Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0847-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-12-22T05:00Z

Printed on Recycled Paper

Printed on Recycled Paper

UNITED  STATES  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY

REGION  8

999 18TH STREET  -  SUITE 300

DENVER,  CO   80202-2466

Phone 800-227-8917

http://www.epa.gov/region08

	

February 16, 2006

Colorado Department of Agriculture

State/Federal Pesticide Programs

FY 2005 End of Year Report

I.  Background

The Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) pesticide program
end-of-year review for FY 2004 was conducted on November 14, 2005 at
CDA(s office in Lakewood, Colorado.  EPA Region 8 reviewers were Peg
Perreault,  Colorado project officer, and Tim Osag, Pesticide
Enforcement Lead.  Participants from CDA included: John Scott, C&T
Coordinator; Don Brooks, Enforcement Specialist; and Mitch Yergert,
Division Director.  As a part of the review, EPA evaluated CDA’s 
end-of-year report with respect to the requirements of the Cooperative
Agreement Guidance, discussed specific program elements and activities,
and examined the case files for several complaints that were
investigated and closed during FY 2005.  This report summarizes the
information obtained during the end-of-year review and information in
CDA(s FY2005 end-of-year report. 

CDA has three separate pesticide program cooperative agreements with EPA
(no PPG):

1.  Pesticide Enforcement - FY05 total award amount, $257,825, includes
$239,400 base enforcement plus $18,425 special project (mosquito
repellant efficacy and label review project);

2.  Pesticide Applicator Certification & Training - FY05 total award
amount $82,273, includes $42,273 base C&T plus $40,000 special project
(WPS education & outreach); and

3.  Pesticide Initiatives - FY05 total award $190,827, includes $80,727
initial award, two amendments for special projects for $45,100
(web-based pesticides and groundwater information tool) and $50,000
(pesticide use survey), and one additional amendment for $15,000 (host
the annual R8 Pesticide Manager’s Meeting).

The project period for all three cooperative agreements was from Oct. 1,
2004 – Sept. 30, 2005.  It should be noted that Region 8 has discussed
the possibility of converting CDA’s categorical cooperative agreements
to a PPG; CDA will consider converting to a PPG during FY06 for the FY07
grant cycle.

II.  Financial Review

	CDA submitted reimbursement request forms quarterly during FY05 and
final Financial Status Reports at the end of the fiscal year for each of
their three cooperative agreements.  Quarterly reimbursement requests
and budget information were consistent with the budget and work plans
submitted with CDA’s FY05 applications for assistance.

III.  General Grant Administration

A.  Post-award checklist

Region 8 does not require post-award checklists for baseline monitoring
of cooperative agreements; therefore, checklists are not attached to
this report. 

B.  Recommended actions for Region 8 Grants Office

None.    

 

IV.  Compliance and Enforcement Review 

A.		State Reports

		1.	Pesticide Enforcement Outcome Measures report 

NA, not required for FY05.

		2.	5700-33H reports are attached as Appendix  1

		3.	Annual summary of inspections and enforcement actions 

The following tables summarize inspection and enforcement activities
that the state reports on EPA form 5700-33H.  The number of projected
inspections in the first table is taken from the cooperative agreement
work plan.



Inspections Projected and Completed

Inspection Type	Inspections Projected	Inspections Completed	Physical
Samples Collected

Agriculture Use	19	179	176

Tier I WPS	10	16

	Tier II WPS

39

	Agriculture Use Follow-up	19	20

	Tier I WPS

	Tier II WPS

	Non-agriculture Use	19	326

	Non-agriculture Use Follow-up	18	44

	Experimental Use Permits

	Producing Establishment

	Marketplace	25	783

	Import

	Export

	Applicator Records

505

	Restricted Use Pesticide Dealer

53

	TOTAL	100	1965	176

Enforcement Actions

Inspection Type	Warning Letter	Fine Assessed	Licensing Action	Criminal
Action	SSURO	Other Actions

Agriculture Use

WPS	2

	Agriculture Use Follow-up	10	3	15	3

3

WPS

Non-agriculture Use

Non-agriculture Use Follow-up	78	16	47	4

18

Experimental Use 

Producing Establishment

Marketplace

	581

	Import

Export

Applicator Records

Restricted Use Pesticide Dealer

TOTAL	90	19	62	7	581	21

The charts above do not fully mirror EPA Form 5700-33H.  They are to
provide a quick snapshot of the state’s actions.  For example,
“other enforcement actions” can be used in lumping together
categories on the 5700 form not listed above.

PROVIDE ANALYSIS:  

CDA substantially exceeded its projections in all categories.  EPA
appreciates the additional effort that the state devoted to these high
priority inspections.

The number and types of enforcement actions for each inspection category
is comparable to previous years.

See the Enforcement technical review under Section V. below for
additional analyis. 

		4.	FY05 Cooperative Agreement Activity Report

The FY05 end-of-year report which the state agreed to provide in the
work plan is attached as Appendix 3.  An analysis of the report and
summary of key findings is provided in Section V. of this report.   

	B.	Case File and Enforcement Action Evaluation

		1.	Significant Cases (FIFRA Section 27) 

There were no cases in FY2005 that met the “significant case
criteria” in the Cooperative Enforcement Agreement.

 

		2.	Routine Cases – other than Worker Protection

On November 14, 2005,  representatives of EPA Region 8 reviewed 12 
complaint investigations selected randomly from a list generated by the
states tracking system (Table 1).  This represented 23% of the cases
closed by CDA during FY2005 (10/01/2004 - 09/30/2005).  EPA reviewed at
least one cases from the following case resolution categories
represented on the CDA(s list of closed cases: Warning Letter, Letter of
Admonition, Dismissal, Stipulation and Referral to Attorney General (AG)
Office.  Eight of the twelve cases reviewed were selected from the
dismissal and stipulation categories since these categories accounted
for 69% of the closed cases.  

