Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit that will result in a discharge to waters of the United States, and at least once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide application for that calendar year, any Decision-maker who is or will be required to submit an NOI must select and implement efficient and effective means of Pest Management Measures that minimize discharges resulting from the application of pesticides to control pests. In developing the Pest Management Measures for each management area, the Decision-maker must evaluate the following management options, including a combination of 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. Pest control activities in forest canopy management programs may be warranted following problem identification and based solely on pest occurrence (e.g., quarantine pest, invasive species). However, in many instances control activities may only be necessary based on pest population distribution and/or pest densities. To minimize the need for pest control while also producing the best control results, Pest Management Measures appropriate for the specific problem site(s) must be developed. A site-specific management plan will consider biotic (e.g., plant and animal species community structure) and abiotic (e.g., environmental) factors. Combinations of various management options are frequently the most effective Pest Management Measures over the long term. The goal of Pest Management Measures in forest canopy pest control should be to emphasize long-term control rather than a temporary fix.
All Pest Management Measures must be conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to non-target species. The following is a discussion of the relevant management options as they might be implemented for forest canopy pest control. Tactics of preventative, cultural, mechanical/physical, and biological Pest Management Measures may overlap for some aquatic systems or specific pest control situations.
No Action
No action is to be taken, although a pest problem has been identified. This may be appropriate in cases where available control methods may cause secondary or non-target impacts or where aesthetic/economic losses are not anticipated.
Mechanical/Physical Methods
Mechanical and biological controls will be the appropriate method in some cases, or a part of a combination of methods. In some instances, the need for chemical pesticide use in and adjacent to the affected habitat can be reduced or virtually eliminated with proper execution of alternative measures and best management practices.
Mechanical control techniques will vary depending on the pest. An example of mechanical control in a forest canopy would be egg mass removal (e.g., gypsy moth).
Cultural Methods
Cultural control methods are Pest Management Measures 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.
Biological Control Agents
Biological control of forest canopy pests may be achieved through the introduction/enhancement of diseases, predators, or parasites. In addition, forest canopy pest control programs aimed specifically at insects may also utilize sterile insect release, mating disruption, and biological pesticides. While biological controls generally have limited applications for forest canopy pest control programs, they should be fully considered as an option in the development of Pest Management Measures. The latter two control approaches are often utilized when controlling for gypsy moth.
Pesticides
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. They are aerially applied. As described below, once the determination is made to use pesticides, additional requirements must be met.
Part 2.2.4.c. -- Pesticide Use
Conduct surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem prior to each application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the pest action threshold is met. Decision-makers must apply pesticides only as needed as determined by pre-established criteria and pest action thresholds. Decision-makers must establish a pest action threshold that warrants pesticide application based on problem identification and pest surveillance. In order to establish pest densities and determine when pest action thresholds have been met, forest canopy pest control programs must include pest surveillance activities as an integral component of Pest Management Measures. Pest surveillance is necessary to detect the presence (or confirm the absence) and magnitude of pest populations in a given location and precisely pinpoint zones of infestation. Surveillance activities will vary according to the pest (insect, weed, or pathogen) but in general should include observations of pest numbers, developmental stage of the current infestation, and biotic factors which would enhance development/expansion of pest populations (e.g., weather, crowding, predators, pathogens, etc.).
Pest surveillance will vary according to pest type and species. For insect pests, surveillance activities may include, but not be limited to, pheromone traps, sticky traps, light traps, defoliation monitoring. In some cases, traps used in surveillance activities have been developed to the extent that they alone provide adequate control of the targeted pest, thus eliminating the need for pesticides completely. Conversely, in the instance of quarantine pests or invasive species, pest identification alone may suffice to fulfill surveillance requirements and indicate need for control measures. Regardless, surveillance should take into account local environmental conditions and projected environmental conditions, which would support development and/or spread of the pest population and which would limit the choice or effectiveness of control activities.
It is also important to continue surveillance following control activities to assess the efficacy of Pest Management Measures and to monitor for new pests. Surveillance can determine if the current techniques are effective and whether additional Pest Management Measures are required, particularly pesticide application. Based on follow-up surveillance activity, Decision-makers can make informed decisions which serve to increase the effectiveness of their control programs and minimize the potential for pollutant discharges to waters of the United States. Surveillance is necessary not only to establish the pest presence and its abundance but also as an evaluation tool of the effectiveness of chemical control activities. Furthermore, surveillance should be used as an indicator of the need for additional chemical control activities based on pre-established criteria related to population densities in local areas.
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) have been met. Forest canopy pest and site restrictions (water use, water movement, etc.) must be identified when choosing an appropriate pesticide. For instance, with gypsy moth control, a biological insecticide, Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki, is usually selected. However, if endangered or threatened butterfly or moth species are in the area, a viral insecticide that specifically targets gypsy moth larvae should be considered. Environmental factors such as temperature, as well as biological factors such as migration timing, should be considered when deciding on application timing. Partial site pesticide applications over time may be considered to minimize risk to non-target organisms. Pesticide application must be limited to the appropriate amount required to control the target pests. Methods used in applying pesticides should weigh the potential impact to non-target species.
Evaluate using pesticides against the most susceptible developmental stage. For forest canopy pests, pesticides should be selected that target the most susceptible life stage. Gypsy moth caterpillars are susceptible to control by chemical pesticides, or by ingestion of nucleopolyhedrosis virus occlusion bodies.
Recommended Forest Canopy Pest Control Reference
EPA recommends the following sources for additional information on Pest Management Measures for forest canopy pest control:
Emily Grafton and Ralph Webb. Homeowner's guide to gypsy moth management. West Virginia University Extension Service. http://www.nj.gov/agriculture/divisions/pi/pdf/GMguide.pdf
USDA. (rev. 2019). Gypsy Moth Program Manual. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/domestic/downloads/gypsy_moth.pdf
USDA. 2016. Asian Gypsy Moth Factsheet. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/plant_health/content/printable_version/fs_phasiangm.pdf
Reardon, Podgwaite, and Zerillo. GYPCHEK- Environmentally Safe Viral Insecticide for Gypsy Moth. FHTET-2012-01. 2[nd] ed. March 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/pdfs/Gypchek_FHTET-2012-01_2ndEd.pdf
Kucera, Daniel and P. Orr. Spruce Budworm in the Eastern United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 160. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_042853.pdf
Michael, Jerry. 2004. Best Management Practices for Silvicultural Chemicals and the Science behind Them. Water, Air, and Pollution: Focus. 4(1), 95-11
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
In addition to technology-based effluent limitations for all discharges of pollutants, the CWA requires additional effluent limitations that are as stringent as necessary to achieve water quality standards. These are called water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs). Permit writers are to assess whether the technology-based effluent limitations are protective of water quality standards, and if not, permit writers must also include WQBELs as necessary to ensure that the discharge of pollutants will not cause an excursion above any state water quality standard, including state narrative criteria for water quality (see 40 CFR 122.44(d)). In developing WQBELs, permit writers must consider the potential impact of every proposed surface water discharge of pollutants on the quality of the receiving water. Unlike individual permits that include requirements tailored to site-specific considerations, general permits, while tailored to specific industrial processes or types of discharges of pollutants (e.g., from the application of pesticides), often do not contain site-specific WQBELs. Instead, in general, EPA includes a narrative statement that addresses WQBELs. In this permit the WQBEL is as follows:
All Operators must control discharges as necessary to meet applicable numeric and narrative state, territory, or tribal water quality standards, for any discharges authorized under this permit, with compliance required upon beginning such discharge.
