# E CONOMIC 

# A NALYSIS OF THE 

# P ESTICIDE 

# G ENERAL 

# P ERMIT 

# (PGP)

FOR 

# P OINT 

# S OURCE 

# D ISCHARGES FROM THE 

# A PPLICATION OF



# P ESTICIDES

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 PESTICID ES GENERAL PERMIT

................................ .......... 4

2.1. Techno logy

- 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 LI KELY 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 D istricts 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 EXISTIN G 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 Li mitations

................................ ................................ ....... 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 ANALYSI S

................................ ................................ ................ 92

6.1. Identification of Small Entities

................................ ................................ ..................... 92

6.2. Evaluating Potential Economic Impact

................................ ................................ ......... 93

6.3. Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 96



## 7. QUALITATIVE DISCUSSI ON 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 Entitie s Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern: Mosquito and Other Flying Pest Control

................................ .......................... 19

Table 3

- 3: Agencies: Weed and Alg ae 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 Intakes 1 

### 27

Table 3

- 12: Estim ated Number of Public Drinking Water Utilities with Surface Water Intakes Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern 1



### ................................ ............ 27

Table 3

- 13: Estimated Number of Industrial Facilities with Surface Water Intakes

.................... 28

Table 3

- 14: Estimated Number of Industrial Fa cilities 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

Res ources 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 C ontrol

................................ ....... 40

### iv October 2011



### Table 3

- 28: Potentially Affected Entities Which Overlap With NMFS Listed Resources of Concern: Forest Canopy Pest Contr ol

................................ ................................ ............... 40

Table 3

- 29: Summary of Potentially Affected Entities 1



### ................................ ............................... 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 Control 1



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 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 a nd 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

- Ba sed 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 (Crit erion 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 Monitori ng 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

T able 5

- 30: Key Uncertainties of the Analysis

................................ ................................ ............. 89

Table 5

- 31: Potential Average Entity Costs for Mosquito and Other Flying Insect P est Control 1



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 90

Table 5

- 32: Potential Average Entity Costs for Weed and Algae Pest Control 1



### .......................... 90

Table 5

- 33: Potential Average Entity Costs for Animal Pest Control 1



### ................................ ......... 91

Table 5

- 34: Potential Average Entity Costs for Forest Canopy Pest Control 1



### ............................. 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 Revenues 1



### ........... 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 W aters 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 re gulation to codify its interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as not requiring NPDES permits for application of pesticides to and over, including near, W aters of the United States if the application is consistent with Federal Insecticide, Fungicide an d 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 Co tton Council, et al. v. EPA vacate d 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 Sixt h 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 genera l 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 W aters of the United States for certain pesticide use

pa tterns. 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 co verage under the PGP for discharges to W aters 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 an d 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 administrative 1 

### and 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 th e United States

1 Includes a ctivities 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 W aters of the United States from the application of pesticides. Part 2.1 of the permit requires all Applicators to use only the a mount 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) ar e 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 pe rmit requirements depends on the type of Operators (Decision

makers versus Applicators), type of Decision

- makers (i.e., A gencies, irrigation districts, etc.),

size of Decision

- makers (large versus small entities), location (the discharge is to Tie r 3 waters

or to W aters 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 EP A 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 disch arge to W aters 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 w aters in Alaska

and Okla homa. 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 W aters of the United States resulting from the application of pesticides. Thus, there is some uncer tainty in this analysis regarding who will seek permit coverage. Although EPA believes it has captured the majority of potential O perators under the four pesticide use patterns in the PGP, there may be some entities not accounted for. However, EPA believ es 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 estimate d costs, as necessary, for any future permit reissuance.

The types of entities or O perators 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), m osquito control districts, utilities, irrigation districts, weed control districts, forest owners, and other private entities. In the PGP, an O perator includes both ―Applicators‖ and

―Decision

- makers.‖ An Applicator is an entity who performs the applicati on 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 W aters 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 W aters of the United States. As such, more than one Operator may be responsible for compliance with the permit for any single discharg e 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 availabl e, 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. H owever, 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 e xceed the annual treatment area threshold established in the PGP for the pesticide use pattern.

Table ES

- 1 : Summary of Potentially Affected Entities 1

Unauthorized Area Mosquito and Other Flying

Insect Pest
Control Weed and

Alg ae 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 thres holds.



## 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 inst ances 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 th e 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 Applicator s to minimize the discharge of pollutants to W aters 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 t arget 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 implemente d 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 Id aho, 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

W aters of the United States from the application of pesticides. All Decision

- makers, to the

extent Decision

- makers determine the amount o f pesticide or frequency of pesticide applications, must minimize the discharge of pesticides to W aters of the United States from the application of pesticides by using only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application necessary

to contro l 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 con taining 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 . Requir ed 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 require ments 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 highl y 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 r esult 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 incre mental 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 cost s. 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 provi des 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 a re 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 estimate s, 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 Tech nology

- 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/e ntity

$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) an d 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/e ntity 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 m osquito 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/acre 1 Illustrative only; represents potential feasible cost

dif ference between pesticide and use of alternative

method 2

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

co ntrol

Pest management options $50/acre 1 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 ac res, for illustration.
2. Actual costs of feasible alternati ves 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 Pest 1 Weed and Algae Pest

Control 1 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

Resources 2 $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 wi ll be site

- and entity

- specific.