Table 1. CDA Cases Reviewed

Action Taken	

    No. Cases 	

No. Cases Reviewed        	

Cases Reviewed

Warning	

             2	

           1	

All American Ground Maintenance (20040032)

Letter of Admonition	

             4	

           1	

Denver Botanic Gardens, Inc.  (20050032)

Dismissal	

           17

	

           4	

Liqui Green, Inc. (20030006)

The Exterminator LLC (20040006)

Green Horizons Turf and Tree Care, LTD (20040023)

Steggs Aerial Spraying, Inc. (20050010)

Cold Case	

             1 	

            0	

Dropped 

	

             1	

            0

	

Stipulations	

            19	

            4	

Crop Air, Inc. (20020014)

Soper Pest Control (20020027)

Professional Truf Services, Inc. (20040022)

Lawn Doctor of Colorado Springs (20050004) 

Referral to AG	

             8	

            2	

M&M Coop (20040013)

Scott Aviation (20050016)

In its review, EPA evaluated the adequacy of the case file, i.e., did it
contain a narrative inspection report, copies of inspection forms,
application records, interview statements, photographs, labels, etc. 
EPA also evaluated the appropriateness of the states action based on the
contents of the file and asked the following questions:

Were required referrals to EPA made in a timely manner?

Did the Department require injunctive relief where appropriate?

Were state enforcement actions taken in a timely manner?

Was the proposed state action consistent with the state(s enforcement
response policy and /or penalty policy?

Are proposed penalties actually collected?

Based on EPA’s file review, it was concluded that CDA does a very good
job of investigating and documenting complaints. Most of the files
reviewed were very well documented and contained narratives, inspection
forms, application records, statements, photographs, labels and sample
analysis.  Samples were taken when necessary and the laboratory analysis
results were provided to the state pesticide program in a timely manner.
 

The Cooperative Enforcement Agreement between EPA and CDA requires CDA
to refer those suspected violations which do not fall within the state(s
delegation ( CDA regulates only commercial applicators) to EPA.  None of
the twelve  cases reviewed by EPA involved violations which should have
been referred.  

CDA sought injunctive relief (Cease and Desist Order) in two of the
twelve cases reviewed.  None of the other cases reviewed involved
situations where injunctive relief was appropriate.

Of the twelve cases reviewed, all investigations were initiated in a
timely manner, with most of investigations beginning within a day of the
complaint.  In addition, the Department has historically completed its
inspection reports in a timely manner once the investigation was
complete.  However, as noted in the past, the average time required to
close cases is excessive.  The average time to close the twelve cases
reviewed was 20.9 months.  This has been caused by a large case backlog
resulting from a high turn over in the case reviewer position. 

CDA continues to focus on closing open cases in a more timely manner and
has made significant progress in this area during the past couple of
years.  Don Brooks, the Enforcement Specialist for the past three years,
has reduced the number of backlogged cases  from about 70  in 2003 to 22
currently and expects to eliminate the backlog during FY2006.  It is CDA
goal to close all complaint investigations within twelve months of
receipt. 

EPA also reviewed the actions taken by the state in these cases.  When a
violation was documented, the state took action consistent with its
enforcement response policy.  

The Colorado Pesticide Applicators Act sets the maximum civil penalty at
$1,000 per violation. The Colorado Department of Agriculture(s June 30,
1993 (Guidelines for Penalties in Enforcement Action ((Guidelines) is
then used in formulating the appropriate enforcement response.  The
Guidelines indicate that cases are to be evaluated in light of the
following factors: a) the type and number of violations committed, b)
the risk associated with the applicator(s actions, c) the risk
associated with the pesticide used, d) the applicator(s compliance
history, and e) the category of the applicator. CDA has recently
developed new penalty guidance which will hopefully be easier to use
while maintaining consistent enforcement responses.

Of the twelve cases reviewed, four were dismissed because of lack of
evidence. In the remaining eight cases, where violations were
documented, the CDA(s actions ranged from issuing a warning to the
assessment of a civil penalty. These actions were consistent with CDA(s
enforcement response policy and penalty matrix.   In the six cases in
which a penalty was assessed, or proposed and referred to the AG, the
amount ranged from $1000 to $2,000.

CDA typically defers a  portion of any assessed penalty providing the
applicator does not have any subsequent violation for a specified period
 (usually one year).  In the four cases reviewed in which a fine was
assessed, 20-30 % of the fine was deferred.  The amount of fine deferred
by the department is determined on a case by case basis. 

The state will continue to focus efforts on eliminating the backlog of
cases and will work towards a goal of closing cases within twelve months
of receiving a complaint.  

		3.	Oversight inspections – other than Worker Protection

No oversight inspections were conducted.

	C.	Compliance Priority – Worker Protection Standard

1.	Reports

a.	The Pesticide Worker Protection Standard Inspection and Enforcement
Accomplishment Report (Form 5700-33H) is included in Appendix 1.

b.	The FY 2005-07 state/Tribal Reporting Form for Pesticide Worker
Safety is attached as Appendix 2.

2.	Significant WPS Cases (FIFRA Section 27)

There were no WPS cases that met the “significant case criteria” in
the cooperative agreement work plan.

3.	WPS oversight inspections

EPA did not accompany state inspectors on any WPS inspections.  