If at any time an Operator becomes aware (e.g., through self-monitoring or by notification from the state, tribe, or territory), or EPA determines, that a discharge causes or contributes to an excursion of any applicable water quality standards, the Operator must take corrective action as required in Part 6 up to and including the ceasing of the discharge, if necessary.
The first sentence includes the general requirement to control discharges of pollutants as necessary to meet water quality standards, while the second sentence implements this requirement in more specific terms by imposing on Operators a responsibility to take corrective action in response to an excursion of applicable water quality standards, whether discovered by EPA or by the Operator. Failure to take such corrective action is a violation of the permit. Additionally, the permit includes a provision, in Part 1.2.3 of the PGP, that specifies that EPA may determine that additional technology-based and/or water quality-based effluent limitations are necessary, or may deny coverage under this permit and require submission of an application for an individual NPDES permit, as detailed in Part 1.3.
Each Operator is required to control its discharge of pollutants as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. In general, EPA expects that compliance with the other conditions in this permit (e.g., the technology-based limitations, corrective actions, etc.) will result in discharges of pollutants that are controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards based on the cumulative effect of the following factors, which are described below:
     (1) Under FIFRA, EPA evaluates risk associated with pesticides and mitigates unreasonable ecological risk. Compliance with FIFRA is required. (See Part III.1.5 of the fact sheet.)
     (2) In developing the PGP, EPA evaluated national - scale ambient monitoring data, as well as the frequency of the identification of specific pesticides as the cause of water impairments, to assess whether pesticide residues are currently present in waters at levels that would exceed water quality standards. The monitoring data, although limited in scope, show that, in most samples, most pesticides were below ambient water quality criteria or benchmarks developed by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). For the assessment of the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program's 1992-2001 data, ambient water quality criteria were available for 7 of the 83 analytes and one or more OPP benchmarks were available for 60 of the 83 analytes. For the small number of pesticides found in monitoring data to be present above such benchmarks, the evaluation, as summarized in Appendices B and C of the fact sheet for the 2011 PGP, also documents risk mitigation actions taken by EPA (such as cancellation of pesticide uses) that EPA expects have reduced the levels of those pesticides in water EPA also assessed the study USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) released in 2014. A summary of the evaluation and risk mitigation actions taken by EPA is available in Appendices B and C of the fact sheet for this permit.
     (3) Technology-based effluent limitations in the PGP provide further protections beyond compliance with existing FIFRA requirements.
     (4) Biological pesticides discharged to waters, by regulatory definition, do not work through a toxic mode of action. For chemical pesticides, the discharges of pollutants covered under the PGP are the residues after the pesticide has performed its intended purpose. Thus, the residue will be no higher than, and in many instances, lower than, the concentration of the pesticide as applied.
     (5) The PGP excludes pesticide applications that result in discharges of any pollutant to (1) waters impaired for an active ingredient of that pesticide or a degradate of such an active ingredient, or (2) any Tier 3 waters (i.e., outstanding national resource waters) except for pesticide applications 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.
     (6)	EPA has no evidence in the record that implementation of the 2011 and 2016 PGP has resulted in documented water quality problems.
In addition to the six factors identified above, EPA cannot issue an NPDES permit until the state, territory or tribe in which the discharge originates certifies that the discharge will comply with applicable provisions of the CWA or waives certification. Therefore, Part 9 of the PGP includes conditions included by States, and authorized Tribes in their CWA § 401 certification actions on the draft 2021 PGP, which meet the requirements of CWA Section 401 and EPA's CWA Section 401 implementing regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 124.53(e)(1).
This PGP requires Operators to control discharges of pollutants as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. When the Operator or EPA determines a discharge of pollutants will cause or contribute to an excursion above any WQS, including failure to protect and maintain existing designated uses of receiving waters, the Operator must take corrective action to ensure that the situation is eliminated and will not be repeated in the future. (See Part 6.0 of the PGP). If additional Pest Management Measures are required, the Operator is required to follow and document, as applicable, the process for Pest Management Measure selection, installation, implementation and maintenance, and cooperate to eliminate the identified problem within the timeframe stipulated in Part 6.0 of the PGP.
(1) Under FIFRA, EPA evaluates risks associated with pesticides and considers mitigation measures to address risks that exceed levels of concern.
Background
EPA regulates the use of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In general, FIFRA authorizes EPA to register each pesticide product intended for distribution or sale in the United States. To register a pesticide, the Agency must determine that its use in accordance with the label will not cause "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." (see, e.g., FIFRA sec. 3(c)(5)). FIFRA defines that term to mean, in part, "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide" (FIFRA sec. 2(bb)). The "unreasonable adverse effects" standard requires EPA, in effect, to balance the human health and ecological risks of using a pesticide against its economic, social, human health, and ecological benefits. Pesticides are registered for sale and distribution only if EPA determines that the benefits outweigh the risks. In making decisions on whether to register a pesticide, EPA considers the use directions on proposed product labeling and evaluates data on product chemistry, human health, ecological effects, and environmental fate to assess the potential risks associated with the use(s) proposed by the applicants for registration and expressed on the labeling. Among other things, the Agency evaluates the risks to human health and the environment (including water quality) posed by the use of the pesticide.
As stated above, EPA reviews and approves pesticide product labeling. EPA implements risk mitigation measures identified through the risk assessment process by placing use restrictions and warnings on labeling to ensure the use of the pesticide (under actual use circumstances and commonly accepted practice) will not cause any "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." It is a violation under FIFRA sec. 12(a)(2)(G) (FIFRA's "misuse" provision) to use a registered pesticide inconsistent with its labeling.