2. Includes other Decis ion

- makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit so lely because of discharges to W aters 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 applicabil ity 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 acti on, 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 addre ssing 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 ef fort (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 p er 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
Concern 3 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) 1 an d (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

Monit oring $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 app lies 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 NM FS 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 a nnual 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 a nd

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 $1,8 91 $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

Resources 1 $4,610 $361,770 $4,780 $26,600 $397,760

Corrective Actions 2 $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 annu al reports as well as comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Reso urces 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 (see Chapt er 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 $1 1 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 A genc ies , large mosquito c ontrol 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 correct ive 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 Flyin g 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 $7 9,294 $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

Te rritories $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

Resources 1 $4,610 $422,770 $18,280 $99,400 $545,060

Tot al $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

entit ies. 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 consi dered 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 enti ties 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 thre sholds and do not discharge into receiving W aters 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 s ignificant 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 mosqu ito 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 estima ted 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 co sts 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, sinc e 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 require ments, 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 mosqui to 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 munici pality

- 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 ent ities 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 W aters of the United States are treated with pesticid es. 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 W aters 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. R educing the discharge of these pollutants to W aters of the United States, such as through compliance with the technology

- based ef fluent limitations and documentation of P est

M anagement M easures implemented (PDMP) as required under the PGP, may lead to ecological

benefits and associated values.

By minimizing discharges of the pesticides to W aters of the United States, the PGP will re duce 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 pesti cides 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 W aters 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 Elim ination 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 h erein 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 iss ued 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, W aters of the United States if the application is consistent with relevant Federal

In secticide, 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 Circ uit

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 see k 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 ar e 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 aut hority.

An O perator can seek coverage under the PGP for discharges to W aters 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 Fl

ying 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 a t 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) w here 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 permitti ng authority for pesticide discharges; states and territo ries 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 W aters 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 state s 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 ar eas 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 Unauth orized States, Territories, and Federal Facilities (2009)

Unauthorized States Alaska (only unauthorized for pesticide discharges)

Idaho Massachusetts New Hampshire New Mexico Oklahoma (only unauthorized for pesticide discharges)

Unauthorized Territories

American Samoa
District of Columbia 1

Guam Johnston Atoll Midway Island & Wake Island Northern Mariana Islands

Puerto Rico

States with Federal Facilities for which EPA has Permitting Authority

Colorado

Delaware Vermont Washington

States with Tribal Land s 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
Oklaho ma 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:

Sect ion 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, an d presents an assessment of the numbers and types of O perators potentially affected by the PGP.

### 3 October 2011



### Section 4: Overlap with Existing Requirements summarizes current practices and regulations that already cover O perators in the areas of concern.

Section 5: Anal

ysis 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 significan t 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 provi des an overview of the requirements of the PGP, which covers point source discharges to W aters of the United States from applications of pesticides for specific pesticide use patterns. There are four general pesticide use patterns covered under the PGP: m osquito 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 li mitations and requirements associated with

administrative 2 

### tasks 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 contr ol of the application (i.e., they are authorized to direct workers to carry out those activities) that results in a discharge to W aters of the United States. A Decision

- maker is an entity with control over the decision to perform pesticide applications, i ncluding the ability to modify those decisions that result in discharges to W aters 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. Techno logy

- 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 Deci sion

- makers may be the same entity. TBELs require all Operators to minimize the discharge to W aters 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 W aters 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 follo wing:

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 pestici de 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 spee d) 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

W aters of the United States from the application of pesticides, through the use of Pest

2 Includes activities such as maintaining docume ntation, 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 Decision

makers, to the extent Decision

- makers determine the amount of pesticide or frequency of

p esticide application, to minimize the discharge of pesticides to W aters 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 W aters 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, p est 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 surveil lance 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 p ortion 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 l arval 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 P est M anagement M easures;

 Identify target pest(s) to develop P es t M anagement M easures 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 condit ions in Part 2.2.1.a of the permit.

Pest Management Options
 Select and implement efficient and effective means of P est M anagement M easures that minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control mosquitoes or other flying insect p ests;

### 6 October 2011



###  In developing the P est M anagement M easures 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 evalu ate 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 co ntrol 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
 Ident ify 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 co ntributing 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 P est M anagement M easures 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 pe st 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:

I dentify 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);

 Identi fy 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 dischar ges resulting from the application of pesticides to control pests.

 In developing the P est M anagement M easures 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 app lication 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 p est 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 a ction threshold for implementing Part 2.2.4.b of the permit;

 Identify target pest(s) to develop P est M anagement M easures based on developmental and behavioral considerations for each pest;

 Identify current distribution of the target pest and assess potenti al distribution in the

absence of P est M anagement M easures.

 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 Ma nagement Options
 Select and implement efficient and effective means of P est M anagement M easures that minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control pests.

 In developing the P est M anagement M easures 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, c ultural 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

thresh old 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 p esticides 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 report s, and recordkeeping, including

### 9 October 2011



### pesticide discharge evaluation worksheet. Also, all Operators must perform monitoring. The applicability of the different permit requi rements depends on the type of Operator (Decision

makers versus Applicators), type of Dec ision

- makers (i.e., A gencies, irrigation districts, etc.),

size of Decision

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

or to W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern), and exten t 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 di stricts, or similar pest control districts Irrigation and weed control districts or similar pest control districts Local government or o ther entit ies 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 o ther entities conducting mosquito control and adulticiding more than 6,400 acres annually ; Local government or o ther entities conducting forest canopy pest control and treating more than 6,400 acres annually;

t he discharges from pesticide applications to O utstanding 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 W aters 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 Int ent. 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 threaten ed (―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, t he 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 im pacts 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 complianc e 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 an d 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 p oint source discharge to one

or more W aters 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 coverag e is being requested will discharge to one or more receiving W aters 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 pesti cide 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 modifica tion 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 habi tat.