4.	WPS case file evaluation

EPA reviewed a random sample of ten WPS inspections.  Since CDA is
delegated only the commercial applicator program, their WPS inspections
focus on mixer/handler compliance at commercial applicators.

CDA’s inspections are typically conducted at the same time as a
routine office or field inspection.  The inspectors use a check list,
which also serves as the inspection report, which covers most of the WPS
aspects applicable to commercial applicators performing mixing/loading
duties.  However, most of the inspection reports failed to identify the
most recent pesticide application and none of the reports contained a
narrative.  In the two inspections where potential violations were
documented, CDA scheduled follow-up inspections to ensure that
corrective action was taken.  

Say what EPA and the state agreed to do to improve inspections or
enforcement actions

EPA and the state identified no improvements for WPS inspections or
enforcement.  

5.	WPS Compliance Analysis

- Will improvements to inspection/enforcement processes result in more
consistent WPS enforcement? Yes, CDA continues to make improvements to
their inspection/enforcement processes.

- Are certain types of WPS violations consistently found?  PPE and
pesticide safety training. What should be done to correct that?  WPS
outreach and compliance assistance.

- Is it time to review the state’s WPS targeting strategy?  Already
reviewed.

- What changes to WPS education efforts should be made based on the data
on non-compliance? CDA has taken a proactive approach and worked with
CSU to develop WPS outreach and education materials as part of a special
project under  the cooperative enforcement agreement.  

-  What else makes sense?  CDA and CSU are distributing WPS outreach
materials during inspections and training courses.

6.	Worker Protection Risk-Based Targeting Strategy

a.	The current worker protection risk-based targeting strategy is
attached as  Appendix  3, attachment 2.

b.	Implementation of Risk-Based Targeting Strategy

CDA’s WPS risk-based targeting scheme follows the same risk-basked
criteria used to prioritize their commercial applicator inspections. 
Applicators who hold licensure categories with WPS elements are
identified and a WPS inspection is conducted at the same time as a
routine office of field inspection. 

Does the strategy need to be revised?

	CDA plans on revising their strategy should the state acquire primacy
for private 			applicators.

	

	D.		Inspection and Enforcement Support

1.	Training

Provide a brief description that indicates level of training of
state/tribal inspectors.  Once a state/EPA credential agreement is in
place, you should provide a brief statement about the state meeting its
commitments under that agreement. Additional training should be
discussed as well.   

	No CDA inspections currently have EPA inspector credentials.

The state conducted its own pesticide investigation training course
which concentrated on implementation of new state certification
regulations, a new right of entry policy, and sampling procedures. 
Attendance was mandatory for all inspectors.  The state’s on-going
commitment to training produces inspectors who are well-qualified to do
their work.  During the end-of-year review discussions, the state
compliance program manager indicated that the Department has been
meeting their commitments listed in the FIFRA inspector credentials
authorization agreement. 

2.	Enforcement Response Policy

The current Enforcement Response Policy was last revised in Feburary
2001.

 Does the ERP need to be updated?  

The ERP is adequate unless changes are made to the Colorado Pesticide
Applicators Act which increases the maximum civil penalty, currently set
 at $1,000 per violation, or if the state obtains primacy for private
applicators.

3.	Neutral Inspection Scheme

Does the scheme cover the types of inspections for which the state has
targeting responsibility?  Does it need to be updated? 

	As previously discussed, CDA regulates only commercial applicators. 
The CDA 			uses a risk based inspection targeting scheme which seems to
do a good 				job of covering this segment of the regulated universe. 
CDA uses the following 			factors: type of licensee, type of
applications, ratio of qualified supervisors to 			technicians, prior
enforcement history, application sites, and duration since last 		
inspection, to calculate a risk number for all licensed and registered
applicators.  			This list is then divided into a high risk segment, who
are inspected every year, and 		a low risk segment that are inspected
every third year. 

4.	Inspection and Enforcement Procedures

NOTE-- Review of manuals and forms needs to be done:

for new programs, or 

if case file reviews indicate a consistent procedural problem, or

if there are changes in laws/regulations, or

if the state is investing substantial resources on a new compliance
issue, such as e-commerce, or 

if it’s been an “eternity” since anyone reviewed them.

Not reviewed this year.  CDA has its own procedures that facilitate the
quick and effective discovery and prosecution of pesticide violations. 
CDA uses their own forms when conducting inspections under state
authority and credentials. 

 

Is there any key information missing from the state’s manual or from
their forms? Will the state make appropriate changes?  

	

	No.  N/A.

5.	Quality Assurance

a.	QA Audit -- The results of the quality assurance audit conducted in
2001 by the Regional quality assurance office under EPA Order 5360.1 
indicated that CDA’s  QAPP and QMP are acceptable. 

b.	Other QA observations –

None.

6.	Laboratory visit summary

No lab visit this year.  Phone call to lab director confirmed that the
Quality Assurance Project Plan and Standard Operating Procedures are
being followed.  No major equipment was purchased (none listed in the
work plan).

F. Special activities requested by Region 

No special compliance/enforcement activities requested by Region 8.

F.	State-specific priority work

	Special projects are discussed in Section V. below and in CDA’s
end-of-year report, Attachment 3.

	G.	New Legislation and Regulations

The CO Pesticide Applicator’s Act sunsets in 2006.  During FY05, CDA
worked with the Colorado Dept. of Regulatory Affairs (DORA) on sunset
review of the CO Pesticide Applicator’s Act and development of a
proposed new rule to be reviewed by the CO legislature in February 2006.
 CDA also worked with DORA on the introduction of a new bill that would
allow CDA to assume responsibility for certification and enforcement of
private pesticide applicators from EPA.  The CO private applicator bill
will be introduced into the legislature in February 2006.  