After a pesticide has been registered, changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. FIFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, mandates a registration review program, under which the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to ensure that as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment. The Agency is implementing the registration review program pursuant to Section 3(g) of FIFRA and will review each registered pesticide every 15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. Information on this program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
Ecological Risk Assessment
The following is a discussion about the FIFRA risk assessment process with a focus on Ecological (specifically aquatic) Assessments. Entities seeking pesticide registrations bear the burden of demonstrating their products meet the statutory standard under FIFRA. As set forth in 40 CFR Part 158, applicants for pesticide registrations must provide EPA with a suite of product chemistry, residue chemistry, toxicity, environmental fate, and ecotoxicity studies, to support an application for registration. To support outdoor uses, studies are required that provide information related to the environmental fate and transport of the chemical and that measure the acute and chronic toxicity to terrestrial and aquatic organisms. These studies, along with open literature that meet data quality guidelines, are the basis for the ecological risk assessments. The ecological risk assessment combines the results of an environmental exposure assessment and an ecological effect assessment for a pesticide active ingredients to produce a quantitative measure of potential risk. A risk characterization is also presented to put the quantitative assessment of risk in the context of other lines of evidence, such as available monitoring data and incident reports, and to discuss uncertainties in the risk assessment. The quantitative and qualitative determination of potential ecological risk is independent of economic or other benefit considerations.
Aquatic Exposure Characterization
EPA estimates pesticide concentrations in aquatic environments to determine if exposure to a pesticide active ingredient is at a level that could cause unreasonable adverse effects to aquatic organisms. EPA estimates pesticide concentrations in water using peer-reviewed simulation modeling because there are not sufficient monitoring data to estimate exposure to aquatic organisms under all potential use conditions. When available, monitoring data are used to help characterize aquatic exposure.
EPA also estimates potential exposure from uses involving direct application to water. The model used for pesticides applied directly to water uses environmental fate data to simulate partitioning of the pesticide between the water column and bottom sediment in a standard rice paddy. This modeling is conservative because it does not simulate degradation of the applied pesticide, as would be necessary to estimate the amount of residue remaining after the pesticide product had performed its intended function. Depending on the rate of degradation, the initial concentration as estimated by the model could be much higher than the residual concentration remaining after pesticide application has been completed. Additionally, this modeling scenario is conservative because the resulting exposure estimate is the concentration in the paddy water itself, not taking into account dilution which would occur when paddy water is diluted by precipitation or when it is released into a receiving water body.  See the U.S. EPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. January 23, 2004. https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/ecological-risk-assessment-process-under-endangered-species-act
As discussed above, when available, EPA uses ambient water monitoring data as a line of evidence to characterize aquatic exposure in ecological and human health risk assessments. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) maintains several sources of pesticide monitoring data. These sources include the National Water Quality Assessment program (NAWQA), the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, and the National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN). EPA sources of water monitoring data include STORET, a storage and retrieval database of national water quality information, the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), Office of Water compliance monitoring data, and the USGS/EPA Reservoir Monitoring Program. In addition to the federal data sources, monitoring data are sometimes available from States, pesticide registrants, and the open literature.
These monitoring data are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to help characterize the likelihood, extent, and nature of pesticide concentration in water under current use practices and actual field conditions. EPA considers the locations and frequency of sampling, the analytical methods, the detection limits, and the purpose of the monitoring studies from which the data are derived when determining how such data will be incorporated into the FIFRA risk assessment and the usefulness of the monitoring data for an aquatic exposure assessment. For example, a monitoring study targeted to measure concentrations of a pesticide in a watershed with high agricultural use of that pesticide will not provide much insight on the potential exposure from its use as a mosquito adulticide. Similarly, a general survey of ambient water quality might not necessarily target specific pesticide use areas or the time of year when pesticide concentrations may be at their peak, and for this reason may not provide a reliable estimate of acute exposure. However, if monitoring data from such a study shows higher confirmed detections than estimated by modeling, the higher monitoring values typically would be used in the risk assessment.
Aquatic Effects
To determine if a pesticide is sufficiently toxic at its estimated exposure concentrations to cause unreasonable adverse effects in the environment, EPA reviews available ecotoxicity data. These data may come from a number of sources, including direct guideline study submissions required in support of registration, and open literature data retrieved through ECOTOX. The typical assessment endpoints for pesticide ecological risk assessments are reduced survival from direct acute exposures and survival, growth, and reproductive impairment from direct chronic exposures. As noted in the OPP Overview document, which describes the process OPP uses to conduct ecological risk assessment under FIFRA, OPP evaluates other data on sublethal effects in addition to direct effects on survival, growth, and reproduction.
In general, the current FIFRA data regulations require studies that include but are not limited to a suite of aquatic toxicity studies for effects characterization. These test requirements are defined for each chemical class by use category (40 CFR Part 158 Subpart D; Wildlife and Aquatic Organism data requirements; http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/julqtr/40cfr158.490.htm) and are performed on a limited number of laboratory test organisms in the following broad taxonomic groupings:
Freshwater fish,
Freshwater invertebrates,
Estuarine/marine fish,
Estuarine/marine invertebrates, and
Algae and aquatic plants.
Within each of these very broad taxonomic groups, the most sensitive acute and chronic toxicity value is selected from all available test data, including open literature and registrant submissions. If additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a particular group are available, the most sensitive toxicity values from all sources for other species/studies that meet data quality standards are used in the risk assessment. Aquatic toxicity data are required for each active ingredient, but aquatic toxicity data are also required on the typical end use product for any pesticide that will be introduced directly to aquatic environments (40 CFR Part 158.630).
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the integration of effects and exposure characterization to determine the ecological risk from the use of the pesticide and the likelihood of effects on non-target species based on the pesticide-use scenarios. In FIFRA screening-level assessments, OPP relies on the deterministic risk quotient (RQ) method to compare estimated exposure to toxicity endpoints. Estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) derived in the exposure characterization are divided by acute and chronic toxicity endpoints identified in the effects characterization. Risk quotients are then compared to the Agency's Levels of Concern (LOCs). These LOCs are the Agency's interpretative policy and are used to analyze the potential risk to non-target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. These criteria are used to indicate when a pesticide use as directed on the label has the potential to cause adverse effects on non-target organisms. If a risk of concern is identified, risk mitigation measures are considered.