Criterion C. Pesticide application activities for which permit coverage is being requested will discharge to one or more W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, as defined in Appendix A of the permit, but all ―take‖ o f 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 Speci es Act, 16 U.S.C § 1532(19).)



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

W aters 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 undertake n 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 W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed

Resources of C oncern, 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 W aters 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 W aters of the United Sta tes 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 10,000 3


### must develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (P DMP). 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 W aters of the United State s 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 evaluat ion worksheet (PDEW). The PDEW documents the identification of the problem and implementation of P est M anagement M easures 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 deve lop a PDMP or required to submit NOIs because of discharges to W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Reso urces of Concern must

submit annual report s . The report must include Decision

- maker’s name, NPDES permit tracking number(s), contact info rmation, 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); comp any 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 contr ol activity was addressed in the PDMP prior to pesticide application, if applicable; report of any adverse incident; description of any corrective action(s) ; and t he approximate date of any discharge (only for Decision

- maker s that d ischarges to Waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern )

.

3 The permit provides specific requirements for a subset of small gov ernments (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 Applicator s 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 a ny 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 acre s 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, a ny Decision

- maker that is required to submit an NOI (except for

Decision

- makers that are required to submit NOIs solely because of discharges to W aters 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 ack nowledgment 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

W aters 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 foll owing 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 pestic ide 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 P est M anagement M easure(s) implemented prior to the first pesticide app lication; 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 followi ng 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 p esticide applied, 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.

### 13 October 2011



### 2.2.6. Monitoring (Part 4)

All Operator s 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 : S ummary of Pesticide General Permit Requirements

Entity Type Part

2.1 Part

2.2 PDMP Annual

Report Record

keeping (Part 7.1) 1 Equipment

Record

keeping 2
(Part 7.2) Record

keeping (Part 7.3) Record

keeping (Part 7.4)

Applicator Y N N N Y * N N

Decision

- m aker 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 sol ely 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 cont ai ning 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 Decis ion

- 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 m ay 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 involv e 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 cove red 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 th e 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

diffe rent 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 t he 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 ter m ―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 ― Ag enc ies ‖ 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 E SA, some of the potentially affected entities may (in addition to other

increme nt al 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 fiv e

- year term of the permit , EPA performed several GIS analys es . The results of these analys es 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 a nd 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 oth er flying insect pest control are based on entity type ( A gencies, mosquito control districts, or similar pest control districts, or local government/private), size (small businesses determinations are based on SBA size standards and small go vernments are those with populations 10,000 or fewer), location (the

### 15 October 2011



### discharge is to Tier 3 waters or to W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern), and annual treatment area thresholds (6,400 acres of adulticiding).

The annu al 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 are a 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, 20 05).

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. F or this analysis, EPA assumes that each federal agency in each

State with f

ederal f acilities 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 Concer n 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 Distri cts

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 government s 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 mosquit o 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 Mosq uito 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 i n 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 t he 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 previousl y, 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 th an 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 thi s 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 pe rforms 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 dist ricts 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 Li sted

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 t he 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 Government s and Other Entities

There are 174 unique Indian reservations in 26 authorized states. 9 

### EPA searched fo r 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) pe rform 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 trib al 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 thresho ld 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) indi cates 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 wa s 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 W aters of the

United States.

Of the other entities performing mos quito 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) perform ing 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 affect ed 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 singl e permit. Table 3

- 2 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

- 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

Una uthorized

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

Tri bes 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 wat er, which results in discharge to W aters 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 su ch 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 ( A gencies, 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

W aters 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 i n 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 agg ressive water milfoil 11 

### 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 Manageme nt, 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 oxygenate d 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 W aters of the United States. Based on this information, EPA ass umes 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

cont rol 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 Amer ican Samoa. Given this, EPA assumes that applying pesticide s to W aters 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 t he 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 A gencies 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 Lis ted Resources of Concern

over the five

- year term of the permit

. 13



### Table 3

- 3 summarizes the number of A gencies using pesticides to control weeds and algae.

Table 3

- 4 presents the number of A gencies 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.g ov).

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 wat ermilfoil 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 Cont rol

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

Federa l 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 d istricts, 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 ord er 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 tot al of 39,258 waterbodies in the state overlap.

### 22 October 2011



### Table 3

- 5 shows the potentially affected irrigation and weed control distric ts, 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 Irrigat ion 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

Tr ibes 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 Deliv ery 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 we ed 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 pestic ides 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 a pplication 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 informa tion 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 ann ual 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 ar ea 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 responsibl e 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 ar eas 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

munic ipalities 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 pop ulations 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 almo st no aquatic pesticide use occurs to W aters of the United States. Based on this information, EPA assumes that there are no entities in New Mexico discharging pesticides to W aters of the United States to control weeds.