	H.	Action Items from Previous End-of-Year Review

No action items were identified for CDA’s  compliance/enforcement
program in the in the previous FY04 end-of year review.

	

	I.	Conclusions and Recommendations for Compliance/Enforcement

The state continues to implement an excellent pesticide enforcement
program.  The state’s on-going commitment to training ensures
inspectors who are well-qualified to do their work.  The state met or
exceeded the projected number of inspections in all categories. 
Investigations were thorough and very well documented.  Enforcement
actions were consistent with the state’s enforcement response policy. 
As agreed last year, the state is responding to complaints of human
exposure within 24 hours.  Although the state will continue to track
their timeliness in responding to human exposure complaints, this will
not be a routine focus of subsequent reviews.  



V.  Technical Review of  Pesticide Program Cooperative Agreement
Activities (Certification & Training, Initiatives, and Enforcement)

(General Program Activities  

Although CDA has not been able to fill the current vacancy for the
Pesticide Section Chief position due to continuing budget constraints,
communication between CDA and EPA continues to be excellent.  Program
management responsibilities have been delegated to the individual
program coordinators. The Pesticide Applicator Coordinator, Enforcement
Specialist, Pesticide Registration Coordinator, and Groundwater
Coordinator conduct continual monitoring of the pesticide programs and
report these issues to the CDA Division Director and the EPA Project
Officer.

The 13-member Colorado Pesticide Advisory Committee reconvened and met
quarterly during FY05.  These individuals play a crucial role by aiding
the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) in rule and regulation
development and public outreach.  They represent the  farming industry,
turf and ornamental applicators, structural applicators, agricultural
applicators, limited commercial/public applicators, the elected public
applicator sector, the agrichemical industry, the general public,
Colorado State University, and the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment.  The EPA Region 8 Project Officer for Colorado has also
been invited to participate in the Advisory Committee meetings.  During
FY05, the committee worked with the Colorado Dept. of Regulatory Affairs
(DORA), on sunset review of the CO Pesticide Applicator’s Act and
development of a proposed new rule to be reviewed by the CO legislature
in February 2006.  The committee also worked with DORA on the
introduction of a new bill that would allow CDA to assume responsibility
for certification and enforcement of private pesticide applicators from
EPA.  The CO private applicator bill will be introduced into the
legislature in February 2006.  

Mitch Yergert was appointed Director
景琠敨倠慬瑮䤠摮獵牴⁹楄楶楳湯椠⁮畊敮‬〲㔰‬敲
汰捡湩⁧潒⁮畔湲牥‬桷⁯敲楴敲⁤牦浯䌠䅄‮䴠瑩档
瀠敲楶畯汳⁹敳癲摥愠⁳⁡敓瑣潩⁮桃敩⁦湩琠敨䐠癩
獩潩⁮景倠慬瑮䤠摮獵牴⹹഍䜨湥牥污吠捥湨捩污删癥
敩⁷景倠獥楴楣敤䌠否‬湉瑩慩楴敶ⱳ愠摮䔠普牯散敭
瑮倠潲牧浡൳

	◦ CDA’s work during FY05 under all three cooperative agreements was
on schedule and consistent with their workplans.

◦  All reports were submitted on time and were reviewed and considered
acceptable by EPA Region 8.

  ◦ All travel authorized by the cooperative agreements was carried
out appropriately.

◦  No equipment or real property was purchased using EPA coop.
agreements funds and CDA did not conduct any conferences using coop.
agreement funds.

◦ CDA continued to have an MOU (sub-agreement) with CSU during FY05 to
develop study guides and conduct pesticide applicator training; more
specific details of the C&T program are discussed in the Certification &
Training Section below.  CDA is also working on three on-going special
projects, the development of a web-based pesticide and groundwater
information tool for Colorado, an agricultural pesticide use survey for
use by CDA’s  water program, and a WPS education and outreach project.
  

◦ No unanticipated program income was generated by CDA.

◦  There was no EPA-furnished or recipient-furnished in kind
assistance contributed to any of the coop. agreements in FY05. 

 

(  Certification and Training

	CDA completed loading the Colorado State Certification Plan into the
EPA Pesticide C&T Plan and Annual Reporting Web-Based Template System
during FY05 and updated the template plan in September 2005.

CDA certified 427 commercial applicators and re-certified 846 commercial
applicators during FY05.  A total of 3,194 commercial applicators held
valid certifications at the end of FY05.  All commitments were met. 

CDA representatives attended the 2005 National Pesticide Applicator C&T
Workshop in Madison, WI, the 2005 Western Regional Pesticide Conference
in Las Vegas, NV, and the AAPCO and SFIREG meetings held in the
Washington, D.C. area in 2005.  CDA continues to keep abreast of
Certification and Training Advisory Group (CTAG) activities and
recommendations.

In December 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed with
the Colorado State University Pesticide Education Office (CSU) to update
and maintain the State(s applicator exam and question database.  New
test generations are completed on a semiannual basis with the test
question updates.  This MOU is renewed on a yearly basis with the aid of
EPA funding.  With the aid of CSU, CDA updated, printed and distributed
one new exam study guide, the Forest Pest Control Guide. Distribution of
this guide began in September 2005. The CDA Licensing and Examination
Guide was updated to reflect the new study guide distribution
information. CSU began work on the Public Health Pest Control study
guide in FY06.

