Decision-makers must evaluate the following management 

options, including a combination of these management options, considering impact to water 

quality, impact to non-target organisms, feasibility, 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 cases where available control methods may cause 

secondary or non-target impacts or where aesthetic/economic losses are not anticipated. 

Mechanical and Biological Control: Mechanical and biological controls will be the appropriate 

method of control in some cases, or a part 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 execution of alternative strategies and proper best management practices. 
70 October 2011

Mechanical control techniques will 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 parasites. In addition, forest canopy pest control programs aimed 

specifically at insects may also utilize sterile insect release, mating disruption, and biological 

pesticides. While biological controls generally have limited applications for forest canopy pest 

control programs, they should be fully considered as an option in the development of a pesticide 

management plan. The latter two programs are often utilized 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 canopy would be to select a 

different species of tree to plant, or to plant resistant 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 when pest populations are high and 

the action threshold has been reached. 

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 extent to which affected entities switch away 

from pesticide to minimize pesticide discharges, and the cost of the alternative method compared 

to the total cost associated with pesticide method. Given that forest canopy pest control covers 

larger areas than targeted control, selection of more targeted methods may be unlikely or no 

action may be more likely considering feasibility and cost effectiveness.

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 large areas. Thus, incremental

compliance costs associated with pest management for forest canopy pest control may be 

minimal.

For entities affected solely because the discharge overlaps with NMFS Listed Resources of 

Concern, EPA assumes there could be incremental compliance costs associated with pest 

management for forest canopy pest control. EPA assumes a unit cost equivalent to 50% of the 

municipality costs for mosquito control as representative of these costs; for pest management this 

would be $400 per year, on average (Table 5-12) 

Table 5-12: Potential Costs: Pest Management, Forest Canopy Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Estimated No. of 

Entities1 Unit Cost ($/entity) Potential Cost

NMFS Listed Resources 7 $400 $2,800

1. See Section 4.4 for details.

Pesticide Use

For pesticide use, the PGP requires Decision-makers to do the following:
71 October 2011

Conduct surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem prior to each 

application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the pest action 

threshold is met;

Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating the 

restrictions, application timing, and application methods in addition to applying the pesticide 

only when the action threshold(s) has been met; and

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 depend on the extent to which affected entities are 

currently performing the required activities, and the cost of the requirements.

Potential Unit Costs

There is no information on the potential cost of conducting surveillance prior to each application, 

assessing environmental conditions as close to the treatment 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 and assessment. Therefore, in the event that some forest 

canopy pest control is occurring in the unauthorized areas, incremental compliance costs 

associated with pesticide use requirements are unlikely.

Total Potential Costs

Incremental compliance costs associated with pesticide use requirements are minimal because 

any entities currently using pesticides for this pesticide use pattern will routinely conduct these 

activities as part of their tasks. Thus, total costs for pesticide use requirements for forest canopy 

pest control are assumed to be minimal.

Likewise, EPA assumes that incremental costs associated with pesticide use requirements for 

forest canopy pest control are likely minimal for entities affected solely because the discharge 

overlaps with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. 

5.1.3. Summary of Technology-Based Effluent Limitation Costs

Table 5-13 shows the estimated unit costs of the permit requirements for each pesticide use 

pattern. As shown in the table, the availability and prevalence of cost data varies for each permit 

requirement and pesticide 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) costs are expected to fall within 

the range of $15,000 to $24,000 for all related activities. For larger Operators (e.g. multi-county 

mosquito abatement districts), costs associated with identifying the problem are expected to be 

$15,000 to $369,000. The costs for pest management activities range from $7,000 to $389,000 

per entity. Given that 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.
72 October 2011

Table 5-13: Summary of Estimated Unit Costs

Requirement Potential Unit Cost Description and Source

Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Identify the problem:

Pests/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 Massachusetts (MADEP, 2009; 

MDAR, 2008)

Midpoint of expenditures in mosquito control districts 

in Massachusetts (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 options:

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 Massachusetts (MADEP, 2009; 

MDAR, 2008)

Low end of range for implementing water 

management and vegetation and sediment removal in 

mosquito control districts in Massachusetts (MADEP, 

2009; MDAR, 2008)

Weed and Algae Pest Control

Identify the problem $100/acre Surveying costs (Coble, 2009)

Pest management options $50/acre -

$500/acre1

Illustrative only; represents potential feasible cost 

difference between pesticide and use of alternative 

method2

Pesticide use $100/acre Surveillance monitoring of aquatic weed treatments 

(ISDA, 2009)

Animal Pest Control

Identify the problem $100/acre EPA assumption of low-end unit costs from weed 

control

Pest management options $50/acre1 EPA assumption of low-end unit costs from weed 

control

Pesticide use $100/acre EPA assumption of low-end unit costs from weed 

control

Forest Canopy Pest Control

Identify the problem $10,000/entity EPA assumption of 50% of Municipality-level costs 

from mosquito control

Pest management options $400/entity EPA assumption of 50% of Municipality-level costs 

from mosquito control

NA = not applicable (no incremental costs identified).

1. Assumed for half of affected acres, for illustration. 

2. Actual costs of feasible alternatives to pesticide will be site- and entity-specific.

EPA uses the unit costs and estimates of potentially affected facilities that would be required to 

comply with the technology-based effluent limitation to estimate potential costs under each 

pesticide use pattern. The potential costs are summarized in Table 5-14.
73 October 2011

Table 5-14: Summary of Estimated Annual Technology-Based Effluent Limitation Costs ($/yr)

Unauthorized 

Area

Mosquito 

and Other 

Flying Insect 

Pest 

Control1

Weed and Algae 

Control1

Animal 

Pest 

Control

Forest 

Canopy 

Pest 

Control

Total

Alaska $42,000 $0 $0 $0 $42,000

Idaho $4,017,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,017,000

Massachusetts $0 $130,000 - $364,000 $0 $0 $130,000 - $364,000

New Hampshire $34,000 $50,000 - $284,000 $0 $0 $84,000 - $318,000

New Mexico $2,535,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,535,000

Oklahoma $21,000 $414,000 - $828,000 $0 $0 $435,000 - $849,000

District of Columbia $195,000 $0 $0 $0 $195,000

Territories $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Tribes $354,000 $162,000 - $324,000 $0 $0 $516,000 - $678,000

Federal Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

NMFS Listed 

Resources2 $0 $61,000 $13,500 $72,800 $147,300

Total $7,198,000 $817,000 -

$1,861,000 $13,500 $72,800 $8,101,300 - $9,145,300

1. Includes illustrative cost estimate for pest management based on potential feasible net incremental costs; actual costs will be site- and 

entity-specific.

2. Includes other Decision-makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to Waters of the United 

States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

As presented in Table 5-14, total potential costs of complying with the technology-based effluent 

limitations under the PGP could range from approximately $8 million to $9 million. Note that 

most of the costs are attributable to identifying the problem and pest management options under 

the mosquito control use pattern. 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 potential costs that may be associated with the 

administrative and monitoring provisions of the PGP. 

There are several levels of administrative costs that could be incurred as a result of the PGP 

requirements. Table 5-15 summarizes the various requirements and the applicable entity types.
74 October 2011

Table 5-15: Summary of PGP Administrative Requirements

Type of Entities

Recordkeeping 

(Part 7.1)2

Equipment 

Recordkeeping

(Part 7,2a)

Recordkeeping 

(Part 7.3) 3

Recordkeeping

(Part 7.4)

PDMP Annual 

Report Monitor4

Decision-makers required 

to submit NOI that are large 

entities1

     

Decision-makers required 

to submit NOI that are small 

entities1

   

Decision-makers not 

required to submit NOI  

For-hire Applicators   

Decision-maker required to 

submit an NOI solely 

because discharge is to 

WOUS containing NMFS 

Listed Resources of 

Concern.

  

NOI = Notice of intent

PDMP = Pesticide Discharge Management Plan

1. As defined in Appendix A of the PGP.

2. Only incurred as a result of an adverse incident, spill/leak, or other incident requiring corrective action.

3. All for-hire applicators must keep record of equipment calibration. This requirement applies to Decision-makers that are required to 

submit an NOI if they are also Applicators.

4. EPA assumes that Applicators will pass along their monitoring costs to the Decision-maker.

To estimate potential administrative and monitoring costs, EPA identified the likely level of 

effort (e.g., number of hours) associated with performing each activity and the potential cost of 

that effort (e.g., average wage rate) based on best professional judgment. Labor categories likely 

to be involved in administrative and monitoring tasks include managerial, technical, and clerical. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes base mean annual wage rates in its Occupational 

Employment Statistics (OES, 2008), and an Employment Cost Index (ECI, 2009) to update the 

wage rates to 2009 values to account for inflation. Entities may use their own employees for 

pesticide applications or contract out the 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 employee benefits in the wage rate, and for 

commercial applicators, included benefits, overhead, and profit in estimating total labor rates. 

The BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC, 2009) provides estimates for 

benefit markups for governments (benefits account for approximately 25% of the total labor 

rate), and PSMJ Resources (2009) indicates that the wage rate multiplier is 3.05 for 

commercial/engineering firms. Table 5-16 presents the estimated labor cost by labor category; 

rates for managers reflect OES category 11-9121, Natural Sciences Managers; technical staff 

reflect OES category 9-4091, Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, Including 

Health; and clerical staff reflect OES category 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support 

Occupations State.
75 October 2011

Table 5-16: Estimated Labor Cost ($/hour)

Labor Category State 

Government1

Local 

Government1 Commercial2 Average3

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 ECI ,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 level 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, unless eNOI is otherwise unavailable or the 

Decision-maker has obtained a waiver from the requirement to use eNOI for submission of the 

NOI.

30

 Given that potential entities will submit an NOI electronically, the burden associated 

with this requirement is likely two hours or less of managerial and technical staff time to identify 

a need and complete an accurate submission. Table 5-17 shows the calculation of potential costs 

for submitting an NOI.

Table 5-17: Potential Costs for NOI Submittal

Labor Category Rate1

($/hour) Hours Total Cost Average Annual Cost2

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 5-16.

2. Total cost divided by the frequency of the permit (5 years).

For this analysis, EPA assumed that affected entities submit no more than one NOI per pesticide 

use pattern. Affected state entities may submit separate NOIs for each pesticide use pattern for 

which they have affected control activities. However, private entities are likely to submit only 

one NOI for all applicable pesticide use patterns (e.g., industrial facilities controlling both weeds 

and algae and animal pests at intake structures). 

In general, Decision-makers that are required to submit NOIs solely because of discharges to 

Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern are required to 

certify that their discharges are not likely adversely affect NMFS Listed Resources of Concern 

 

30 Decision-makers waived from the requirement to use eNOI for NOI submission must certify on the paper NOI submitted to 

EPA that use of eNOI will incur undue burden or expense over the use of the paper Notice of Intent form and then provide a basis 

for this determination. However, EPA assumes that the number requesting a waiver will be very minimal, so this cost was not 

included in the calculations.
76 October 2011

under one of the six eligibility criteria for such discharges (see Section 2.2.1 for Criteria 

definitions).

EPA expects no additional cost beyond the cost to submit an NOI associated with Criterion A 

through D as a result of the permit. However, EPA estimates that Decision-makers certifying 

under Criterion E and F may incur an additional 20 hours or 6 hours of staff time, respectively, 

for expanded documentation. This is based on the burden estimated for similar requirements in 

other NPDES general permit.

Table 5-18: Potential Costs for Additional NOI Assessment (Criterion E and F only)

Labor Category Rate1

($/hour) Hours Total Cost Average Annual Cost2

Criterion E

Managerial $113 10 $1,130 $226

Technical $51 10 $510 $102

Total NA 20 $1,640 $328

Criterion F

Managerial $113 3 $339 $68

Technical $51 3 $153 $31

Total NA 6 $492 $99

Note: detail may not add to total due to independent rounding.

NA = not applicable

1. See Table 5-16.

2. Total cost divided by the frequency of the permit (5 years).

5.2.2. Recordkeeping

Recordkeeping for Part 7.1 of the permit involves keeping the following records:

A copy of any Adverse Incident Reports

Rationale for any determination that reporting of an identified adverse incident is not 

required consistent with allowances identified in the PGP

A copy of any corrective action documentation

A copy of any spill and leak or other unpermitted discharge documentation.

Because entities likely already have filing capacity for backup paper files (including any 

correspondence with EPA) and the capacity to prepare and save any adverse incident reports 

electronically, the level of effort associated with these recordkeeping requirements is not likely 

to exceed one hour of clerical staff time annually. In addition, entities would only incur these 

costs in the event of an adverse incident, corrective action, or spill/leak.

Equipment recordkeeping for any Operator who is a For-Hire Applicator includes the following 

tasks:

Documentation of equipment calibration; and

Information on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including:

 Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of 

treatment area and identification of any waters, either by name or by location, to which 

pesticide(s) are discharged;
77 October 2011

 Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, weed and algae, animal 

pest, or forest canopy);

 Target pest(s);

 Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number;

 Quantity of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area

 Pesticide application date(s); and

 Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or postapplication and if not, why not and whether monitoring identified any possible or 

observable adverse incidents caused by application of pesticides.

All for-hire applicators must retain documentation of any equipment calibration. This will likely 

be performed by technical staff and the incremental level of effort may be approximately two 

hours. Note, that in estimating equipment recordkeeping costs, EPA assumes that all Decisionmakers required to submit NOIs self-apply. Evidence from NHDAMF (2009), as described in 

Section 4.1, suggests that this may overestimate the number of Applicators and thus, the 

equipment recordkeeping costs.

Recordkeeping for any Decision-maker required to submit an NOI and who is a small entity –

any Decision-maker required to submit an NOI that is defined as a small entity, must retain the 

following records at the address provided on the NOI:

Copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between the Decisionmaker and EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a copy of the EPA 

acknowledgment letter with the assigned permit tracking number;

Documentation of equipment calibration (only if Decision-maker is also the Applicator);

Information on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including:

 Description of treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of 

treatment area and identification of any Waters of the United States, either by name or by 

location, to which pesticide(s) are discharged;

 Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, weed and algae, animal 

pest, or forest canopy);

 Target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control;

 Description of Pest Management Measure(s) implemented prior to the first pesticide 

application;

 Company name and contact information for pesticide applicator;

 Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number;

 Quantity of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area;

 Pesticide Application Start Date;

 Pesticide Application End Date; and

 Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or postapplication and if not, why not and whether monitoring identified any possible or 

observable adverse incidents caused by application of pesticides.
78 October 2011

A worksheet for documenting this information on each treatment area is provided in Appendix F, 

Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet.

The pesticide discharge evaluation worksheet (PDEW) is for small entities (i.e., governments 

serving populations 10,000 or fewer and businesses meeting SBA size standards for small 

businesses) that is also a Decision-maker required to submit an NOI and documents the 

evaluation and selection of Pest Management Measures to meet the technology-based effluent 

limitations and minimize discharges in a simple worksheet format. This worksheet is used to 

document Pest Management Measures, similar to the PDMP; however, it is intended to be easier 

and less labor intensive to complete for small entities. These additional recordkeeping tasks will 

likely be performed by technical staff at the time of application, and incremental level of effort 

of may be approximately one hour per application (for this analysis, EPA assumes small entities 

will perform four applications per year), or 4 hours.

Recordkeeping for any Decision-maker required to submit an NOI and who is a large entity –

any Decision-maker required to submit an NOI that is defined as a large entity must retain the 

following records at the address provided on the NOI:

Copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between the Decisionmaker and EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a copy of the EPA 

acknowledgment letter with the assigned permit tracking number;

A copy of the PDMP, including any modifications made to the PDMP during the term of this 

permit;

Copy of annual reports submitted to EPA;

Documentation of equipment calibration (only if Decision-maker is also the Applicator);

 Information on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including:

 Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of 

treatment area and identification of any Waters of the United States, either by name or by 

location, to which pesticide(s) are discharged;

 Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, weed and algae, animal 

pest, or forest canopy);

 Target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control;

 Action Thresholds;

 Method and/or data used to determine that action threshold(s) has been met;

 Description of Pest Management Measure(s) implemented prior to the first pesticide 

application;

 Company name and contact information for pesticide applicator;

 Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number;

 Quantity of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area;

 Pesticide application date(s); and
79 October 2011

 Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or postapplication and if not, why not and whether monitoring identified any possible or 

observable adverse incidents caused by application of pesticides.

These additional recordkeeping tasks for large entities will likely be performed by technical staff 

at the time of application, and incremental level of effort of may be approximately one hour. 

Thus, the total level of effort will depend on the number of pesticide applications, which will 

vary by entity. For this analysis, EPA assumes that there would be an average of 16 pesticide 

applications annually per large entity (i.e., 16 hours for recordkeeping annually), which may 

cover more than one pesticide use pattern or only one pesticide use pattern, depending on the 

entity type and size.

Table 5-19 provides a summary of the various recordkeeping requirements.

Table 5-19: Potential Recordkeeping Costs

Category Level of Effort 

(Number of Hours)

Labor Rate1

($/hour) Annual Cost

Recordkeeping (Part 7.1)21 $41 $41

Equipment Recordkeeping (Part 

7.2) 2 $51 $102

Recordkeeping for Small Entities 

(Part 7.3)3 4 $51 $204

Recordkeeping for Large Entities 

(Part 7.4)4 16 $51 $816

1. See Table 5-16.

2. Level of effort based on an average of four pesticide applications per year per entity which is a quarter of the 

number of applications for large entities.