The State of Oklahoma issued 60 li censes

– 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 l ack 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 a rea 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 com mittees 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 o f 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 , approx imately 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 affecte d 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 b ased 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 T hreshold Total Population <10k Population >10k

Alaska 0 0 0 0

Idaho 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts 1 13 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

Tribes 2 8 0 9 17

Fed eral 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 Resou rces 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

Unauth orized Area Local Governments

Below Threshold Local Governments Above Threshold Total Population <10k Population >10k

Idaho 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts 1 1 1 1 3

District of Columbia NA NA NA NA

Tribes 2 2 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

- of

way 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 wa ter 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 Usin g 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

T otal 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

controllin g 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 determ ined 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 sur face 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 o r 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 b loom.

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 wa ter 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 permi t , 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 (est imated 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 ri vers 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

Lis ted 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.

### 2 7 October 2011



### Resources of Concern and using the same as sumptions, 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

thr eshold). Lastly, over the five

- year term of the permit , nine tribal utilitie s 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 over all 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 Intakes 1

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 Facili ties 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 Concern 1

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 facilit ies 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 sectors 20 

### as part of its 316(b) rulemaking to identify facilities that operate a cooling water intake structure and woul d 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 disch argers 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 industria l 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 assu mes 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 Integra ted 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 facilitie s 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 p resents the number of industrial facilities with surface water intakes that overlap with

NMFS Listed Res ources of Concern over the five

- year term of the permit

.

Table 3

- 13 : Estimated Number of Industrial Facil ities with Surface Water Intakes

Unauthorized Area Total NPDES Permits 1 Estimated Number with Surface

Water Intake 2

Alaska 149 37

Idaho 200 50

Massachusetts 325 81 New Hampshire 113 28

New Mexico 130 33
Oklahoma 476 119
District of Columbia 9 2

Ter ritories 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, petrole um 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 physica l 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, respectiv ely, 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 Intake 2

Idaho 46 12

Massachuse tts 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), th ere 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 wheth er any of the ditch

banks that are W aters 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 W aters 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 be low 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 Con cern 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 fi ve

year 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 farm s 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 Farms 1

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 Conc ern
Unauthorized Area Number of Irrigated Farms 1

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 Entitie s 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 s uch 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 Id aho. 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 p rivate 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 ther e 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 ar e 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 N FMS 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 estimat es 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,

P opulations <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 Righ t

- 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,

P opulations <10,000 Above Threshold, Populations >10,000

New Mexico 10,167 0 0

Oklahoma 3,026 0 0

District o f 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 affec ted 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 ac res 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 repr esents 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 Entities 1

Total Below

Threshold Above Threshold

Small Large Small Large

Alask a 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

int akes, 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

Unautho rized

Area Agencies Irrigation and Weed
Control Districts Other Entities 1

Total Below

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 wat er 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 t ype 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 method s 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 ( A gencies, or local government/private), size (small businesse s 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 W aters 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 repre sents 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 unauthori zed 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 t otal) is using pesticides for animal pest control.

Of these agencies, EPA determined that 14 f ed eral 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 pre valent 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

drinkin g 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 t he vicinity of the intake structure to control for animal pests, they would not be above the annual treatment area threshold.

23 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).

### 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 anima l 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 utili ties 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 Reso urces of
Concern, over the five

- year term of the perm it , 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 Intake 1 Potentially Affected,

Below Threshold 2 With Surface

Water Intake 3 Potentially Affected,

Below Threshold 2

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 Drinkin g Water Utilities Industrial Facilities

With Surface

Water Intake 1 Potentially Affected,

Below Threshold 2 With Surface

Water Intake 3 Potentially Affected,

Below Threshold 2

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 Res ources of Concern over the five

- year term of the permit

.

Table 3

- 23 : Potential Number of Affected Entities: Animal Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Agencies 1 Local Governments and Other Entities

Total Below

Threshold 2 Small Above

Threshold Large Above

Threshold 3

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 publ ic 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 al l 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

Total Below

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

T ribes 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 W aters 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 non

aquatic insects, and other non

- aquatic organisms detrimental to industry, the environment, or public health. Pesticide applications can be performed seasonally or periodically as th e 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 specif

ic 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 ( A gencies, 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 t o W aters 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 N ational 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

manage ment 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 cove red 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. Su rvey 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 t he number of

25 Based on GIS analysis of the overlap between the 12 species ide ntified 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 Resourc es 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 f orest 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 Reso urces 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 Res our ces 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 five

year term of the permit

. 27



### Table 3

- 25 : Estimated Number of Private Forests Treated with Insecticides

Unauthorized Area Total Forest

Owners 1 Forests Treated for

Pests 2 Insecticide

- Treated

Forests 3

Alaska 16,600 830 17

Idaho 47,400 2,370 47

Massachusetts 212,800 10,640 213 New Hampshire 83,7 00 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 an nual 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 (no t 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 (ther e 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 : Estim ated Percentage of Private Forests Less than 5,000 Acres

Region 1 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 27 2,200 700 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 Res ources of Concern over the five

- year term of the permit

.

Table 3

- 27 : Potentially Affected Entities: Forest Canopy Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Agencies 1 Other Entities Above

Thr eshold 2 Private Forest Owners

Below Threshold 2 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

Fe deral 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 pub lic entity. For the District of Columbia, territories, tribes, and federal facili ties, 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 th at 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 Age ncies 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 regard ing 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 Res ources of Concern over the

five

- year term of the permit , by use pattern.