The test question database continues to be reviewed. CSU has made
additional updates to correct punctuation, misspellings, and added
additional wording to improve readability and clarity in test questions.
New questions were added into the General Core Category test to address
Environmental Safety when applying pesticides around structures. Items
added dealt with hazard identification (i.e., children(s toys, domestic
animal food dishes and toys, etc.). The exam database was maintained and
updated using applicant input, ParScore analyses of tests taken,
questions written in conjunction with revised or new study guides, and
other necessary changes.

In FY05, CDA identified volunteers from industry to participate on a
Test Item Writing Committee.  The committee reviewed  the test databases
for CDA's existing Turf Pest Control category and updated and developed
new test questions using methods obtained from the National Exam
Development Seminar (May, 2000). 

CDA reviewed 97 proposed workshops for continuing education credits 
(CEC(s), 82 workshops were approved by the CDA providing qualified
supervisors and certified operators a variety of opportunities to meet
continuing education requirements. 641 continuing education credits 
(CEC(s) were issued and the number of attendees totaled 1,704. CDA
advertises all workshops directly to each applicator/operator via direct
mailing and e-mail and also posts the information on their website.  

CDA staff members monitored and evaluated all workshops held in Colorado
during FY05.  These evaluations are used for guidance in the upcoming
training sessions to be approved in FY06 and are discussed with the
workshop providers.

CDA maintains a registry of pesticide sensitive individuals.  These
individuals are to be pre-notified of all turf and ornamental
applications made to abutting property(s). 91 individuals were placed on
the pesticide sensitive register in FY05.  This is an increase from 81
listed in FY04.

During FY05, CDA continued to work with the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment  (CDPHE) distribute information pertaining
to West Nile Virus WNV) and mosquito abatement and to inform CDPHE of
the certification and registration requirements for commercial and
public applicators.  CDA has added links on its web site to WNV related
issues, registered pesticide products, and links to CSU(s CEPEP page.

On August 26, 2005, CDA held its annual Workshop Providers Meeting with
industry representatives.  The goal of the meeting is to deliver
enforcement and certification information. Topics reviewed included: the
numbers and categories of applicants tested, testing statistics, the
numbers and types of violation notices issued, the numbers and types of
Cease and Desist Orders (CDO(s) issued, a breakdown of the types and
categories of complaints received during the fiscal year. All
information reported on is designed to aid workshop providers by
identifying enforcement compliance issues where their applicators need
additional training.  For those workshop providers who had significant
monitoring discrepancies identified in 2005, CDA is requiring the
provider management and their staff to attend a monitoring training
session as a condition of approval in FY 06. 

CDA(s laws and regulation presentations in FY05 focused on the WPS
requirements, recent rule changes, and the Pesticide Applicator Act
sunset bill.  CDA performs rule and regulation training sessions upon
request to workshop providers and associations to disseminate and
educate commercial pesticide applicators.

CDA continues to update its approved speaker database, implemented in
FY02. The database lists all speakers, credentials / bio-information and
CEC credits approved in the past. This database aids workshop providers
by streamlining the CEC course submittal process, which alleviates the
requirement of submitting new speaker bio-information, for those already
on file.  

(  Worker Protection 

CDA has an approved Worker Protection Standard (WPS) implementation plan
(last updated FY00) that reflects current regulatory requirements.  CDA
conducted  16 Tier 1 and 39 Tier 2 WPS compliance monitoring inspections
during FY05.  Nine violations were found and 2 warning letters were
issued.  Inspectors met the Tier 1 and Tier 2 inspection requirements in
all FY05 inspections.

Worker protection standard inspections are conducted by CDA to insure
all commercial applicators and their handlers are meeting WPS
requirements. CDA inspectors conduct these inspections during routine
office and field inspections.  CDA continues to include WPS training and
enforcement with other routine commercial agricultural inspections.  In
addition, during routine record-keeping checks, technician training is
verified.

Although CDA has no jurisdiction over private applicators, the
inspection staff has been relaying WPS requirements to nursery and
greenhouse growers, whom they inspect for the CDA's Plant's Division
(chemigation, nursery, and groundwater containment inspections).  CDA
feels that these agricultural producers are severely lacking in
knowledge and training about WPS requirements. 



CSU and EPA are the main sources for information and training materials
for WPS in Colorado since CDA does not regulate the private sector. 

	In FY 05, CDA, in a joint effort with industry, developed and presented
WPS training, specific to agricultural producers and employers. Over 50
individuals were trained at 4 separate locations in the San Luis Valley,
as well as a special presentation to the Colorado Potato Administrative
Committee.   

	One CDA inspector attended the WPS Inspector PIRT course in Yuma, AZ.,
October 17-21, 2004 and two CDA inspectors attended the Region 8
Inspector training in Cody, WY., April 19-21, 2005.  

	CDA and CSU’s Environmental Pesticide Education Program (CEPEP) have
enhanced and expanded the pesticide safety education infrastructure to
include Worker Protection Standard "How to Comply" training for Colorado
growers and agricultural establishments.  CDA and CEPEP addressed this
issue by targeting CSU County Extension Agents and CDA Agricultural
Inspectors.  In turn the agents and inspectors have multiplied the
impact via their interaction with agricultural establishments including
farms, nurseries and greenhouse.  The purpose of the project has been to
give the agents and inspectors an in depth overviews of the WPS
requirements allowing them to aid growers and agricultural
establishments in understanding the regulation and thereby, complying.  