3. Only incurred as results of adverse incident, corrective action, or spill/leak.

4. Level of effort based on an average of 16 pesticide applications per year per entity which is based on the average 

number of restricted use pesticide per year per entity estimated in the USDA‟s ICR (OMB 0581-0164).

5.2.3. Pesticide Discharge Management Plan

Agencies, large mosquito control districts, large irrigation and weed control districts, and other 

large entities (Decision-makers) exceeding annual treatment area thresholds must develop 

PDMPs (except any Decision-makers required to submit an NOI solely because they discharge to 

Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, and any application 

made in response to a Declared Pest Emergency Situations. PDMPs for each pest management 

area document the evaluation and selection of Pest Management Measures to meet the 

technology-based effluent limitations and minimize discharges. These plans may cover one or 

more pesticide management areas within one plan, and can reference other documents (such as 

pre-existing pest management plan). Thus, the cost to develop the PDMP will vary based on the 

extent of pest problems and pesticide, as well as existing documentation that may be referenced 

to fulfill the permit requirements. Entities that have been evaluating pest problems and 

alternative management methods, and commercial entities that apply pesticides and that can 

readily provide procedures including incident response plans, may have most of the relevant 

material already compiled and available.

Table 5-20 provides estimates of the average level of effort that might be required to prepare 

PDMPs; the actual level of effort may be higher or lower than shown depending on the number 

of pest management areas covered, the experience of the Decision-maker in preparing PDMPs, 

and the amount of existing material available. The majority of this effort is likely to be 
80 October 2011

performed by environmental science professionals (e.g., 90%), with managerial review (e.g., 5%) 

and clerical support (e.g., 5%). Table 5-21 presents the potential costs associated with these 

efforts (approximately $2,100 per plan). These estimates are based on the burden estimated for 

plan development in other NPDES general permit. 

Table 5-20: Potential Level of Effort to Prepare PDMP

Required Documentation Level of Effort (hours)

PDMP Team: All staff working on pest management and PDMP 1

Problem Identification Description: Pest problem description, action 

thresholds, map, and water quality standards 16

Pest Management Options Evaluation: Documentation of evaluation of Pest 

Management Measures

14

Response Procedures: Documentation of actions to minimize discharges 8

Eligibility: Documentation of considerations under other federal laws 1

TOTAL 40

Table 5-21: Potential Cost to Produce PDMP

Labor Category Rate1

($/hour) Hours Total Cost Annual Cost2

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 5-16.

2. Total cost divided by the permit term (5 years).

5.2.4. Annual Reports

Because, in general, annual reports must be submitted electronically and the records required for 

the report are also likely to be electronic, EPA assumes that the level of effort associated with 

this requirement will be approximately eight hours of technical (or clerical staff) time per year. 

Table 5-22 presents the potential annual cost assuming technical staff familiar with the records 

will submit the annual report.

Table 5-22: Potential Reporting Cost

Labor Category Rate1

($/hour) Hours Annual Cost

Technical $51 8 $408

1. See Table 5-16.

5.2.5. Monitoring

All Applicators must, when considerations for safety and feasibility allow, visually assess the 

area to and around where pesticides are applied for possible and observable adverse incidents 

caused by application of pesticides, including the unanticipated death or distress of non-target 

organisms and disruption of wildlife habitat, recreational or municipal water use. In addition 

during any post-application surveillance, all Operators must visually assess the area to and 

around where pesticide were applied for possible and observable adverse incidents caused by 

applications of pesticides, including the unanticipated death or distress of non-target organisms 

and disruption of wildlife habitat, recreational or municipal water use. Monitoring may add an 
81 October 2011

additional quarter hour per entity which is half of the burden estimated for visual examination 

requirements in other NPDES general permit.

Table 5-23: Potential Monitoring Cost

Labor Category Level of Effort 

(No. of Hours)

Labor Rate1

($/hour) Annual Cost

Technical 0.25 $51 $13

1. See Table 5-16.

5.2.6. Corrective Action Documentation

The PGP defines an adverse incident as an unusual or unexpected incident in which there is 

evidence that a person or non-target organism has likely been exposed to a pesticide residue, and 

the person or non-target organism suffered a toxic or adverse effect. EPA must be notified by 

telephone of such incidents within 24 hours. In addition to notification, entities must also 

prepare documentation of the incident and submit to an EPA Regional office within 30 days. 

During the development of the ICR for the PGP, EPA reviewed ecological incidents reported by 

registrants from 1976 to 2008. They range from 3 to 21 incidents annually on a national basis. 

In addition, not all adverse incidents are required to be reported. Reporting of adverse incidents 

is not required in the following situations: a) An Operator is aware of facts that indicate that the 

adverse incident was not related to toxic effects or exposure from the pesticide application; b) An 

Operator has been notified by EPA, and retains such notification, that the reporting requirement 

has been waived for this incident or category of incidents; c) An Operator receives information 

of an adverse incident, but that information is clearly erroneous; or d) An adverse incident occurs 

to pests that are similar in kind to potential target pests identified on the FIFRA label. Thus for 

this analysis that includes areas where EPA is the permitting authority only, EPA assumes that 3 

adverse incidents (approximately 0.01% of the universe) will be reported annually. EPA 

assumes that notification and documentation of such incidents would take approximately four 

hours per year of technical labor to complete and that approximately 0.01% of all affected 

entities would experience an adverse incident in any given year. This is based on the burden 

estimated for spill reports required by other reporting requirements in the NPDES program. 

Where a leak, spill, or other release into a water of the U.S. containing a hazardous substance or 

oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity established under either 40 CFR 

Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, or 40 CFR Part 302 occurs in any 24-hour period, entities must notify 

the National Response Center immediately in accordance with existing regulations. Thus, there 

are no incremental costs associated with spill notifications. However, the PGP requires entities 

to prepare documentation of the spill for submittal to EPA. Spills or leaks that results in adverse 

incidents are already considered above. However, for spill or leaks that do not results in an 

adverse incident, entities must document the information provided during the notification, a 

summary of corrective actions taken, and any measures to prevent recurrence of such an event. 

EPA believes there will likely be more reporting from spills or leaks than from adverse incidents 

and thus for this analysis assumes that approximately 0.1% of entities would experience such an 

occurrence. EPA assumes that preparation of such documentation would require approximately 

one hour of technical labor, and that approximately 0.1% of entities would experience such an 

occurrence. This is based on the burden estimated for spill reports required by other reporting 

requirements in the NPDES program and reducing the burden to account for the requirement to 

report by other regulations.
82 October 2011

For situations other than for adverse incidents or reportable spills or leaks, entities must 

document the situation triggering corrective action and the planned corrective action within 30

days of awareness of the situation and retain a copy of this documentation. This documentation 

must include identification of the incident, brief description of the situation, date the problem 

was identified, brief description of how the problem was identified, how the operator learned of 

the situation, and date the operator learned of the situation, a summary of corrective action taken 

or to be taken, and any measures to prevent reoccurrence of such an incident, including notice of 

whether PDMP modifications are required as a result of the incident. EPA believes there will 

likely be more reporting from corrective actions than from adverse incidents and thus for this 

analysis assumes that approximately 0.1% of entities would experience such an occurrence. 

EPA assumes that preparation of such documentation would require approximately five hour of 

technical labor, and that approximately 0.1% of entities would experience such an occurrence. 

This is based on the burden estimated for noncompliance reports in the NPDES program. 

Table 5-24 summarizes the potential unit costs and percent of entities likely to incur such costs 

for each type of corrective action. Given that this is the first time that EPA is issuing requiring 

NPDES permits for discharges from the application of pesticides to Waters of the United States, 

based on information obtained during the five-year permit cycle, EPA will adjust these estimated 

percentages of potentially affected entities and burdens, as necessary, for any future permit 

reissuance.

Table 5-24: Unit Costs for Corrective Action Documentation

Corrective Action Type Technical Rate 

($/hr)

Number of 

Hours Potential Cost % of Entities Experiencing Action

Adverse Incident $51 4 $204 0.01%

Spill/Leak Documentation $51 1 $51 0.1%

Other Incidents $51 5 $255 0.1%

5.2.7. Total Annual Costs

Table 5-25 provides a summary of the potential annual administrative and monitoring costs. 