Table 3

- 29 : Summary of Potentially Affected Entities 1

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 Fore st

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

i nformation 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 ef fluent limitations (e.g.,

A gencies, mosquito control districts, irrigation and weed control districts, entities that discharges

to W aters 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 W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern are entities not exceeding the annual treat ment 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 t he 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 a s 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 t hat, 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 current ly 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 sour ce 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

pra ctice 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 li ght 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 mosqui to 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 ha nd 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 th e 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 spe cies 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 produ cing 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 iden tifying 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 th e 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 pe rforming 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. Fo r 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 require ments, 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 e xisting 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 preventin g 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 ther e 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 manageme nt 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

pot entially 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

Entities 1 Estimated Number of Enti ties 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; O DAFF, 2009.

1. Includes A gencies, 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 great ly 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 P GP. 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 applica tion, 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 activit ies (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 p romote 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

e ntities 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 inf ormation 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 Compliance 1

Identifying the Problem Pest Management Options Pesticide Use

Alaska No entities No enti ties 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

unauthoriz ed area does not have any entities current ly implement ing 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 orde r 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 availabl e.

Decision

- makers that are required to submit NOIs solely because of discharges to W aters 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 e ntities‖ Decision

- makers with discharges that are below the annual treatment area threshold values but discharge to W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. EPA expects 102 (510/5)

Decision

- makers to be required to comply w ith Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of

### 47 October 2011



### discharges to W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern annually (see Chapter 3 )

.

Table 4

- 3 : Current Imp lementation of Part 2.2 Measures for Weed and Algae Pest Control

Unauthorized Area No. of Potentially

Affected Entities 1 Estimated Number of Entities in Compliance 2

Identify the Problem Pest Management Options Pesticide Use

Alaska 37 37 37 37

Idaho 25 3 253 253 253

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

Resources 3 102 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 Decis ion

- makers required to comply Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to W aters of the United
States con taining 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 Percent age of Entities Not in Compliance 1

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%

Ok lahoma 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; ODAF F, 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 regula tions, 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

th e 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 det ails 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 interventio n

- 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 con trol 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 (NM AISAC, 2008).

Oklahoma

– the plan defines the problem in the state including a list of non

- indigenous aquatic animals (fish, mussels, snails, etc.); objectives include preventin g 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 Sp ecies 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; co ntrol 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 t he 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 p roblem 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 weed s) , 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 wa ter 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 p est 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 W aters 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 W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. EPA expects 1 (5/5) other Decision

- maker

annu ally to be required to comply with Part 2.2 of th e permit solely because of discharges to

W aters 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 requir ements. 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 l ikely 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 W aters of the United

States containi ng 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 W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern. EPA expects 7 (37/5) other

Decision

- makers annu ally to be required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to W aters of the United States containing NMF S 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 t he 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 in cremental 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 l evel of controls.

5.1.1. Applicators’ Responsibilities

The extent to which minimizing pesticide discharges to W aters 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 Decision

makers 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 th e 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., amou nt 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 pro cedures (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 applica tion 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, incremen tal 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

dischar ge 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 Inse ct 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 variet y of activities required under the PGP (mapping breeding sites, surveillance, analyzing surveillance data, and alternati ves to traditional pesticide ). However, these expenditures vary across districts, sometimes substantially (e.g., $800 for water managem ent 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 stand ard surveillance practices.

Table 5

- 1 : Massachusetts Mosquito Control District Expenditures

Cost Category Massachusetts Mosquito Control Districts

Bristol Berkshire Cape
Cod Central Norfolk Northeast Plymou th Suffolk

Breeding Sites, Mapping $79,539 $43,335 $180,081 $145,483 $126,711 $144,404 $124,013

-

Surveillance 1 $95,496

- $32,045 $92,565 $93,742 $158,499 $86,919

-

Disease
Surveillance $58,234

- - - - - $10,000 $8,000

Surveillance Data Analysis - - $1 7,472 $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 $3 6,443 $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 $9 06,432 $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 d ifferent 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

- subur ban 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 dis trict 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 cos ts 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 Decisio n

- 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, t he 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 P est M anagement M easures; Identify target pest(s) to develop P est M anagement M easures 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 ca lendar 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 in sect 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 al ready 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 entity

specific.

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 approx imately $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 pe r 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 larva l 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 approxim ately $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

t ribal 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 enti ties, 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 entit ies 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

Entities 1 Unit Cost

($/entity) Potential

Cost Estimated

No. of

Entities 1 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 diff erence between the number of potentially affected entities and the number of entities currently performing each activity ( Table 4

- 1 ).



### Table 5

- 3 : Estimated Increment al Costs to Municipal Entities: Identifying the Problem, Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Estimated No. of

Entities 1 Unit Cost ($/entity) Potential Cost

Alaska 2 $20,000 $40,000
New Hampshire 0 $20,000 $0

Oklahoma 1 $20,00 0 $20,000

Tribes 17 $20,000 $340,000

NMFS Listed

Resources 3 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 performin g each

acti vity ( 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 Deci sion

- makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.



### Total cost associated with problem identification for mosquito and other flying insect control

could b e 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 ef fective means of P est M anagement M easures that minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control mosquitoes or other flying insect pests. In developing the Pest Management M easures, Decision

- makers must evaluate the following man agement 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 a nd effective means of P est M anagement M easures 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. Th is 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 control methods exist.