Risk Mitigation
EPA acknowledges that there are uncertainties in its pesticide risk assessments (see full discussion below), nonetheless the Agency reduces the risks of concern by imposing additional restrictions on the use of a pesticide to reduce pesticide concentrations in the aquatic environment. Mitigation measures may include limits on the amount and frequency that a pesticide may be applied, or the application methods may be restricted to limit off-site transport. Mitigation may also limit the geographical areas to which a pesticide can be applied or may include mandatory buffer distances from sensitive habitats. Mitigation measures are implemented through product labeling instructions, with which pesticide users are required to comply.
In some cases, EPA restricts the use of a pesticide so that levels of pesticide predicted by the model to reach water are below the relevant aquatic benchmarks (see Aquatic Benchmarks discussion below). In other cases, using the FIFRA risk-benefit balancing standard, EPA may permit the use of a pesticide even though the estimated water concentration might exceed a relevant benchmark. In such cases, the decision incorporates consideration of the benefits of the pesticide use and other lines of evidence, such as any available National Recommended Water Quality Criterion for ambient water quality, concerning the conservativeness of the modeling assessment and available monitoring data.
Uncertainties with Risk Assessment and Mitigation
For the majority of pesticides, the Agency relies on simulation modeling to predict potential aquatic exposure following pesticide applications. There are uncertainties embedded in the FIFRA exposure assessment, for example, the extent to which the simulated scenario represents actual use conditions in terms of hydrologic vulnerability and the amount and frequency with which pesticides are applied. In order to account for the inherent uncertainty, the Agency uses a combination of parameters and assumptions in the models that results in estimated potential exposure concentrations that are high-end and are not likely to underestimate actual aquatic exposure. This allows the Agency to identify pesticides that are not likely to pose a risk to aquatic life.
In the effects characterization under FIFRA, the lowest acute and chronic toxicity values from the most sensitive species tested in acceptable studies are used as the relevant endpoint for evaluating risk to various taxa. Implicit in the use of the lowest toxicity values for the most sensitive species is the presumption that these toxicity values afford protection not only for the individual surrogate species but for other untested taxa as well.
In the FIFRA risk characterization, data gaps are also considered as a source of uncertainty in the risk assessment conclusions, and each risk assessment discusses the potential for additional data to affect the risk assessment conclusions.
An additional source of uncertainty in assessing risk to aquatic life is the impacts of multiple stressors on aquatic organisms. A United States Geological Survey (USGS) 10-year study (Gilliom et al., 2006) shows that the most common form of pesticide exposure for aquatic organisms is simultaneous exposure to multiple pesticides. More than 50 percent of all stream samples contained five or more pesticides, although the majority of mixtures are comprised mainly of agricultural herbicides and degradates of these herbicides, or urban/residential use insecticides in urban streams. Pesticides that will be applied under the PGP may also co-occur with other manmade contaminants and/or other pesticides from other uses. For instance, the USGS has also performed monitoring studies which revealed the widespread presence of some pharmaceuticals and personal care products in drinking water. However, although pesticides may be detected with other chemicals or in discharges of pollutants covered by other NPDES permits, the majority of research and data on the effects of pesticides has focused on individual pesticides rather than on additive and synergistic toxic effects of exposure to multiple pesticides and/or non-pesticide toxicants.
Possible interactions among pesticides or between pesticides and other contaminants may occur including: independent, additive, antagonistic, or synergistic. The variety of chemical interactions presented in the available literature suggests that the interaction can be a function of many factors including but not necessarily limited to: (1) the exposed species, (2) the co-contaminants in the mixture, (3) the ratio of concentrations in the mixture, (4) differences in the pattern and duration of exposure among contaminants, and (5) the differential effects of other physical/chemical characteristics of the receiving waters (e.g., organic matter present in sediment and suspended water). Quantitatively predicting the combined effects of all these variables on mixture toxicity to any given taxon with confidence is beyond the capabilities of the available data. In order to assess the impacts of environmental mixtures on aquatic life, states have included ambient toxicity testing (also called Whole Effluent Toxicity or WET testing) in their monitoring programs. WET testing allows states to identify potential impacts to aquatic life and identify the toxicant(s) and through the toxicity reduction evaluation, reduce the source(s) of the toxicant(s). The level of toxic effect to the most sensitive tested species is therefore assumed to be protective of other species that may be present in any given water body and is assumed to represent the most toxic component of a mixture. Note that a discussion of EPA's consideration of WET testing as a condition of the permit is discussed in Part III.4 of the fact sheet.
Aquatic Benchmarks
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) derives aquatic benchmarks by multiplying the most sensitive toxicity values (i.e., the lowest acceptable toxicity value for the most sensitive species within a taxonomic group) by their respective (level of concern) LOC. These taxon-specific benchmarks, based on toxicity data used by OPP in assessments for FIFRA pesticide registration decision-making, are considered estimates of the concentrations below which pesticides are not expected to have the potential for adverse effects for the particular taxon for which those data serve as surrogates. It is reasonable to assume that above these levels, there may be potential for the pesticide to cause adverse effects to the given taxon.
EPA's Office of Water (OW) and OPP agreed that these values can be used by States and others to evaluate potential risks of pesticides in the aquatic environment, if a National Recommended Water Quality Criterion for ambient water quality is not available. A number of states have used these benchmark values as indicators of whether pesticide residues detected in surface water warrant additional action such as refined monitoring efforts. While benchmarks can be useful as a screening tool, they do not provide the information necessary to link detected concentrations with their sources.
In response to recommendations and input from stakeholders, EPA developed a webpage of non-regulatory "OPP Aquatic Benchmarks."
As described above, EPA's FIFRA risk assessment process includes a number of conservative assumptions that taken as a whole mitigate unreasonable ecological risk and protect water quality.
(2) Examination of national - scale ambient monitoring data to assess whether pesticide residues are currently present in waters at levels that would exceed water quality standards.
Environmental Science and Technology: Pesticides in U.S. Streams and Rivers: Occurrence and Trends during 1992 - 2011
In addition to the protective nature of the pesticide risk assessment, EPA reviewed readily available surface-water monitoring data from the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project. In 2006, the USGS NAWQA released a 10-year (1992-2001) study of 51 major river basins and aquifer systems that account for more than 70 percent of total United States water use, and more than 50 percent of the United States drinking water supply. During the 2011 PGP development, EPA reviewed the data and found a total of 20 pesticides or degradates exceeded an EPA benchmark in one or more agricultural stream and/or urban stream (see the 2011 PGP, Appendix A of the fact sheet for a complete list of pesticides/degradates that had exceedances). Since 2001, EPA noted that regulatory actions taken under FIFRA with respect to all 20 pesticides found to be in excess of a benchmark, and many of their uses have been canceled (several detections were of pesticides no longer in use prior to the start of the study). See the 2011 PGP, Appendix C of the fact sheet for a summary of pesticide-specific exceedance data and risk mitigation actions.