Agencies, large mosquito control districts or similar pest control districts, large irrigation and 

weed control districts or similar pest control districts, and large entities exceeding annual 

treatment area thresholds may incur annual costs of approximately $1,840 per year. Small 

mosquito control districts or similar pest control districts, small irrigation and weed control 

districts or similar pest control districts, and small entities exceeding annual treatment area 

thresholds may incur costs of approximately $380 per year. Entities that discharge to areas that 

overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of Concern may incur costs of approximately $920 per 

year (however, only selected Decision-makers will incur some of these costs). Small or large 

entities below annual treatment area thresholds may incur costs of approximately $50 per year. 

Note that these costs represent the average annual administrative costs to entities required to 

conduct recordkeeping (Part 7.1 of the permit) as a result of an adverse incident, spill or leak, or 

other incident requiring corrective action; costs would be less for entities not required to conduct 

basic recordkeeping.
83 October 2011

Table 5-25: Summary of Potential Annual Administrative and Monitoring Costs per Entity by 

Component

Requirement

Agencies, Large 

MCD/IDs, Large 

Entities 

Exceeding 

Thresholds

Small MCDs/IDs 

and Small 

Entities 

Exceeding 

Thresholds

Entities that 

overlap with 

NMFS Listed 

Resources of 

Concern3

Entities Below 

Thresholds

NOI $30 $30 $30 NA

NOI Assessment (Criterion E) NA NA $330 NA

NOI Assessment (Criterion F) NA NA $100 NA

PDMP $430 NA NA NA

Recordkeeping for All Entities 

(Part 7.1)1and (Part 7.5) $40 $40 $40 $40 

Equipment Recordkeeping 

(Part 7.2.a)2 $100 $100 NA NA

Recordkeeping for Small Entities 

(Part 7,3; PDEW) NA $200 NA NA

Recordkeeping for Large Entities 

(Part 7.4) $820 NA NA NA

Annual Reporting $410 NA $410 NA

Monitoring $10 $10 $10 $10 

Total $1,840 $380 $920 $50

Note: Numbers in table are rounded for ease of calculation.

ID = Irrigation district (including weed control districts)

MCD = Mosquito control district

NA = not applicable

NOI = Notice of Intent

PDEW = Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet

PDMP = Pesticide Discharge Management Plan

1. Only incurred as a result of an adverse incident, spill/leak, or other incident requiring corrective action.

2. Equipment recordkeeping (Part 7.2 of the permit) also applies to Decision-makers if they are also an applicator.

3. Cost of NOI, recordkeeping, annual reporting, and monitoring are only for selected Decision-makers required to submit an NOI 

solely because discharge is to WOUS containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. Cost for NOI assessment is only for selected 

Decision-makers certifying to Criterion E or Criterion F, respectively (see Part 2.2.1)

In addition, those entities that experience an adverse incident, spill or leak, or other incident 

requiring corrective action could incur annual costs ranging from $50 to $260 to document the 

event.

The total magnitude of administrative and monitoring costs depend on the number of entities 

seeking coverage under the PGP, and the applicability of the different requirements. For 

example, EPA assumed that 0.01% of entities would experience an adverse incident, 0.1% of 

entities would experience a spill or leak, and 0.1% of entities would experience some other 

incident requiring corrective action, or approximately 0.21% of all entities experiencing one of 

these events.

Based on the estimates of potentially affected entities presented in Section 3, Table 5-26 shows 

the calculation of potential total administrative and monitoring costs by pesticide use pattern for 

the various entity types. Note that for calculating administrative costs, EPA did not estimate the 

number of applicators employed by the potentially affected Decision-makers. Rather, EPA 

assumed that Decision-makers would absorb Applicator’s recordkeeping cost and has accounted 

for it in the recordkeeping section. This assumption simplifies the analysis, although it likely 

overestimates potential costs associated with recordkeeping requirements. Operators may rely 
84 October 2011

on records and documents developed for other obligations such as requirements under FIFRA, 

and state and local pesticide programs to comply with PGP requirements. 
85 October 2011

Table 5-26: Administrative and Monitoring Costs ($/yr)

Unauthorized 

Area 2

Potential Annual Cost ($/yr)1

Total 

Annual 

Costs 

Agencies, Large 

MCD/IDs, Large Entities 

Exceeding Thresholds

Small MCDs/IDs and 

Small Entities 

Exceeding Thresholds

Entities Below 

Thresholds

Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Alaska $3,600 $0 $0 $3,600

Idaho $19,801 $4,081 $0 $23,882

Massachusetts $16,201 $0 $0 $16,201

New Hampshire $37,802 $7,482 $10 $45,294

New Mexico $16,201 $1,360 $0 $17,561

Oklahoma $1,800 $0 $0 $1,800

District of Columbia $1,800 $0 $0 $1,800

Territories $1,800 $0 $0 $1,800

Tribes $9,000 $4,081 $0 $13,081

Federal Facilities $117,005 $0 $0 $117,005

NMFS Listed 

Resources $1,290 $3,320 $0 $4,610

Subtotal $226,301 $20,324 $10 $246,635

Weed and Algae Pest Control

Alaska $14,401 $9,862 $3,156 $27,419

Idaho $230,411 $42,511 $163,724 $436,645

Massachusetts $52,202 $5,101 $21,267 $78,571

New Hampshire $23,401 $5,441 $6,181 $35,024

New Mexico $57,603 $5,101 $103,240 $165,944

Oklahoma $120,606 $34,689 $37,502 $192,797

District of Columbia $1,800 $0 $71 $1,871

Territories $12,601 $6,122 $2,914 $21,636

Tribes $16,201 $2,041 $787 $19,028

Federal Facilities $117,005 $0 $0 $117,005

NMFS Listed 

Resources $8,170 $20,840 $332,760 $361,770

Subtotal $654,400 $131,707 $671,603 $1,457,710

Animal Pest Control

Alaska $1,800 $0 $141 $1,941

Idaho $1,800 $0 $111 $1,911

Massachusetts $1,800 $0 $252 $2,052

New Hampshire $1,800 $0 $91 $1,891

New Mexico $1,800 $0 $71 $1,871

Oklahoma $1,800 $0 $736 $2,536

District of Columbia $1,800 $0 $10 $1,810

Territories $10,801 $0 $323 $11,123

Tribes $30,601 $0 $81 $30,682

Federal Facilities $117,005 $0 $0 $117,005

NMFS Listed 

Resources $1,290 $0 $3,490 $4,780

Subtotal $172,298 $0 $5,305 $177,603

Forest Canopy Pest Control

Alaska $1,800 $0 $171 $1,972

Idaho $1,800 $0 $474 $2,274

Massachusetts $1,800 $0 $2,148 $3,948

New Hampshire $1,800 $0 $847 $2,647

New Mexico $1,800 $0 $252 $2,052

Oklahoma $1,800 $0 $1,593 $3,393
86 October 2011

Unauthorized 

Area 2

Potential Annual Cost ($/yr)1

Total 

Annual 

Costs 

Agencies, Large 

MCD/IDs, Large Entities 

Exceeding Thresholds

Small MCDs/IDs and 

Small Entities 

Exceeding Thresholds

Entities Below 

Thresholds

District of Columbia $0 $0 $0 $0

Territories $7,200 $0 $0 $7,200

Tribes $57,603 $0 $20 $57,623

Federal Facilities $90,004 $0 $0 $90,004

NMFS Listed 

Resources $2,580 $0 $24,020 $26,600

Subtotal $168,188 $0 $29,526 $197,714

1. Number of entities in Section 3 multiplied by unit cost in Table 5-25, assuming 0.21% would incur costs for basic monitoring.

2. Includes other Decision-makers required to submit NOIs and annual reports solely because of discharges to Waters of the 

United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.
87 October 2011

In addition, there are also costs associated with those entities that would need to document 

adverse incidents and corrective actions. However, not all entities would incur these costs. 

Table 5-27 summarizes these potential costs.

Table 5-27: Potential Costs Associated with Corrective Action Documentation

Pesticide Use Pattern

Adverse Incidents Spill/Leak Other Incidents Total 

Cost No. 

Entities1

Annual 

Costs2

No. 

Entities3

Annual 

Costs2

No. 

Entities3

Annual 

Costs2

Mosquito Control 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0

Weed and Algae Control 3 $610 34 $1,730 34 $8,670 $11,010

Animal Control 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0

Forest Canopy Control 0 $0 1 $50 1 $260 $310

Total 3 $610 35 $1,780 35 $8,930 $11,320

1. Based on assumption that 0.01% of entities would experience adverse incidents.

2. See Table 5-24 for unit cost.

3. Based on assumption that 0.1% of entities would experience spills/leaks or other incidents not considered adverse.

Table 5-28 provides a summary of the potential annual administrative and monitoring costs for 

all entity types by pesticide use pattern. Weed and algae pest control accounts for over 70% of 

the administrative and monitoring costs (approximately $1.5 million) due to the potential 

applicability of the PGP to operators of irrigated farms. However, as discussed in Section 3.2.3, 

there is substantial uncertainty surrounding the estimates of number of affected entities in this 

category. This uncertainty in turn translates to substantial uncertainty associated with the 

estimates of administrative and monitoring costs.