Prevention: Prevention strategies are program activities that eliminate dev eloping 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 act ivities 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 authorit y 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 implemen ting 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 eff ective means of P est

M anagement M easures 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 und er 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 redu ce 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 Cit y 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 met hods 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 co st

- 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 enti ty 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 e ntities 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 compl iance 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 minimi ze 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 als o 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 alter native 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 Cost 1 Potential Feasible Net
Incremental Cost 2

Alaska 2 $2,000

Idaho 6 $1,170,000

Massa chusetts 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 Resources 3 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 performin g 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 t he number of municipalities potentially incurring net incremental costs (in Alaska , New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and tribes) by $800.

3. Includes other Decisi on

- makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to W aters 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 e xisting 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 st ill occurring after applicators select the most efficient and effective method of pest management to minimize pesticide discharges to

W aters of the United States.

Because the effect of selecting the most efficient and effective method to minimize pesticid e 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 suf ficient 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, existin g expenditures may not increase if non

pesticide 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 representati ve 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 th e 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 (To wn 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 b e 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 Con trol
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 Concer n 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, includin g, 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.);

Establis h 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 groun d 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 s norkelers 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 e mployed. 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

sma ll 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 req uired (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 vari ety 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 survei llance 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 a rea 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 Pr oblem, Weed and Algae Pest Control

Unauthorized Area Entities w/ Part 2.2 Requirements 1 Entities Not in

Compliance 2 Potential Acres Not

in Compliance 3 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

Resources 5 102 102 268 $27,000

Total 787 137 3,068 $307,000

NA = not applicable

1. Includes A gencies, 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 excee ding 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 coun ty 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 o f 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, lo cal government entities, public drinking wat er 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 o f 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 Decis i on

- makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to W aters 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 P est M anagement M easures that minimize discharges resulting from the application of pe sticides to control pests. In developing

the P est M anagement M easures, 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



### P est M anagement M easures to minimize pesticide discharges and (2) the net incremental cost of such methods (i.e., compared with conventional pesticide use).

The efficiency and eff

ectiveness of P est M anagement M easures 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 m ethods may cause secondary or non

target 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, 2 002). 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 ha ve 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

introduction s. 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 managemen t 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 Cont rol: 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 virtua lly 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 han d 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 consi der 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 colorant s 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 t end 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. Aq uatic herbicides are sprayed directly onto floating or emergent aquatic

28 http://www.grounds

- mag.com/mag/grou nds_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 Un it 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 si milar 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 ne t 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 enti ty, 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 a ddition, 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. Similar ly, 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 c ost estimates to government entities that are currently cont rolling 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 : P otential Affected Acres and Feasible Costs: Pest Management Options, Weed and Algae Pest Control 1

Unauthorized

Area Entities w/ Part 2.2

Requirements 2 Entities Not in

Compliance 3 Potential Acres

Not in Compliance 4 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

Resources 6 102 102 134 $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 A gencies, 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 num ber 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 sing le 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 treate d. For NMFS Listed Resources of the Concern, the number of potential acres includes areas for farms, lo cal 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 counti es 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 e ach 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 tre ated. 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

increm ental costs of $50/acre as these entities are below the annual treatment area threshold and likely treating small areas

. 6. Includes other Decision

- makers requi red to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to W aters of the
United S tates 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 discussi on 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 afte r 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 $1,0 00 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 Poten tial 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

Requirements 1 Entities Not in

Compliance 2 Potential Acres not

in Compliance 3 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

Resources 5 102 102 268 $27,000

T otal 787 147 3,868 $387,000

1. Includes A agencies, 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 excee ding 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 coun ty 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 o f 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, loc al government entities, public drinking wate r 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 Decis ion

- makers requir ed to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to W aters 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

- issue d 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

Th e 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 th at 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

ex ample, 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 pot ential 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 Requirements 1 Ent ities Not in

Compliance Potential Acres Not

in Compliance 2 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 o ne 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 (C oble, 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 P est M anagement M easures that minimize discharges resulting from t he application of pesticides to control pests. In developing

the P est M anagement M easures, 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 app ropriate 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 t o 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 preve ntion 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 th e 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. Wh ile 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 pi scicides, 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 fo r 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 ( Tab le 5

- 9 ).

Tab le 5

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

Control

Unauthorized Area Entities w/ Part 2.2 Requirements 1 Entities Not in

Compliance Potential Acres Not

in Complian ce 2 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/wa terbodies 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 th e 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

on ly 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 requireme nts 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 Requirements 1 Entitie s Not in

Compliance Potential Acres Not

in Compliance 2 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 w aterbody, 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 containin g 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 P est M anagement M easures 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 P est M anagement M easures 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 pestici des 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, the y 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 . F or problem identification

, this

cos t 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

Entities 1 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 pe st management area efficient and effective means of P est M anagement M easures that minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control pests. In developing

the P est M anagement M easures, Decision

- makers must evaluate the following ma nagement 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; biologica l 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 aesth etic/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 pesti cide 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 mec hanical 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 progr ams 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.