In 2014, the USGS NAWQA released a study of pesticide monitoring in streams and rivers across the U.S. for the decade of 2002 - 2011 that compares monitoring data to previously reported findings from the decade of 1992 - 2001. During the 2016 PGP development, EPA reviewed this USGS second decadal report and noted the findings in the accompanied fact sheet. As USGS has not released another similar report, for this PGP's fact sheet, EPA noted below the findings from the last review and updated EPA's regulatory actions under FIFIRA. This report indicated that with regard to chronic aquatic life benchmarks, during 1992  -  2001, 16 pesticides exceeded a chronic aquatic life benchmark, while during 2002  -  2011, twenty-one pesticides exceeded a chronic aquatic life benchmark. See Appendix A of the fact sheet. Forty-seven pesticides were assessed in both decades. For 10 of these with benchmark exceedances in both decades, exceedance frequencies were mostly lower during 2002  -  2011. This research found that that the proportion of assessed streams with one or more pesticides that exceeded a chronic aquatic life benchmark were very similar between the two decades for agricultural (69% for 1992  -  2001 compared to 61% for 2002  -  2011) and mixed use streams (45% compared to 46%). For urban streams the percentage increased from 53% during 1992  -  2001 to 90% during 2002  -  2011 predominantly due to the use of fipronil and dichlorvos in the latter decade (these two pesticides are among those not assessed for 1992  -  2001). Additional detail on the nature of EPA's regulatory actions under FIFRA appears in Appendices B and C of the fact sheet.
State Water Quality Monitoring under CWA
States must place waterbodies not meeting water quality standards on a list (303(d) list) which identifies the pollutant or pollutants causing or expected to cause the impairment. The Office of Water's Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads website (accessed February 2020) indicates 303(d) impairments in several states for 18 currently registered specific pesticides and 4 general classes of pesticides (e.g., pyrethroids; Table 1). With the adoption of a 303 list, states are required to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). States also must include a priority ranking for developing those TMDLs. A critical component in the TMDL process is to identify the sources of each parameter for which the waterbody is listed. Then, the State must develop waste load allocation(s) for point source(s) and load allocation(s) for nonpoint source(s).
Table 1. Currently registered pesticide active ingredients listed as causes of 303(d) impairment (data accessed February 2020)
Cause of Impairment
States
Aldicarb
CA
Atrazine
IL, KS, LA, MO, NE, OH
Bifenthrin
CA
Carbaryl
CA
Chlorpyrifos
CA, ID, MN, OK, OR, WA
Cypermethrin
CA
Diazinon
CA, KS, OK, WA
Dichlorvos
CA
Dimethoate
CA
Diuron
CA
Malathion
CA, ID
Naphthalene
CA, NH, WA
Oxyfluorfen
CA
Permethrin
CA
Prometryn
CA
Simazine
CA
Trifluralin
CA
Pesticides  -  listed generically
CA, IN, NY, OH, PA, PR

According to the Office of Water's Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads website there are a total of 72,667 causes of impairments for 303(d) listed waters. Of these, approximately 2.4% (a total of 1,774) are listed as pesticides. The majority (73.6% or 1,306 of the 1,774) of impairments attributed to pesticides are for those no longer registered for use by EPA. A total of 23% (415 of the 1,774) of impairments are attributed to currently registered pesticides, with an additional 3% (53 of the 1,774) of the impairments listed generically for pesticides, such as for "pesticides" or "organochlorine pesticides." Combined, these two categories of listings account for 0.6% (468 of 72,667) of the total causes of impairments for 303(d) listed waters nationally. Additionally, 4,741 impairments are listed for "impaired biota" and 1,209 impairments are for an "unknown" or "cause unknown  -  fish kills", which together account for about 8% of all impairments.
EPA has compared available CWA 303(d) impairment information regarding water quality impairments caused by pesticides for states expected to be covered by the 2021 PGP with active ingredient information submitted pursuant to the annual report requirements in the 2016 PGP. Annual report data for 2017-2019 was examined. EPA found that of the 17 pesticide active ingredients identified on the relevant 303(d) lists as causes of water quality impairment, 7 of these pesticides have been cancelled and others have significant restrictions. Based on annual report data, none of the 303(d) impairments caused by pesticides in PGP states for the 303(d) reported years were for pesticides applied under the PGP in those respective states.
2017 National Water Quality Inventory Report
States, tribes, and territories are required to report biennially on the water quality of navigable waters in their boundaries, and the extent to which these waters support designated uses, under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. In the report to Congress, which was submitted in August 2017, the Agency summarized the findings of four statistically representative National Aquatic Resource Surveys and the site-specific assessment results reported by the states in their Integrated 305(b)/303(d) Reports. States identified a wide range of assessed waters as not fully supporting at least one of their designated uses. Mercury (primarily in fish tissue), pathogens, nutrients, PCBs, sediment, and organic enrichment/oxygen depletion were all cited as leading causes of impairment in assessed waters.
While pesticides are not always monitored when assessing water quality, the Report to Congress indicated that pesticides were not among the most common causes of impairments except for the Great Lakes shoreline. "States assessed 4,431 of the nation's 5,000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline miles. Of these assessed miles, 4,353 were reported as impaired for one or more designated use. The leading causes of impairment included PCBs, dioxins, and pesticides. The leading probable sources of impairment were atmospheric deposition, legacy/historical pollution  -  primarily contaminated sediment  -  and agriculture."  The Report does not indicate whether any impairments identified by the states were caused by discharges of pollutants that will be subject to NPDES permits under the CWA.