Table 5-28: Summary of Potential Annual Administrative and Monitoring Costs ($/yr)

Unauthorized Area

Mosquito and 

Other Flying 

Insect Pest 

Control

Weed and 

Algae Control

Animal Pest 

Control

Forest 

Canopy Pest 

Control

Total

Alaska $3,600 $27,419 $1,941 $1,972 $34,932

Idaho $23,882 $436,645 $1,911 $2,274 $464,712

Massachusetts $16,201 $78,571 $2,052 $3,948 $100,772

New Hampshire $45,294 $35,024 $1,891 $2,647 $84,856

New Mexico $17,561 $165,944 $1,871 $2,052 $187,428

Oklahoma $1,800 $192,797 $2,536 $3,393 $200,526

District of Columbia $1,800 $1,871 $1,810 $0 $5,481

Territories $1,800 $21,636 $11,123 $7,200 $41,760

Tribes $13,081 $19,028 $30,682 $57,623 $120,414

Federal Facilities $117,005 $117,005 $117,005 $90,004 $441,021

NMFS Listed 

Resources1 $4,610 $361,770 $4,780 $26,600 $397,760

Corrective Action $0 $11,010 $0 $310 $11,320

Total $246,635 $1,468,720 $177,603 $198,024 $2,090,982

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

1. Includes other Decision-makers required to submit NOIs and annual reports solely because of discharges to Waters of the 

United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

5.3. Summary of Costs

Table 5-29 provides a summary of the total annual costs across the unauthorized areas and 

pesticide use patterns (includes both technology-based effluent limitations and administrative 
88 October 2011

costs). Because EPA did not identify any incremental technology-based effluent limitation 

requirements (due to estimated current compliance) for animal pest control and forest canopy 

pest control, except for Decision-makers required to submit NOIs solely because of overlap with 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, total costs for these pesticide use patterns represent 

administrative and monitoring costs only. Approximately 20% of the total estimated costs 

represent administrative and monitoring costs. As discussed above, there is uncertainty 

surrounding these costs. However, there are also uncertainties associated with the estimation of 

the technology-based effluent limitation costs. The key uncertainties in the analysis are 

described further in Table 5-30. 

Table 5-29: Summary of Total Estimated Costs ($/yr)1

Unauthorized 

Area

Mosquito 

and Other 

Flying 

Insect Pest 

Control

Weed and Algae Pest 

Control

Animal 

Pest 

Control

Forest 

Canopy 

Pest 

Control

Total

Alaska $45,600 $27,419 $1,941 $1,972 $76,932

Idaho $4,040,882 $436,645 $1,911 $2,274 $4,481,712

Massachusetts $16,201 $208,571 - $442,571 $2,052 $3,948 $230,772 - $464,772

New Hampshire $79,294 $85,024 - $319,024 $1,891 $2,647 $168,856 - $402,856

New Mexico $2,552,561 $165,944 $1,871 $2,052 $2,722,428

Oklahoma $22,800 $606,797 - $1,020,797 $2,536 $3,393 $635,526 - $1,049,526

District of Columbia $196,800 $1,871 $1,810 $0 $200,481

Territories $1,800 $21,636 $11,123 $7,200 $41,760

Tribes $367,081 $181,028 - $343,028 $30,682 $57,623 $636,414 - $798,414

Federal Facilities $117,005 $117,005 $117,005 $90,004 $441,021

NMFS Listed 

Resources2 $4,610 $422,770 $18,280 $99,400 $545,060

Total $7,444,635 $2,274,710 - 

$3,318,710 $191,103 $270,514 $10,180,962 - $11,224,962

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

1. See Table 5-14 and Table 5-28.

2. Includes other Decision-makers required to submit NOIs, comply with Part 2.2 of the permit, and submit annual reports solely because of 

discharges to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

In addition there could be an additional $11,300 per year associated with corrective actions.
89 October 2011

Table 5-30: Key Uncertainties of the Analysis

Uncertainty/Assumption Comment

Number of private irrigation 

ditches/canals is based on total 

number of irrigated farms, not 

considering non-irrigated farms

Information on the extent to which farmers treat ditch banks that 

lead to Waters of the United States with pesticides for weed and 

algae control is not available. In addition, a number of farms could 

also be covered by a water delivery service and would not incur 

individual costs. The estimated administrative and monitoring costs 

for private irrigation ditches comprise almost 25% of the total 

estimated costs.

Number of private forest owners 

affected

Information on the number of private 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 pesticide 

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 associated with problem identification 

(mosquito control) and pest management (mosquito and weed 

control); actual unit costs may be substantially higher or lower.

Number of right-of-way ditch banks 

potentially affected by the 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.

Costs for local governments for 

weed and algae control based on 

half being above/below thresholds 

and treatment of 80 acres each.

Water sizes vary greatly. Thus, the actual number of potentially 

affected entities could be higher or lower than estimated.

Administrative costs based on 

assumption that Decision-makers 

apply their own pesticides.

Decision-makers, especially smaller entities, are likely to hire 

pesticide applicators. Thus, administrative costs associated with 

recordkeeping are likely overestimated.

The estimated costs vary substantially by type of entity. Table 5-31 through 

Table 5-34 show potential average costs for the three entities types by pesticide use pattern: (1) 

Agencies, large mosquito control district, large irrigation and weed control districts, and large 

entities exceeding annual treatment area thresholds; (2) small mosquito control districts, small 

irrigation and weed control districts, and small entities exceeding annual treatment area 

thresholds; and (3) entities below annual treatment area thresholds; actual costs incurred by the 

different entities may be higher or lower than the averages shown. Note that the average costs 

reflect costs to those entities that would incur basic recordkeeping costs resulting from an 

adverse incident, spill/leak, or other incident.

As illustrated by the tables, the highest costs are potentially borne by Agencies, large mosquito 

control districts, and large entities exceeding annual treatment area thresholds performing 

mosquito and other flying insect pest control. Costs associated with the PGP for mosquito and 

other flying insect pest control may be in the range of $1,800 to $200,000 annually, reflecting 

both costs to comply with technology-based effluent limitations and administrative and 

monitoring requirements. However, some areas (Massachusetts) may be largely in compliance 

and thus incur only minimal administrative and monitoring costs (approximately $1,840), while 

others may incur higher costs. Average entity-level costs for the other pesticide use patterns 

primarily reflect administrative and monitoring costs only.
90 October 2011

Table 5-31: Potential Average Entity Costs for Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control1

Unauthorized Area

Average Cost/Entity ($/yr)

Agencies, Large MCDs, 

Large Entities Exceeding 

Thresholds

Small MCDs and Small 

Entities Exceeding 

Thresholds

Entities Below 

Thresholds

Alaska $22,840 $0 $0

Idaho $176,490 $175,030 $0

Massachusetts $1,840 $0 $0

New Hampshire $2,630 $1,170 $50

New Mexico $196,840 $195,380 $0

Oklahoma $22,840 $0 $0

District of Columbia $196,840 $0 $0

Territories $1,840 $0 $0

Tribes $22,660 $21,200 $0

Federal Facilities $1,840 $0 $0

NMFS Listed 

Resources $220 $330 $0

MCD = mosquito control districts (or similar special purpose districts)

1. Represents total technology-based effluent limit and administrative costs (including basic recordkeeping) for each entity group.

2. Represents only the additional average per entity cost for those entities that discharge to Waters of the United States containing 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

Table 5-32: Potential Average Entity Costs for Weed and Algae Pest Control1

Unauthorized Area

Average Cost/Entity ($/yr)

Agencies, Large IDs and 

Large Entities Exceeding 

Thresholds

Small IDs and Small 

Entities Exceeding 

Thresholds

Entities Below 

Thresholds

Alaska $1,840 $380 $50

Idaho $1,840 $380 $50

Massachusetts $10,110 $8,650 $50

New Hampshire $12,360 $10,900 $50

New Mexico $1,840 $380 $50

Oklahoma $6,740 $5,280 $50

District of Columbia $1,840 $0 $50

Territories $1,840 $380 $50

Tribes $23,440 $21,980 $50

Federal Facilities $1,840 $0 $0

NMFS Listed 

Resources $220 $310 $260

ID = irrigation districts (or weed control and similar special purpose districts)

1. Represents total technology-based effluent limit and administrative costs (including basic recordkeeping) for each entity group 

(high end of range only).