	In April 2005, CDA's enforcement, certification and training program
managers, CDA inspectors, and CSU CEPEP personnel participated in the
EPA Region 8 sponsored WPS Train-the-Trainer Program.  During this
course, CDA networked with Migrant Health Clinicians, Farm Bureau,
Colorado Legal Services, and migrant worker advocacy groups and provided
each with contact information for complaint referrals that fall under
CDA’s jurisdiction.    

	CSU CEPEP conducted WPS training for CDA Ag Inspectors with specific
emphasis on the details of the WPS as outlined in the EPA Region 8
Inspection checklist.  A similar all-day training was provided to CSU
County Extension Agents as part of the 2005 Annual Forum In-Service
Training.  CD-ROMs and EPA Region 8 WPS packets were distributed at both
training sessions.

	CDA has reviewed the National Program Assessment of EPA’s Worker
Protection Program and attended the WPS PREP in Atlantic City, N.J.,
September 12-16, 2005.  During the PREP course, CDA participated in the
development of potential rules changes to 40 C.F.R. in relation to the
National Program Assessment. 

	In FY 05, CDA began working with the CDPHE, CSU, and Rocky Mountain
Poison Control (RMPC) to develop, track, and report occupational
pesticide exposures.  The initial proposal for tracking has been
discussed and CDA continues to work with RMPC for implementation in FY
06. RMPC may possibly be able to track exposure data for Montana as
well. RMPC will require funding in FY 06 to cover retooling of their
systems to capture requested date, training costs, and reporting. 

( Water Program

Colorado(s Generic State Management Plan for Pesticides in Groundwater
(SMP) was approved by EPA in March of 2000.  

Colorado has an Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Protection
program.  The program is a coordinated effort between CDA (the lead
agency), Colorado State University Cooperative Extension (CSUCE), and
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).  The
three implementing agencies are aggressively pursuing public outreach
and providing information on the Colorado Water Quality Control Act.  
The three agencies met on a monthly basis or more during FY05 in order
to ensure coordination and integration of activities, and to discuss
progress and problems in implementation.  

A 17 member advisory committee with representatives from the green
industry, the agri-chemical industry, commercial applicators, the
general public, and the Water Quality Control Commission, was appointed
by the Agricultural Commission to help achieve public outreach and to
help address policy questions.  The advisory committee met once during
FY 04 to discuss program direction with respect to monitoring,
education, and regulatory issues. 

CDA is involved in compliance assistance activities related to
pesticides and water.  Education and information regarding the
regulations for storage, mixing, and loading of agricultural chemicals
continue to be provided to applicators, growers, and dealers.  This
includes information on the rules and regulations for bulk storage
facilities and mixing and loading areas.  Education and voluntary
compliance are the primary tools for accomplishing the goals of the
program.  The program has an aggressive education program in the South
Platte Basin that includes field demonstrations to demonstrate Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to growers.  In FY 05, work continued to
focus on a cooperative effort with the Colorado Corn Growers Association
to demonstrate BMPs on crediting nitrogen in irrigation water, nutrient
management planning, irrigation scheduling, use of polyacrylamides, and
pest scouting. 

CDA continues to do groundwater monitoring throughout Colorado.  A
long-range sampling plan has been developed for the monitoring program. 
The plan covers three major types of groundwater monitoring: 1) initial
screening surveys are conducted on all major aquifers subject to
contamination from agricultural chemicals - the screening surveys for
the South Platte River alluvial aquifer, San Luis Valley unconfined
aquifer, Arkansas River alluvial aquifer, the Front Range Urban
Corridor, the High Plains Ogalala Aquifer, and the Western Slope are
complete; 2)  a follow-up sampling program to resample all wells in
which any contaminant was detected at a level of concern (and
surrounding wells, if available)- all follow-up sampling for the major
aquifers has been completed; and 3)  specialized sampling is needed for
evaluation of Best Management Practices or Agricultural Management Areas
when established.

In FY 05, the program completed the 10th year of a long term monitoring
effort in the South Platte alluvial aquifer from Brighton to Greeley. 
The program also resampled  Arkansas River Valley wells that were
installed in FY04  and began sampling new wells along the Front
Range/Urban corridor.  The program also continued work on a statewide
aquifer vulnerability study which will help determine the likelihood of
an agricultural chemical entering the groundwater.

During FY05, CDA conducted 148 inspections on various containment and
loading pad types.   One CDO, one violation notice, and 38 follow-up
inspections were issued and performed.



(  Endangered Species

	EPA is still developing ES county bulletins for Colorado.  In FY 05,
CDA continued to send ES bulletins it received from EPA Region 8 to all
pesticide applicators on its established list server.  CDA added a web
link to the EPA and Colorado Division of Wildlife(s Threatened and
Endangered Species. 

	CDA’s Pesticide Registration Coordinator has established contact with
the Colorado field office of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).  Each
section 18 request submitted to EPA for 2005 was also provided to FWS
for review.  FWS provided comments back to CDA and also directly to EPA.
 We also forwarded on any FWS comments to EPA.

CDA(s enforcement responsibilities in Colorado cover label violations
committed by certified commercial, limited commercial/public applicators
that involve ES label restrictions for registered pesticide products. 
No violations were issued based on endangered species restrictions in
FY05.  

( Urban Initiative

A cooperative compliance agreement for inspections and enforcement of
urban misuse of pesticides has been proposed and discussed with the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).  However,
no formal MOU between CDA and CDPHE has been signed due to lack of
funding and staff turnover, but a detailed awareness of the urban
initiative has been established.  CDA is committed to monitoring this
initiative.



(  Biological Pest Management - CDA Insectary

CDA continues to operate an excellent biological control program for
noxious weeds and insect pests through its Insectary in Palisade, CO.  
Representatives from OPP and Region 8 visited the CDA Insectary in July
2005 as part of the CO Organic Crop Tour.  