Interpretation of Monitoring Data Relevant to the 2021 PGP
When re-evaluating the registrations of existing pesticides, the Agency considers available surface-water monitoring data as a line of evidence regarding potential aquatic risk in addition to considering exposure estimates derived from simulation models. Such monitoring data can provide a measure of trends in aquatic exposure associated with mitigation measures imposed by the Agency. For instance, the USGS's 2009 report of Trends of Pesticide Concentrations in Corn-belt Streams states, "(t)he declines in pesticide concentrations closely followed declines in their annual applications, indicating that reducing pesticide use is an effective and reliable strategy for reducing pesticide contamination in streams." Similarly, a study entitled Trends in pesticide concentrations and use for major rivers of the United States found that "pesticides strongly dominated by agricultural use (cyanazine, alachlor, atrazine and its degradate deethylatrazine, metolachlor, and carbofuran) has widespread agreement between concentration trends and use trends" and that "pesticides with substantial use in both agricultural and nonagricultural applications (simazine, chlorpyrifos, malathion, diazinon and carbaryl) had concentration trends that were mostly explained by a combination of agricultural use trends, regulatory changes, and urban use changes inferred from concentrations trends in urban streams."
Monitoring studies are valuable because they may specifically target areas in which pesticides considered in the study are likely to be used. This is an effective way of evaluating impact from mitigation measures, or the increase in use of other pesticides that might replace pesticides to which mitigation measures are applied.
The best way to interpret the likely causes of pesticide detections in surface water is to consider any detection in light of the design of the monitoring study itself. For instance, the USGS's study The Quality of Our Nation's Water  -  Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001, described above, used a targeted approach, focusing on areas of relatively homogenous land-use and environmental settings to relate pesticide occurrence to individual non-point sources. The sampling was also most intensive during periods of high pesticide use and runoff. Such a design can best capture transport of pesticide to surface water from runoff from treated agricultural fields (or treated buildings/lawns) in a watershed. But, the timing and location of sample collection may not be as effective in capturing residues of pesticides applied for purposes covered under the General Permit. Concentrations detected could at times reflect such uses, but the design of the study was meant to capture more diffuse non-point transport of pesticides in watersheds, and not point source discharge.
Uncertainties with Monitoring Data
The Agency recognizes that monitoring of pesticide levels in water has limitations in its ability to identify whether use of specific pesticide may adversely affect water quality. The product monitoring data give only a "snapshot" of the concentration in a particular waterbody at a particular time. While the USGS (Gilliom et al., 2006) intensified the frequency of its monitoring during times of the year when most agricultural pesticide usage commonly occurred, their sampling did not necessarily account for timing of specific pesticide applications, frequency of applications, and meteorological events that can cause pesticides to reach surface water as covered by this permit. Thus, monitoring may not collect a sample when pesticide concentrations are at peak levels or when present in the water. Moreover, if monitoring detects the presence of a pesticide, the data usually do not identify the source or if the pesticide residue is actually still a product serving its intended purpose. Ambient monitoring cannot determine whether the contamination was due to lawful use (and if so, which one) or unlawful pesticide use, an accidental spill or discharge of pollutants, or whether the residues detected were from runoff, or from aquatic uses such as those to be included in the NPDES general permit. Monitoring data are often difficult to interpret because the ancillary data on pesticide usage in a basin, and factors that could make the location more or less vulnerable, are often not available.
(3) Technology-based effluent limitations in the 2021 PGP provide further protections beyond compliance with existing FIFRA requirements.
EPA has evaluated available information and expects that the technology-based effluent limitations are as stringent as necessary to meet applicable WQS. These effluent limitations require Operators to minimize the discharge of pollutants through the use of the most efficient and effective means of Pest Management Measures, including pesticide and non-pesticide methods.
The technology-based effluent limitations require Applicators to minimize the discharge of pollutants by using only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application necessary to control the target pest, maintaining pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition, and ensuring weather conditions in the treatment area are appropriate for pesticide application.
The Applicator, to the extent not determined by the Decision-maker, must also use only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application necessary to control the target pest, using equipment and application procedures appropriate for the task.
Certain Decision-makers are also required to more fully assess and implement procedures to minimize the discharge of pollutants. In this assessment, these Decision-makers must consider human health and ecological impacts, feasibility, and cost effectiveness and include prevention, mechanical/physical methods, cultural methods, biological control agents, and as a final resort, the application of pesticides. To ensure that pollutant discharges are minimized, these Decision-makers must identify target pest species and areas where those pests occur, identify the possible sources of the problem, and establish action thresholds or similar measures for implementing pest management strategies. The technology-based effluent limitations in Part 2.2 of the PGP also require certain Decision-makers, as appropriate, to analyze surveillance data prior to each pesticide application to determine when pest action thresholds are met.
The general permit includes several other provisions that the Agency expects to provide further protections beyond compliance with FIFRA requirements. For instance, Part 4 of the PGP requires Operators to monitor pesticide applications activities to minimize discharges of pollutants and during any post-application monitoring to determine effectiveness of the pesticide application. In addition, Part 6.0 of the PGP contains requirements for all Operators to document and report adverse incidents involving non-target organisms or the environment, and to take corrective action if it is determined that revising Pest Management Measures can help to prevent future incidents. An adverse incident report calls attention to a situation in which water quality may be impacted by pesticide use and may indicate that corrective action is required to ensure that water quality standards are further protected during future applications. The permit also requires Operators to take corrective actions to eliminate other situations such as unauthorized releases (i.e., spills or leaks) or the failure to meet applicable water quality standards. These requirements are discussed further in Part III.6 of the fact sheet. EPA expects this approach will further reduce discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States from the use patterns covered under this permit.
(4) Biological pesticides either do not work through a toxic mode of action, or when they do, are toxic only to a very narrow range of target pest organisms. For chemical pesticides, the discharges of pollutants covered under this permit are the residues after the pesticide has performed its intended purpose.
The permit provides coverage for point source discharges of pollutants from certain applications of pesticides, as identified in Part 1.1.1. of the PGP. Discharges of pollutants from the application of both chemical and biological pesticides are covered under the permit, consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court's reading of the CWA term "pollutant" in National Cotton Council v. EPA.
For chemical or conventional pesticides applied directly to waters (e.g., for aquatic weed control and aquatic nuisance pest control), it is the pesticide residue, including excess pesticide that is present outside of the treatment area or within the treatment area once the target pests have been controlled that is considered a pollutant under the 2021 PGP. For any pesticide applied over water (e.g., mosquito control), any pesticide or pesticide residue that is incidentally deposited in waters of the United States is considered a pollutant since the intended purpose of the application is to target pests above the water. Therefore, the concentrations of "pollutants" will be no higher, and in many instances significantly lower, than the product concentrations considered in EPA's assessment when the Agency registered the pesticide products for the relevant uses.