2. Represents only the additional average per entity cost for those entities that discharge to Waters of the United States containing 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.
91 October 2011

Table 5-33: Potential Average Entity Costs for Animal Pest Control1

Unauthorized Area

Average Cost/Entity ($/yr)

Agencies and Large 

Entities Exceeding 

Thresholds

Small Entities Exceeding 

Thresholds

Entities Below 

Thresholds

Alaska $1,840 $0 $50

Idaho $1,840 $0 $50

Massachusetts $1,840 $0 $50

New Hampshire $1,840 $0 $50

New Mexico $1,840 $0 $50

Oklahoma $1,840 $0 $50

District of Columbia $1,840 $0 $50

Territories $1,840 $0 $50

Tribes $1,840 $0 $50

Federal Facilities $1,840 $0 $0

NMFS Listed 

Resources $220 $0 $1,060

1. Represents total technology based effluent limit and administrative costs (including basic recordkeeping) for each entity group.

2. Represents only the additional average per entity cost for those entities that discharge to Waters of the United States containing 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

Table 5-34: Potential Average Entity Costs for Forest Canopy Pest Control1

Unauthorized Area

Average Cost/Entity ($/yr)

Agencies and Large 

Entities Exceeding 

Thresholds

Small Entities Exceeding 

Thresholds

Entities Below 

Thresholds

Alaska $1,840 $0 $50

Idaho $1,840 $0 $50

Massachusetts $1,840 $0 $50

New Hampshire $1,840 $0 $50

New Mexico $1,840 $0 $50

Oklahoma $1,840 $0 $50

District of Columbia $0 $0 $0

Territories $1,840 $0 $0

Tribes $1,840 $0 $50

Federal Facilities $1,840 $0 $0

NMFS Listed 

Resources $220 $0 $880

1. Represents total technology-based effluent limit and administrative costs (including basic recordkeeping) for each entity group.

2. Represents only the additional average per entity cost for those entities that discharge to Waters of the United States containing 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

This is the first time that EPA is issuing NPDES permits for discharges from the application of 

pesticides to Waters of the United States. Thus, there is some uncertainty in this analysis 

regarding who will be authorized to discharge under the PGP. Although EPA believes it has 

captured the majority of potential operators under the four pesticide use patterns in the PGP, 

there may be some entities not accounted for. However, EPA believes that the cost incurred by 

any additional entities would be similar to the costs incurred by those similar entities for which 

EPA has provided cost estimates. Based on information obtained during the five-year permit 

cycle, EPA will adjust these estimated costs, as necessary, for any future permit reissuance.
92 October 2011

6. Small Entity Analysis

This section provides a screening analysis that examines the potential impacts of the PGP on 

small entities. For the purpose of this screening analysis, small entities are defined as:

A small business according to SBA size standards;

A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 

district, or special district with a population of fewer than 50,00031 people; 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 the number of employees or annual receipts (13 

CFR §121.20).

The PGP defines small public entities as those having populations of 10,000 or fewer. (defined 

in Appendix A). Therefore, EPA specifically analyzes the potential impacts of those small public 

entities serving populations 10,000 or fewer and those with greater than 10,000 people and fewer 

than 50,000 people.

6.1. Identification of Small Entities

For mosquito and other flying insect pest control, information available suggests that most 

entities are county and local governments. MADEP (2009) identifies the municipalities covered 

by each of its nine mosquito control districts. Based on municipality populations, census data 

indicates that there are several towns within the districts that would not be considered small 

entities because their populations are greater than 50,000 people. However, even with size 

information, it is uncertain how the control costs would be apportioned to each municipality. 

Therefore, EPA assumes all the municipalities have populations fewer than 50,000. 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 

purposes, EPA assumes that all of the entities also have populations fewer than 50,000. Federal 

facilities do not represent small entities, and the District of Columbia and Tulsa, Oklahoma, have 

populations over 50,000 and do not represent small entities. Thus, based on the information 

available, EPA estimates that there are potentially 111 entities (not counting individual 

municipalities potentially covered by affected control district) that could have populations fewer 

than 50,000. 

For weed and algae pest control, the information available suggests that most of the entities 

required to comply with the technology-based effluent limitations are irrigation/weed control 

districts and municipalities, except in Idaho, where a state agency is responsible for such 

activities. For water delivery services, EPA does not have specific population information to 

determine size. Thus, to err on the side of greater impacts, EPA assumes that all 70 potentially 

affected irrigation and weed control districts have populations fewer than 50,000. EPA does 

have data on the county populations for those responsible for right-of-way weed control 

indicating that there are 156 counties with populations fewer than 50,000 (out of 206 total 

 

31 EPA used the SBA small entity definition of 50,000, as well as evaluating the definition in the PGP of 10,000.
93 October 2011

counties). However, for the other potentially affected local government entities, EPA does not 

have information identifying the specific municipalities that would be affected. Thus, for the 

purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all of the potentially affected other local 

governmental entities may be small (135 total). 

Based on data in SDWIS on populations served, EPA also assumes that the potentially affected 

public drinking water utilities (1,348) may have populations fewer than 50,000. There is no 

information available identifying the farms (31,636), industrial surface water intake facilities 

(426), and private land owners (263) that may be affected; thus, for this screening analysis, EPA 

also assumes that entities in these categories may be small entities. Thus, based on the 

information available, EPA estimates that there are potentially 34,034 entities that could be small 

entities.

For animal pest control, EPA assumes that governmental activities are more likely to be 

conducted at the state or territory 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 may be affected. For this screening analysis, 

EPA assumes that potentially affected tribal entities (17 under animal pest control) are small. 

Similar to above, EPA assumes that the potentially affected industrial facilities (42) and drinking 

water utilities (135) with surface water intakes are small. Thus, based on the information 

available, EPA estimates that there are potentially 194 entities that could 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 single entity rather than controlled by individual municipalities. 

Consequently, these entities are likely to be large, even if on the county level. However, there is 

no information identifying which particular tribes may be affected. For this analysis, EPA 

assumes that potentially affected tribal entities (34 under forest canopy pest control) are small. 

Private forest owners may be large or small entities, depending on sales; small business size 

thresholds vary based on the applicable industrial categories. There is no information available 

regarding the private forest owners that may be affected, their industrial classification, or sales. 

Thus, based on the information available, EPA estimates that there are potentially 34 

governments that may be small entities, and that some portion of the 542 potentially affected 

private forest owners may also be small entities.

Note that a number of entities below the annual treatment area thresholds are only likely to incur 

minimal (monitoring) costs associated with the PGP because basic recordkeeping costs would 

only be incurred in the event of an incident that requires corrective action. 

6.2. Evaluating Potential Economic Impact

Because the specific entities that may be affected by the PGP are 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/sales (Table 6-1 and Table 6-2). EPA based the analysis on 

average compliance costs reflecting cost to those entities that would incur costs associated with 

basic recordkeeping to err on the side of overestimating potential impacts to small entities. For 

this screening analysis, EPA used percentages of 1% and 3% of revenues/sales to characterize 

the potential for significant impacts on small entities. 
94 October 2011

Note that public entities with Part 2.2 permit requirements could have populations above or 

below the threshold for the subset of small entities as defined in Appendix A of the permit (e.g., 

several mosquito control districts in New Mexico serve populations less than 10,000 but the 

permit requires compliance with Part 2.2 because they are mosquito control districts).

Table 6-1: Average Compliance Costs for Entities with Part 2.2 Requirements and Potential 

Revenue Threshold Values for Characterizing Impacts to Small Entities

Unauthorized Area

Average Cost per Entity 

with Part 2.2 

Requirements1

Revenue Threshold Values2

1% 3%

Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Idaho $175,730 $17,573,043 $5,857,681

Massachusetts $1,840 $184,000 $61,333

New Hampshire $1,884 $188,372 $62,791

New Mexico $196,391 $19,639,077 $6,546,359

Territories $1,840 $184,000 $61,333

Tribes $21,633 $2,163,294 $721,098

Weed and Algae Pest Control

Alaska $696 $69,568 $23,189

Idaho $1,119 $111,866 $37,289

Massachusetts $9,615 $961,500 $320,500

New Hampshire $10,828 $1,082,759 $360,920

Oklahoma $5,858 $585,822 $195,274

Tribes $22,856 $2,285,600 $761,867

NMFS Listed Resources $771 $77,080 $25,693

Animal Pest Control

Tribes $1,840 $184,000 $61,333

NMFS Listed Resources $14,198 $1,419,800 $473,267

Forest Canopy Pest Control

Tribes $1,840 $184,000 $61,333

NMFS Listed Resources $11,049 $1,104,919 $368,306

1. Average costs reflect per entity (TBEL-related and administration) costs of small entities with Part 2.2 of the permit 

requirements.