P esticide: 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 pe sticide to minimize pesticide discharges, and the cost of the alternative method compared

to the total co st 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 conside ring 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 asso ciated 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

Entities 1 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 pri or 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 a ddition 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 c osts 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 co nducting 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 co sts 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 routi nely 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

fo rest 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 activiti es. For larger Operators (e.g. multi

- county mosquito abatement districts), costs associated with identifying the problem are expected to be $1 5,000 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 mid point 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 Insec t 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 (McG regor, 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/acre 1 Illustrative only; represents potential feasible cost

difference between pesticide and use of alternative

method 2

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/acre 1 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 Munic ipality

- 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 feasi ble 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
Control 1 Weed and Algae

Control 1 Anim al

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

Fede ral Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

NMFS Listed

Resources 2 $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 feasi ble net incremental costs; actual costs will be site

- and entity

- specific.

2. Includes other Decis ion

- makers required to comply with Part 2.2 of the permit solely because of discharges to W aters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Conc ern.



### 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 attributa ble 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 provide s 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 Record

keeping (Part 7.1) 2 Equipment

Reco rd

keeping (Part 7,2a) Record

keeping (Part 7.3) 3 Record

keeping (Part 7.4) PDMP Annual

Report Monitor 4

Decision

- makers required to submit NOI that are large

entities 1      

Decision

- makers required
to submit NOI that are small

entities 1    

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 = Pe sticide 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 monitori ng 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 involve d 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 monitor ing 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

reflec t 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 : Esti mated Labor Cost ($/hour)

Labor Category State

Government 1 Local

Government 1 Commercial 2 Average 3

Managers $51 $64 $167 $113

Technical $38 $38 $63 $51

Clerical $29 $28 $53 $41

Note: Detail may not add to total due to independent rounding.
Sources: BLS OES, 2008; BLS 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 b ased 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 vari ous 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 t ime 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 Rate 1

($/hour) Hours Total Cost Average
Annual Cost 2

Managerial $113 1 $113 $23

Technical $51 1 $51 $10

Total NA 2 $164 $33

Note: detail may not add to total due to independent rounding. NA = not applicable
1. See Table 5

- 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 al gae and animal pests at intake structures).

In general, Decision

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

W aters 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 ba sis 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 s ubmit 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 documentatio n. 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 Rate 1

($/hour) Hours Total Cost Average
Annual Cost 2

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 to tal 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

ele ctronically, 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 insec ts, 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 n ot visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or post

application 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 re tain 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 Decision

ma kers 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 an y 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, a ny correspondence exchanged between the Decision

maker 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 a lso 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 o f P est M anagement M easure(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 post

application 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 w orksheet (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 P est M anagement M easures, 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 ana lysis, 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 entit y must retain the following records at the address provided on the NOI:

Copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between the Decision

maker and EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a copy of the EPA acknowledgment letter wi th 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 App licator);
 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, eith er 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 P est M anagement M easure(s) implemented prior to the first pesticide application;

 Company name and contact information for pesticide applicator;

 Name of each pesticid e 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 post

application 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 appli cation, 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 Rate 1 ($/hour) Annual Cost

Recordkeeping (Part 7.1) 2 1 $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 base d 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 averag e 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

A gencies, large mosqui to 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 P est M anagement M easures 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 dev elop 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, a nd commercial entities that apply pesticides and that can readily provide procedures including incident respon se plans, may have most of the relevant material already compiled and available.

Table 5

- 20 provides estimates of the av erage 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 p otential 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

Pes t Management Options Evaluation: Documentation of evaluation of P est
M anagement M easures 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 Rate 1 ($/hour) Hours Total Cost Annual Cost 2

Managerial $113 2 $226 $45

Technical $51 36 $1,836 $367

Clerical $41 2 $82 $16

Total NA 40 $2,144 $429

Note: Detail may not add to total due to independent rounding. NA = not applicable
1. See Table 5

- 16

. 2. Total cost divided by the permit term (5 years).



### 5.2.4. Annual Reports

Because, in general, annual reports must be subm itted 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 Rate 1 ($/ho ur) 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 ap plied 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

- t arget 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 Rate 1

($/hour) Annual Cost

Technical 0.25 $51 $13

1. See Table 5

- 16

.



### 5.2.6. Correctiv e 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 developmen t 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 adver se 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 ret ains 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 pe sts 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 NP DES program.

Where a leak, spill, or other release into a water of the U.S. containing a hazardous substance or oil in an amount eq ual 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. Howe ver, 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 ap proximately 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 bur den 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 iden tified, 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 modificat ions are require d 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 ex perience such an occurrence. This is based on the burden estimated for noncompliance r epor ts in th e 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 W aters 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 I ncident $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.

A ge ncies, 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 approximat ely $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 a nnual 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 Monitori ng 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
Concern 3 Entities Below

Thresh olds

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

Equipment Recordkeeping (Part 7.2.a) 2 $1 00 $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 tab le 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 Manage ment 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, re cordkeeping, 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 selecte d

Decision

- makers cer tifying 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 rangi ng 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 ev ents.

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 fo r 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 recordkeep ing 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 fo r 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 Potenti al 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 $1,8 71

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

Alas ka $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 Potenti al 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

Federa l 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 W aters 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.

Entities 1 Annual

Costs 2 No.

Entities 3 Annual

Cos ts 2 No.