Discharges of biological pesticides require permit coverage regardless of whether or not a residue exists. Biological pesticides or biopesticides are certain types of pesticides derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals. Two classes of biopesticides are relevant to this permit, microbial pesticides and biochemical pesticides. Microbial pesticides consist of a microorganism (e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus, or protozoan) as the active ingredient. The most widely used microbial pesticides are subspecies and strains of Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt which operate by a toxic mode of action, yet they are toxic only to a very narrow range of target pest organisms (mosquito larvae). Biochemical pesticides, as defined in 40 CFR 158.2000(a), are naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms. Biochemical pesticides include substances, such as insect sex pheromones that interfere with mating, as well as naturally-occurring repellants and attractants.
Biopesticides are usually inherently less toxic than conventional pesticides and generally only affect the target pests and closely related organisms. Often, they are effective in very small quantities and decompose quickly thereby resulting in lower exposures and largely avoiding the pollution problems caused by chemical pesticides. When used as a component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs, biopesticides can greatly decrease the use of chemical pesticides; however, use of biopesticides effectively requires users to have a very good understanding of pest management. Since biochemical pesticides, by regulatory definition, do not work through a toxic mode of action they may be less likely to result in an excursion of a water quality standard.
(5) The 2021 PGP excludes with certain exceptions pesticide applications that result in discharges of any pesticide to (1) waters impaired for an active ingredient in that pesticide or a degradate of such active ingredient or (2) any Tier 3 waters (i.e., Outstanding National Resource Waters) except for applications 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.
EPA identified two scenarios where it finds the 2021 PGP may not be adequately protective of water quality standards and has excluded those discharges of pollutants from coverage under the permit. Namely, the 2021 PGP excludes from coverage: (1) any discharges from a pesticide application to waters of the United States if the water is identified as impaired by a substance which either is an active ingredient in that pesticide or is a degradate of such an active ingredient and (2) discharges of pollutants to Tier 3 Waters (i.e., Outstanding National Resource Waters) except for pesticide applications 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. Any Operator desiring to discharge pollutants in either of these two scenarios is required to submit an application for an NPDES individual permit. Links to lists of impaired waters and Tier 3 waters is available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-permitting. Additional discussion of the basis for these requirements is provided in Part III.1.1.2 of the fact sheet.
(6) EPA has no evidence in the record that implementation of the 2011 PGP and 2016 PGP have resulted in documented water quality problems.
EPA has not received any adverse incident reports documenting water quality problems under the 2011 PGP and 2016 PGP to date. EPA is also not aware of any negative public health or environmental impact resulting from discharges of pollutants authorized for use under the 2011 PGP and 2016 PGP.
 Site Monitoring
Monitoring is required in any NPDES permit to demonstrate compliance with the permit conditions. Monitoring requirements apply from the time any authorized Operator begins discharging pollutants under the 2021 PGP. These requirements are not tied to submission of an NOI. There are a variety of monitoring methods that a "traditional" NPDES permit may require, including end-of-pipe monitoring to show compliance with relevant water quality-based and technology-based effluent limitations prior to discharging pollutants to a receiving waterbody. Monitoring may also pertain to actions taken to ensure that recordkeeping or other permit control activities are being properly implemented. Water quality monitoring of receiving streams is not typically required in NPDES permits unless it is required to determine among other things, compliance with mixing zone dilution standards or some other special permit condition.
Pursuant to CWA sections 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable implementing regulations, the following requirements have been included in the permit, as discussed below. The monitoring requirements of the 2021 PGP are narrative and demonstrate compliance with permit conditions by using currently established pesticide use routines for monitoring pest control. For instance, the 2021 PGP requires routine visual inspections (described below) to be conducted as part of the pest control activity and/or as part of post-application pest surveillance, and calls for records of the pollutant discharge volume to be kept. The monitoring requirements of the permit are reasonable measures of good pest management practice that the conscientious Operator should be currently employing to ensure environmental health and safety and optimal control of pest organisms.
Monitoring of pollutant discharges poses several challenges not generally encountered in "traditional" NPDES permitting situations. For example, there is no "wastewater discharge" per se from pesticide applications that is analogous to end-of-pipe discharges of pollutants. For example, a manufacturing plant would typically direct its wastewater through a treatment system to remove pollutants, and then would direct the effluent through a pipe into a receiving waterbody. However, for chemical pesticide applications, at the time of application the pesticide contains both the portion serving its intended purpose as well as the potential residual for which monitoring data would be appropriate. Thus, monitoring the "outfall" in this case would merely provide data on the amount of the product as applied (information already known through the FIFRA registration process) and would be inappropriate to compare with any type of technology based effluent limitation or water quality standard.
EPA considered requiring ambient water quality monitoring. However, EPA thinks that it was infeasible for the following reasons:
     1)	Uncertainty: Ambient water quality monitoring would generally not be able to distinguish whether the results were from the pesticide application for which monitoring is being performed, or some other upstream source.
     2)	Lack of applicable measurable standards: Federal pesticide-specific ambient water quality criteria do not exist at this time for the vast majority of constituents in the products authorized for use under the PGP.
     3)	Safety and Accessibility: Pesticides, particularly those used for mosquito control and forestry pest control, are often applied over waterbodies in remote areas, hazardous terrain, and swamps that are either inaccessible or pose safety risks for the collection of samples.
     4)	Difficulty of residue sampling for chemical pesticides: For chemical pesticides, the "pollutant" regulated by the PGP is the residue that remains after the pesticide has completed its activity, and it is this residue that would be the subject of any water quality monitoring requirement. However, the point at which only "residue" remains is not practically discernable at this time for all pesticides.
     5)	Usefulness of data: Some states have questioned the value of ambient water quality monitoring data obtained from state permitting programs. The data generally showed that water quality impacts were not occurring, and one state even discontinued the requirement in revisions of its state permit.
Given the infeasibility of requiring ambient water quality data to demonstrate permit compliance, EPA thinks that there are suitable alternative monitoring activities to determine permit compliance, other than ambient water quality monitoring, for the PGP.
Additionally, in assessing the appropriateness of requiring ambient water quality monitoring, EPA also considered Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing as a possible option for assessing Operator compliance with permit conditions; however, WET testing in an NPDES permit program is best used to monitor whether an Operator's discharge of pollutants is toxic and not whether a receiving stream (i.e., the ambient environment), that may be influenced by a number of different discharges of pollutants from different Operators and different sources, is toxic. In addition, WET testing would not indicate the actual source of the toxicity. If a waterbody is found to be toxic or to contain pollutants above water quality standards, it can be quite complex to identify the source of the toxicity, which may or may not actually be the NPDES permittee performing the monitoring.