2. Average per entity costs would exceed 1% or 3% of revenues if revenues are less than the values shown.

Table 6-2: Average Compliance Costs for Entities without Part 2.2 Requirements and Potential 

Revenue Threshold Values for Characterizing Impacts to Small Governments

Unauthorized Area Average Cost/Entity without 

Part 2.2 Requirements1

Revenue Threshold Values2

1% 3% 

Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

New Hampshire $50 $5,000 $1,667

Weed and Algae Pest Control, Animal Control, Forest Canopy Control

Alaska $50 $5,000 $1,667

Idaho $50 $5,000 $1,667

Massachusetts $50 $5,000 $1,667

New Hampshire $50 $5,000 $1,667

Oklahoma $50 $5,000 $1,667

Tribes $50 $5,000 $1,667

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

1. See Table 5-31, Table 5-32, Table 5-33, and Table 5-34. Average cost reflects per entity cost of both small and large entities 

without Part 2.2 of the permit requirements.

2. Average per entity costs would exceed 1% or 3% of revenues if revenues are less than the values shown.
95 October 2011

For comparison, Table 6-3 shows the average revenues in municipalities and counties with 

populations of 50,000 (based on per capita revenues for populations between 49,999 and 

25,000), 25,000 (based on per capita revenues for populations between 24,999 and 10,000), and 

10,000 (based on per capita revenues for populations fewer than 10,000) people for each of the 

affected areas (territory revenues calculated based on national average per capita estimates; 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 Revenues1

Unauthorized 

Area

50k Population 25k Population 10k Population

Per 

Capita 

Revenue

Revenue 

Per 

Capita 

Revenue

Revenue 

Per 

Capita 

Revenue

Revenue 

Municipalities

Alaska2$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

Massachusetts3$2,875 $143,750,000 $2,378 $59,450,000 $23,778 $237,780,000

New Hampshire $2,062 $103,100,000 $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

Massachusetts4$841 $42,050,000 $841 $21,025,000 $841 $8,410,000

New Hampshire4$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

fewer than 10,000, respectively.

2. Revenue for 25k population based on average per capita revenue for municipalities with 24,999 to 50,000 people.

3. Revenue for 10k population based on average per capita revenue for municipalities with 10,000 to 24,999 people.

4. Revenue for all populations based on average per capita revenue for municipalities with 10,000 to 24,999 people.

As shown by comparing values in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 with those in Table 6-3, the relative 

magnitude of per entity compliance cost in comparison to estimated revenues of different size 

small governments varies by area. For the subset of small entities as defined in Appendix A of 

the permit (i.e., small public entities with fewer than 10,000 people), those without Part 2.2 

permit requirements would incur costs that would exceed 1% of revenues if they serve between 3 

and 18 people (depending on the state) and 3% of revenues if they only serve between 1 and 6 

people based on average per capita revenues for municipalities with fewer than 10,000 people. 

However, it is unlikely that municipalities would have populations in these ranges. 

For the subset of small entities with populations fewer than 10,000 people with Part 2.2 permit 

requirements, costs have the potential to exceed 1% of average revenues for small mosquito 

control entities in Idaho and New Mexico (costs would not exceed 3% of average revenues). 

However the estimated costs for these entities are based on costs to larger mosquito control 

districts and not entities that operate on a smaller, municipality-level. Thus, the estimate of 

average costs could be greatly overestimated if actual costs for mosquito control entities serving 
96 October 2011

fewer than 10,000 people are closer to the municipality-level costs of $20,000 per year (in this 

case, costs would not exceed 1% of average revenues). 

For public entities with populations greater than 10,000 and fewer than 50,000 people, average 

costs could exceed 1% of revenues for mosquito control entities in Idaho with populations 

greater than 10,000 and fewer than 25,000. Again, actual compliance costs may be less than 

estimated, thus reducing the likelihood of significant impacts to small entities. For the remaining 

entities, average costs are not likely to exceed 1% or 3% of annual revenues. 

Per entity costs for farms may be approximately $770, based on the assumption that all farmers 

have treatment areas below annual treatment area thresholds and the affected irrigated farms 

would only incur costs to comply with TBEL requirements, monitoring costs, and a portion of 

administrative costs solely because their discharges overlap with NMFS Listed Resources of 

Concern. These compliance costs could exceed 1% and 3% of sales if the annual value of goods 

sold is below $77,080 and $25,693 respectively. Information from the 2007 Census of 

Agriculture indicates that average per farm revenues (market value of agricultural products sold 

plus government payments) range from $48,374 to $228,343 for the affected areas (USDA, 

2007). However, the range includes farms above the SBA small entity size standard. The 

national average annual revenue for small crop farms is about $65,000, which includes data from 

non-affected areas. 

Similarly, private forest owners could incur compliance costs of about $11,049 based on an 

average treatment area of 1 acre. For these compliance costs to exceed 1% and 3% of revenues, 

annual revenues for private forest owners would need to be less than $1,104,919 and $368,306 

respectively. 

6.3. Summary

There are very limited data available to identify the specific entities potentially affected by the 

PGP or to determine the exact number of entities considered to be small governments/businesses 

or their applicable revenues for comparison to potential compliance costs to determine the 

economic impact. 

Under a conservative (i.e., erring on the side of greater impacts) scenario, approximately 35,000 

small entities could incur compliance costs under the four pesticide use patterns, including those 

that would not incur costs associated with technology-based effluent limitations. Lack of 

revenue data precludes estimating the number of these entities for which compliance costs could

represent a significant portion of revenues or sales. However, data on average revenues/sales for 

municipalities, counties, and irrigated farms provides some indication of the likelihood of level 

of impact, which varies across the unauthorized areas and by pesticide use pattern.
97 October 2011

7. Qualitative Discussion of Benefits

This section provides discussion of the potential benefits of the PGP. Information is not 

available to quantify or monetize beneficial impacts. Reducing discharges of these pesticides 

through compliance with the technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations as 

well as the documentation and monitoring requirements in the PGP may lead to ecological 

benefits and associated values.

7.1. Potential for Reduced Discharges

There is no information on level of baseline discharges under the four pesticide use patterns in 

the unauthorized areas. Although total quantity sold of the various pesticides may be reported, 

information on the four pesticide use patterns covered by the PGP, and resulting discharges to 

Waters of the United States, is lacking. There is also no data on the extent to which these 

discharges will be reduced under the PGP. Available information suggests that some 

waterbodies have, in the past, experienced water quality problems, attributed to pesticide use. 

Although EPA has taken actions to mitigate such risks, there is limited information to assess the 

impact of EPA's actions, and it is likely that some water quality problems may continue to exist. 

To the extent that the PGP requirements reduce loadings and to the extent that current loadings 

are causing water quality problems, EPA expects that compliance with the permit may result in 

water quality-related benefits for aquatic ecosystems. 

The PGP includes two types of requirements that could have the effect of reducing pesticide 

loadings: technology-based effluent limitations and administrative and monitoring requirements. 

The technology-based effluent limitation requirements include minimizing pesticide discharges 

to Waters of the United States by Applicators complying with Part 2.1 of the permit, and by 

Decision-makers complying with Part 2.2 of the PGP. Part 2.2 of the permit includes (1) 

identifying and assessing the pest problem; (2) assessing effective pest management; and (3) 

following specified procedures for pesticide application. 

The administrative and monitoring requirements include developing PDMPs and monitoring for 

adverse incidents. The evaluation and justification of practices surrounding pesticide use 

involved in developing PDMPs may result in better record keeping of current pesticide use 

practices, and fewer discharges to Waters of the United States. Monitoring for and reporting of 

adverse incidents may have the effect of reducing loadings to the extent that dischargers observe, 

report, and address adverse environmental impacts through changes in application practices. 

Information and data obtained through the reporting requirements may enable confirmation of 

such an effect in the future.32

7.2. Environmental Benefits

Reducing surface water loadings for pesticides associated with adverse effects on aquatic life 

could have a beneficial impact on aquatic ecosystems. These beneficial impacts may be 

associated with a variety of benefits. EPA broadly 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 amenities) and those that affect human welfare 

through ecological systems or processes (i.e., ecological benefits). Ecological benefits (Error! 

 

32 Thus, there may also be information benefits stemming from the PGP.
98 October 2011

Reference source not found.) include those stemming from direct and indirect use of natural 

resources (e.g., recreation), as well as ―non-use‖ values derived from knowledge of the existence 

of clean resources and the desire to preserve resources for future generations. 