Colorado has developed a State (Strategic Plan to Stop the Spread of
Noxious Weeds( (Dec. 2001).  CDA continues to implement and promote the
strategic plan throughout the State. 

Dan Bean was appointed as the new Director of the CDA Insectary in
2005, replacing Eric Lane who was serving as Interim Director after Kent
Mowrer retired in 2004.  Eric Lane continues to serve as CDA(s State
weed coordinator and gave presentations during FY05 throughout CO at
symposiums and workshops to increase awareness of the noxious weed
problem and discuss Colorado(s Strategic Plan.  

Funding from the FY05 EPA Pesticide Initiative cooperative agreement has
allowed for the continuation of biological pest control efforts in
Colorado and  has helped the Insectary develop into a Western Regional
Center for biological pest control.  A general summary of  the
Insectary’s  regional and in-state ativities is listed below. 

 

 	The Insectary maintained the only continuous laboratory culture of
Anaphes flavipes in the US. A. flavipes is a wasp that parasitizes the
eggs of the cereal leaf beetle (CLB), a serious pest of small grains.
The Insectary produced and shipped over 32,000 Anaphes-parasitized CLB
eggs to collaborators in Oregon, Idaho and Washington in a program to
establish field insectaries for the further distribution of this wasp.

   The Insectary hosted a meeting of the Western Region CLB
biocontrol group in September 2005 to plan and coordinate strategies for
biological control of CLB in the West in 2006. Representatives attended
from Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California and Colorado.

   The Insectary took the lead role in the collection, storage and
shipment of approximately 60,000 tamarisk leaf beetles, Diorhabda
elongata, in a seven state tamarisk (saltcedar) biocontrol
implementation program coordinated by USDA- APHIS.  The Insectary is
currently holding 25,000 overwintering leaf beetles that will be used to
expand the biocontrol program from seven to thirteen states in the
spring of 2006.

The Insectary hosted a meeting of researchers from the saltcedar
consortium to plan and coordinate strategies for matching biological
control agents with environmental conditions found across the range of
the tamarisk invasion in the western US. Federal and state
representatives from four western states were present.

  In FY05, the Insectary began a collaborative effort to provide
biocontrol agents to            other facilities and institutions in
exchange for agents that can be used in Colorado.        The Insectary
now has collaborative exchanges with facilities in Oregon, Utah, Idaho  
   and Nevada on programs such as field bindweed, purple loosestrife and
Dalmat潩⁮††††潴摡汦硡‮ഠ

   Survey of all previous spotted and diffuse knapweed predator
release sites.  Collection of predators from field insectary sites. 
Release of predators at new spotted and diffuse knapweed infestations. 
Establishment of field insectary sites for newly imported predators. 
Produce artificial diet for rearing knapweed predators.

	Survey and collection for redistribution of leafy spurge predators. 
Release of field collected predators at newly identified leafy spurge
infestations.

	Survey and collect musk thistle predators.  Release predators at
predetermined sites and identify future collection sites.

	Rear and release yellow and Dalmatian toadflax predators to field
insectary sites.  Survey previous release sites for establishment and
effects on toadflax infestations.

	Produce artificial diet for rearing purple loosestrife predators. 
Rear and release predators of purple loosestrife.  Survey for
establishment and benefits.

	Propagate field bindweed predators.  Release at field insectary
sites in eastern Colorado.  Determine establishment and rate of
expansion.

	Locate field insectary sites for future release of  beneficial
insects targeting Russian knapweed and tamarisk.

	Survey for establishment of cereal leaf beetle on small grains. 
Rear and release egg parasites for suppression of cereal leaf beetle
infestations.

	Collect alfalfa weevil samples to determine establishment and
distribution of parasites.  Rear and release parasites for distribution
to alfalfa weevil infestations.

	Record all release and survey site information on a global
positioning system.  Map these results using the program from the
Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey.  This information will be used to
plot location of pest infestations, status of beneficial insect
population, effectiveness of programs and to help prioritize efforts in
the future. 

	Results of the post-release surveys and releases of beneficial
insects will be included in the follow-up detail report.  Maps that are
generated from this information will also be included when they are
completed. 

(Enforcement  

CDA continues to require State registration safety and efficacy data for
pesticides that are exempt from registration requirements under Section
25(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).  In addition, CDA continues to require State registration
safety and efficacy data for devices, which are also not required to be
registered under FIFRA.  These State registrations require a significant
amount time for review, processing, and followup by CDA. 

CDA uses a risk-based management priority setting plan to accomplish
timely case compilation and review.  Time frames for action have been
established with the goal of making a final determination and taking
enforcement action, if appropriate, within 45 days after the case
investigation has been completed.  Complaint investigations are CDA(s
top priority, and CDA usually responds to requests for investigation
within 24 to 48 hours.  CDA expedites cases involving significant damage
or health concerns.

A reporting issue concerning what is considered a full for-cause
inspection vs. a followup inspection was identified during the FY04
end-of-year review with CDA and was noted in EPA’s FY04 end-of-year
report.  EPA discussed the reporting issue with all of the SLAs at the
FY05 Region 8 Pesticide Managers Meeting in Sept. 2005 to make sure all
six of our States are using consistent enforcement reporting policies. 
CDA resolved the reporting issue during FY05 and no discrepancies were
noted on their FY05 5700-33H form.