Entities 3 Annual

Costs 2
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. Ba sed 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 milli on) 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

categ ory. 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

Massachuse tts $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

Terri tories $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

Resources 1 $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 W aters 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 monit oring 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 fu rther 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
Cont rol 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

- $319,02 4 $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

Resources 2 $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 Decisio n

- makers re quired to submit NOIs, comply with Part 2.2 of the permit, and submit annual reports solely because of discharges to W aters 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 W aters 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 nu mber 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 Relat ively 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 e ffluent

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 sub stantially 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 monitorin g. 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 overest imated.



### 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 e xceeding 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 enti ties 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 c osts 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 $1,84 0), 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 Control 1

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

Federa l 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 ent ity group. 2. Represents only the additional average per entity cost for those entities that discharge to W aters of the United States containing
NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.



### Table 5

- 32 : Potential Averag e Entity Costs for Weed and Algae Pest Control 1

Unauthorized Area Average Cost/Entity ($/yr) Agencies , Large IDs and Large Entities Exceeding

Thresholds Small IDs and Small Entities Exceeding

Thresholds Entities Below

Thresholds

Al aska $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 $21,98 0 $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 re cordkeeping) for each entity group (high end of range only). 2. Represents only the additional average per entity cost for those entities that discharge to W aters of the United States containing
NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.

### 91 October 2011 

### Table 5

- 33 : Potential Average Entity Costs for Animal Pest Control 1

Unauthorized Area Average Cost/Entity ($/yr) Agencies and Large Entities Exceeding

Thresholds Small Entities Exceeding

Thresholds Entities Below

Thres holds

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 Facil ities $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 thos e entities that discharge to W aters of the United States containing
NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.



### Table 5

- 34 : Potential Average Entity Costs for Forest Canopy Pest Control 1

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 W aters of the United States containing
NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.



### This is the first time th at EPA is issuing NPDES permits for discharges from the application of pesticides to W aters 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

c aptured 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 t hose 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 prov ides 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 50,000 31 

### people; or A small organization that is a not

- for

- profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its f ield.

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

informati on, 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 Al aska, 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 th e entities required to comply with the technology

- based effluent limitations are irrig ation/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

p urpose 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 utili ties (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 governmen tal 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 govern mental 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 informatio n 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; sma ll 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 availabl e, 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 th resholds 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 spe cific 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 ex ceed 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 associate d 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 populati ons 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

Re venue Threshold Values for Characterizing Impacts to Small Entities

Unauthorized Area Average Cost per Entity

with Part 2.2 Requirements 1 Revenue Threshold Values 2

1% 3%

Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control

Idaho $175,730 $17,573,043 $5,857,6 81

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

Tribe s $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 administratio n) 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 Co sts 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 Requirements 1 Revenue Threshold Values 2

1% 3% Mosquito and Ot her 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

Oklaho ma $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 reven ues 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 Revenues 1

Unauth orized

Area 50k Population 25k Population 10k Population

Per Capita

Revenue Revenue Per Capita

Revenue Revenue Per Capita

Revenue Revenue

Municipalities

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

Idaho $836 $41,800,000 $594 $14,850,000 $774 $7,740,000

Massachusetts 3 $2,875 $143,750,000 $2,378 $59,450,000 $23,778 $237,780,000
New Hampshire $2,062 $103,100,000 $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

Oklaho ma $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 $1,25 8 $12,580,000

Massachusetts 4 $841 $42,050,000 $841 $21,025,000 $841 $8,410,000
New Hampshire 4 $456 $22,800,000 $456 $11,400,000 $456 $4,560,000

New Mexico $532 $26,600,000 $1,559 $38,975,000 $879 $8,790,000

Oklahoma $323 $16,150,000 $473 $11,825,000 $680 $6,800,000

Territories $854 $42,700,000 $883 $22,075,000 $1,151 $11,510,000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2002). 1. Based on average per capita revenues for municipalities with populations between 49,999 and 25,000; 24,999 and 10,000; and
fewer than 1 0,000, 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. Re venue 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 wit h 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 App endix 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 revenu es 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 w ith 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 e stimated 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 contr ol 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 peopl e, 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 complian ce 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 include s 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 o wners 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 gov ernments/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 co mpliance 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. R educing 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 infor mation 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

W aters 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 requir ements 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 W aters 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

invo lved in developing PDMPs may result in better record keeping of current pesticide use practices, and fewer discharges to W aters 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 th e 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 informat ion 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 reso urces 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

Recr eation 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 W aters of the United States will be improved water quality, which can have direct impacts on aquatic ecosystems. U nder 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 P est M anagement M easures can help to prevent future incidents.

By minimizing discharges of the pesticides to W aters 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, environm ental 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

benefi ts 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 as king 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 examp le, 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 aq uatic 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 fut ure 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 W aters 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 Environme ntal 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. Avail able 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://ww w.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 Fores t 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. Availa ble 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. Prepare d by

M artin 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 elec tronically 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/Stat e%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 Departm ent 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 Owner s (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 Ham pshire 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 Hampshi re 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 Mex ico 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 Agr iculture (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.stat e.nm.us/epi/documents/MOSQUITOCONTROLRESPONSIBILITIES_00 0.pdf.

Norton, G. and J. Maupin. July 2009. Does IPM Adoption Reduce Pesticide Use? A National

level Accounting. Poster Presentation at AAEA & ACCI 2009 Joint Annual Meeting.

Oklahoma Department of Ag riculture, 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

Nuis ance 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 electronica lly 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 Mosqu ito 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

Sou th 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 a t: 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 Agricultu re. 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.f

s.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/env iro/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.