Table 7-1: Types of Benefits Associated With Environmental Policies: Ecological 

Improvements

Benefit Category Examples

Market products

Recreation activities and aesthetics

Valued ecosystem functions

Non-use 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

7.2.1. Ecological Benefits

The primary impact of reducing pesticide discharges to Waters of the United States will be 

improved water quality, which can have direct impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Under FIFRA, 

EPA evaluates risk associated with pesticides and mitigates unreasonable ecological risk. The 

additional technology-based effluent limitations imposed in the PGP provide further protections 

beyond compliance with existing FIFRA requirements. Another requirement is for operators to 

document and report adverse incidents involving non-target organisms or the environment, and 

to take corrective action if it is determined that revising Pest Management Measures can help to 

prevent future incidents.

By minimizing discharges of the pesticides to Waters of the United States, the PGP will limit the 

potential for adverse health and mortality impacts to aquatic wildlife. 

7.2.2. 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 under the PGP would 

require data and information that are not currently available, including baseline pollutant 

loadings, change in loadings, environmental impact associated with the change in loadings, and 

the associated changes in ecological values (use and non-use). 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, including that benefits will 

primarily require estimation through non-market valuation techniques (e.g., travel cost methods 

for recreation demand; stated preference methods, which involve asking questions regarding 

individuals’ preferences for environmental quality, for non-use benefits). Because such methods 

are time and resource intensive, analysts often utilize the practice of benefits transfer, or 

estimating the benefits of water quality improvements at one site based on the results of studies 

conducted for other sites and purposes. 

Studies in the published literature have identified values associated 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 fish that are safe to eat, and supports many plants, 

fish, and other aquatic life. The estimated values reflect a total value of the improvement, 
99 October 2011

including use and non-use benefit categories. 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 pesticide loadings under the PGP may also contribute to 

maintaining or improving water quality and associated values. Although current data and 

information are insufficient to identify the extent or potential magnitude of benefits that will 

result from reducing pesticide loads to Waters of the United States, information gathered from 

monitoring and reporting activities may enable such an effort in the future.
100 October 2011

References

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2009.State Response for Aquatic 

Weed Control and Mosquito Control. Karin Hendrickson, Pesticide Program Coordinator. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). October 2002. Alaska Aquatic Nuisance 

Species Management Plan. Available electronically at: 

http://www.anstaskforce.gov/State%20Plans/ak_ansmp.pdf.

Animal Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force. 2002. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 

Strategic Plan (2002 – 2007). February.

Arizona Department of Health Services. 2005. Native American Semi-Annual Report July –

December 2005. Office of the Director. Available electronically at: 

http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/tribal/pdf/semiannual_december05.pdf

Azevedo, C., J. Herriges, and C. Kling. March 2001. Valuing Preservation and Improvements of 

Water Quality in Clear Lake. Staff Report 01-SR 94, Center for Agricultural and Rural 

Development, Iowa State University.

Birch, Thomas W. 1994. Private Forest-land Owners of the United States, 1994. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station Resource 

Bulletin NE-134. Available electronically at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/resource_bulletins/pdfs/scanned/OCR/ne_

rb134a.pdf.

Blankinship, Mike. President/CEO Blankinship & Associates, Inc. Personal Communication. 24 

August 2009.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2005. 2005 Status of Forest Management Inventories and 

Planning. Available electronically at: 

http://www.itcnet.org/includes/downloads/4_atus_of_forest_inventories.pdf.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. 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. 2009. Employment Cost Index (ECI). September 2009 Release. 

Available electronically at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/eci_10302009.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Occupational Employment Statistics (OES). May 2008 

Release. Available electronically at: http://www.bls.gov/OES/2008/may/oessrci.htm

City of Davis. 2008. Integrated Pest Management Program 2008 Annual Report. Prepared by 

Martin Guerena and John McNerney.

Coble, Harold. North Carolina State University. Personal Communication. 20 August 2009.

Conlon, Joe. AMCA Technical Director. Personal Communication. 18 August 2009.

Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999. Available electronically at: 

http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/EO%2013112.pdf.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation (FAO). 2005. Global Forest Resources 

Assessment, 2005. Available electronically at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2005/en/
101 October 2011

Hamel, Kathy. Washington Department of Ecology. Personal Communication. 21 August 2009.

Idaho Invasive Species Council (IISC) Technical Committee. 2007. Idaho Aquatic Nuisance 

Species Plan. Available electronically at: 

http://www.anstaskforce.gov/State%20Plans/Idaho_ANS_Plan_2007.pdf

Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA). 2009. State Response for Aquatic Weed Control. 

Thomas Woolf, Aquatic Plant Program Manager. 

Magat, W., J. Huber, W.K. Viscusi, and J. Bell. 2000. An Iterative Choice Approach to Valuing 

Clean Lakes, Rivers, and Streams. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 21:1:7-43.

Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species (MA AIS) Working Group. Massachusetts Aquatic 

Invasive Species Management Plan. December 2002. Available electronically at: 

http://www.mass.gov/czm/invasives/docs/invasive_species_plan.pdf.

Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR). 2008. Annual Operations 

Reports. Available electronically at: http://www.mass.gov/agr/mosquito/annualreports.htm.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP). 2009. State Response for 

Aquatic Weed Control. Robert Kubit and Gary Gonyea, Environmental Engineer. 

McGregor, Susan. Dragon Mosquito Control. Personal Communication. August 2009. 

National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO). November 2009. Aggregate Pesticide Use 

Statistics for Four Timber Companies. 

National Invasive Species Council (NISC). August 2008. 2008-2012 National Invasive Species 

Management Plan. Available electronically at: 

http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/2008-

2012%20National%20Invasive%20Species%20Management%20Plan.pdf.

New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food (NHDAMF). 2009.Division of 

Pesticide Control. State Response for Aquatic Weed Control and Mosquito Control. Robert A. 

Wolff, Environmentalist 111 - Groundwater. 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 2009. Plant Control 

Techniques. Available electronically at: 

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/exoticspecies/management.htm.

New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (NHDHHS). 2010. Guidance for 

Towns and Cities: Response Plans and Funding for Mosquito Control. 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). March 2006. Communicating with the 

Public on Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Final Report for the state of New Hampshire. 

Available electronically at: http://www.protectyourwaters.net/ansreport/NHFinalReport.pdf.

New Mexico Aquatic Invasive Species Advisory Council (AISAC). October 2008. New Mexico 

Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan. Available electronically at: 

http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/documents/NMAISMgmt%20Plan_Final_Oct_08.pdf.

New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA). 2009. State Response for Aquatic Weed 

Control and Mosquito Control. Cary C.S. Hamilton, Program Manager. 
102 October 2011

New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH). 2009. Mosquito Control Responsibilities. 

Available electronically at: 

http://www.health.state.nm.us/epi/documents/MOSQUITOCONTROLRESPONSIBILITIES_00

0.pdf.

Norton, G. and J. Maupin. July 2009. Does IPM Adoption Reduce Pesticide Use? A Nationallevel Accounting. Poster Presentation at AAEA & ACCI 2009 Joint Annual Meeting.

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (ODAFF). 2009.State Response for 

Aquatic Weed Control and Mosquito Control. Quang Pham and Mike Vandeventer, 

Environmental Program Managers. 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC). July 2008. Oklahoma Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Management Plan. Available electronically at: 

http://southeastaquatics.net/uploads/document/d03eae47cb2a8739b0420d75eb87f61ae04f6c45.p

df.

Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDOH). Puerto Rico West Nile Response Plan. N.d. 

Available electronically at: 

http://www.salud.gov.pr/Datos/VirusDelNiloOccidental/Documents/prWNRP.pdf.

PSMJ Resources, Inc. 2009. 2009 PSMJ A/E Financial Performance Survey, 29th Edition: CEO 

Snapshot.

Silver City. Silver City Vector Control Task Force. 2004. Integrated Mosquito Management the 

Science of Vector Control for the Town of Silver City. May 11, 2004. Available electronically 

at: http://www.townofsilvercity.org/vector/scienceofvector.html

South Central Public Health District. 2003. Arbovirus Surveillance and Mosquito Control in 

Idaho: Guidance for Counties Version 10.3. March 14, 2003. Available electronically at: 

http://www.phd5.idaho.gov/Docs/EVH-Mosquito_Abatement_08-2006.pdf

The Nature Conservancy. 2007. McChord Air Force Base Noxious Weed Control and 

Restoration January December 2006 Quarterly Activity Report. January 2007. Available 

electronically at: http://www.southsoundprairies.org/documents/McChord2006-

AnnualReport.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Available 

electronically at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/

United States Census Bureau. 2000. GCT-PH1. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 

2000. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. Census of Agriculture. Available 

electronically at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2002. Guam’s Forest 

Resources, 2002. Available electronically at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb243.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2001. American Samoa’s 

Forest Resources, 2001. Available electronically at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb244.pdf.
103 October 2011

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Safe Drinking Water 

Information System. Available electronically at: 

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/sdwis_query.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Phase I—New Facilities, 

Economic Analysis of the Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for 

New Facilities. EPA-821-R-01-035.