During FY05, CDA reported to have conducted 179 agricultural use
inspections, 326 nonagricultural use inspections, 20 agricultural
for-cause inspections, and  44 nonagricultural for-cause inspections;
which far exceeded their commitments.  As a result of the FY05
inpections, CDA issued 88 warning letters,  19 license modifications, 43
license or certification suspensions, no license revocations, and 19
fines (these numbers were similar for FY04 and FY03).  CDA issued 19
civil complaints and referred 7 criminal complaints County District
Attorneys in FY05.  In addition, 581 Cease & Desist Orders (CDOs) were
issued as a result of marketplace inspections.  CDA noted that they have
revised their CDO procedures for pesticide product violations and they
are now requiring the respondent (usually the retailer) to provide a
written explanation on how the violation was resolved.  CDA will be
changing their database to have the ability to track and report these
outcomes.

	

CDA continued to use the Field Activity Reporting Module (F.A.R.M.) to
risk-base all commercial applicators licensed or registered with the
department.  This program allows the CDA to run reports for inspector
enforcement priority guidance and internal tracking of routine
enforcement accomplishments.  In addition, inspectors can see
enforcement actions taken, along with stipulation requirements and the
most recent inspections that have been conducted.

CDA continued to update its web site information on how to file a formal
complaint on a pesticide applicator and information on the Pesticide
Sensitive Registry and also continued to provide information to the ag.
community via their e-mail list-server.  Updates on CEC's, enforcement
issues, pesticide registration approval/cancellations, and other
regulatory issues are distributed through e-mail. 

	CDA’s Enforcement Specialist has made excellent progress in
streamlining the case compilation and review process and has developed a
new, well organized filing system for CDA(s enforcement cases.

During FY05, CDA field inspectors attended several training courses and
conferences.  CDA continues to implement a comprehensive integrated
training program for new inspectors.

"

Æ

¶

-

 

&

6

O

}

´

µ

º

ç

ê

í

î

ï

õ

hÚ

 hËE

! hËE

B*

摧ぁ3

摧ぁ3

摧ぁ3

摧ぁ3

 hß=

 hß=

hß=

hß=

 hËE



 h 

gd 

gd 

␃ഃࣆȀﴰŨ؀␪㄁Ĥ␷㠁Ĥ⑈愁̤摧籩Ò

摧狏

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

# concerns about these products to EPA and to CDC.  For the 25(b) exempt
products, many of the registrants voluntarily cancelled their State (CO)
registrations when informed of the data call-in.  In the end, CDA
reviewed data from ten 25(b) exempt products, mostly for new
applications.  CDA accepted three (3) out of the ten products reviewed,
but only after the registrant agreed to label changes.

VI.  Areas/Issues of Concern

          It should be noted that, due to continued budget constraints
in FY05, CDA has not been able to fill the Pesticide Section Chief
position.  Program management responsibilities have been delegated to
the individual program coordinators. The Pesticide Applicator
Coordinator, Enforcement Specialist, Pesticide Registration Coordinator,
and Groundwater Coordinator conduct continual monitoring of CDA’s 
pesticide programs and report any issues to the CDA Division Director. 
EPA feels that this system is working well and is not particularly
concerned about the vacant position.  Communication between CDA and EPA
continues to be excellent.

     Some initial discussions have been held with the CDPHE to develop a
contingency plan for responding to serious urban pesticide misuse
incidents, including potential misuse of powerful agricultural
pesticides in residential or business settings.  However, the plan has
not yet been completed due to lack of funding and personnel changes.

     CDA has completed loading their State Certification and Training
Plan into the C&T template database.  Region 8 has reviewed and
concurred on the template plan.  If CDA’s private applicator bill is
adopted by the CO legislature in FY06 and EPA agrees to delegate the
CPPA program to the State, the C&T Plan and template will need to be
revised.

VII.  Recommendations

     CDA should keep EPA informed about their budget situation,
particularly with respect to State funding for CDA(s Insectary.  If
State funding for the Insectary is cut,  CDA should work with EPA to
determine how best to use EPA grant funds that are currently designated
for the Biological Control/Insectary program.

     In addition, if the budget allows, a contingency plan for serious
urban pesticide misuse incidents and other high visibility cases should
be developed in cooperation with CDPHE.   





VIII.  Technical Assistance Provided by EPA

     EPA will continue to provide pertinent information about national
program policies and activities to CDA through routine e-mail and phone
calls.  Region 8 and CDA have exchanged lists of dealers that sell
restricted use pesticides, and Region 8 has provided a list of certified
private applicators to assist with department programs.  The nature of
the State and federal enforcement and applicator certification programs
in Colorado requires continued close coordination between Region 8 and
CDA.  Region 8 and CDA routinely share information regarding inspections
and potential violations through an informal referral process.  Region 8
will continue to be available to assist, as necessary, in updating
formal documents like the Quality Assurance Project Plan and the State
Plan for Pesticide Applicator Certification.

     Regarding delegation of the Private Pesticide Applicator Program to
CDA, Region 8 has drafted a plan to assist CDA with the transition if
the CO legislature adopts  the proposed private applicator bill in 2006.

     The EPA Headquarters pesticide website includes a link to the
Region 8 pesticide website.  Links to pesticide web pages that have been
developed by all state departments of agriculture and the extension
service from each state in the Region can be found on the Region 8
pesticide website.  

____________________________

For questions or additional information contact:

Peg Perreault

Colorado Project Officer

EPA Region 8

Pesticide Team

ph:  303-312-6286

e-mail:  perreault.peg@epa.gov



( PAGE  6 (

( PAGE  7 (

( PAGE  13 (

( PAGE  19 (

( PAGE  21 (

( PAGE  23 (