Thus, the monitoring program that EPA has developed for the PGP has been tailored to accommodate the unique situations related to pesticide applications. Routine visual monitoring is required in the PGP and can be used to determine if any pesticide use practices may need to be revised to ensure that avoidable adverse impacts to the environment do not occur (See Part III.4.2 of this fact sheet). Monitoring records required by those Operators who submit NOIs will establish a history that may indicate if or when practices need to be reconsidered. The monitoring requirements in the PGP remain unchanged from EPA's 2016 PGP.
4.1	Visual Monitoring Requirements for Pesticide Applicators
Visual monitoring assessments are required as a means of identifying, for example, instances of detrimental impact to non-target organisms, disruption or degradation of wildlife habitat, or the prevention of designated recreational or municipal uses of a waterbody that may possibly be related to the Operator's use of pesticides in a given area. This requirement consists of visually monitoring the area to and around where pesticides are applied for possible and observable adverse incidents, such as unanticipated death or distress of non-target organisms and disruption of wildlife habitat, recreational or municipal water use.
Visual monitoring assessments are required during the pesticide application when feasibility and safety allow. Visual monitoring is not required during the course of pesticide application when that application is performed in darkness as it would be infeasible for the inspector to note adverse effects under these circumstances. Additionally, the following scenarios often preclude visual monitoring during pesticide application:
     1.	Applications made from an aircraft
     2.	Applications made from a moving road vehicle when the Applicator is the driver
     3.	Applications made from moving watercraft when the Applicator is the driver
     4.	Applications made from a moving off-road wheeled or tracked vehicle when the Applicator is the driver.
4.2	Visual Monitoring Requirements for all Operators
Visual monitoring must also be conducted during any post-application surveillance, such as to determine the efficacy of the pesticide application. Visual monitoring of this type is required of all Operators but only if the Operator, be it the Applicator or the Decision-maker or both, performs post application surveillance in the course of business. EPA expects that post-application visual assessments are reasonably conducted on foot or from a stationary vehicle, although they might also be conducted from a moving vehicle, including a boat or plane, in certain circumstances.
 Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP)
Any Decision-maker who is or will be required to submit an NOI and is not a small entity must develop a PDMP, except for any pesticide applications made in response to a Declared Pest Emergency situation, as defined in Appendix A of the PGP or any Decision-maker who is or will be required to submit an NOI solely because of discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, as defined in Appendix A of the PGP. EPA defines a Decision-maker that is not a small entity as a large entity in the permit. Large entity Decision-makers must prepare the PDMP by the time the NOI is filed.
Any Decision-maker who is or will be required to submit an NOI and is a small entity (i.e., is below the Small Business Association (SBA) size standard, as defined in 13 CFR. 121.201, or is a public entity serving a population of 10,000 or less), is not required to develop a PDMP. Small entity Decision-makers are required to document activities as described in Part III.7.3 of the fact sheet. EPA recognizes that the SBA defines "small entities" as including government entities that serve populations of less than 50,000 persons. However, EPA's NPDES program has historically considered "major" municipal NPDES permits as those that serve greater than 10,000 persons (i.e., with a wastewater treatment plant design of greater than one million gallons a day). `Major NPDES' permittees have increased recordkeeping and public notice obligations over `minor NPDES,' which is consistent with EPA's intent for the PGP to impose additional recordkeeping and reporting information only on these larger communities.
The PDMP itself does not contain effluent limitations; rather it constitutes a tool both to assist the Decision-maker in documenting what pest management measures it is implementing to meet the effluent limitations, and to assist the permitting/compliance authority in determining whether the effluent limitations are being met. Developing a PDMP helps Decision-makers ensure they have (1) taken steps to identify the pest problem, (2) evaluated pest management options, and (3) selected appropriate pest management measures to control pollutant discharges. A PDMP is a "living" document that requires reviews and must be kept up-to-date. Where pest management measures are modified or replaced to meet effluent limitations, such as in response to a Part 6.1 triggering condition in the PGP, such changes must be documented in the PDMP. All changes to the PDMP must be made before the next pesticide application that results in a discharge of pollutants, if practicable, or if not, no later than 90 days after any change in pesticide application activities. Failure of a Decision-maker to develop and maintain an up-to-date PDMP is a violation of the PGP. This recordkeeping violation is separate and distinct from a violation of any of the other substantive requirements in the permit (e.g., effluent limitations, corrective action, monitoring, reporting, and state-specific requirements).
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. The size of a pest management area is determined by the Decision-maker responsible for and with the authority to conduct pest management activities. For example, the pest management area for a mosquito control district is the total area of the district. Once the plan is developed, the Decision-maker must maintain the plan thereafter for the duration of coverage under this general permit. For any Decision-maker for which the annual treatment area threshold triggers the NOI requirement (and the Decision-maker is a large entity), the Decision-maker must keep the plan up-to-date for the duration of permit coverage even if the annual treatment area subsequently falls below the annual treatment area threshold.
Decision-makers may choose to reference other documents, such as a pre-existing pest management plan or spill prevention and response plan, in the PDMP rather than recreating the same text in the PDMP. It is not required that a Decision-maker must have authored the pre-existing plan in order to use it. When referencing other documents, the Decision-maker is responsible for ensuring his/her PDMP and the other documents together contain all the necessary elements for a complete PDMP, as specified in Part 5.1 of the PGP. In addition, the Decision-maker must ensure that a copy of relevant portions of those referenced documents is attached to the PDMP and is located on-site and it is available for review, consistent with Part 5.3 of the PGP.
5.1	Contents of the PDMP
The PDMP prepared under the PGP must meet specific requirements under Part 5.1 of the PGP. Generally, Decision-makers must document the following: (1) a pesticide discharge management team; (2) a description of the pest management area and the pest problem; (3) a description of pest management options evaluation; (4) response procedures for spill response and adverse incident response; and (5) any eligibility considerations under other federal laws.
Pesticide Discharge Management Team
The PGP requires that a qualified individual or team of individuals be identified to manage pollutant discharges covered under the permit. Identification of a pesticide discharge management team ensures that appropriate persons (or positions) are identified as necessary for developing and implementing the plan. Inclusion of the team in the plan provides notice to staff and management (i.e., those responsible for signing and certifying the plan) of the responsibilities of certain key staff for following through on compliance with the permit's conditions and limits.
The pesticide discharge management team is responsible for developing and revising the PDMP, implementing and maintaining the Pest Management Measures to meet effluent limitations, and taking corrective action where necessary. Team members should be chosen for their expertise in the relevant areas to ensure that all aspects of pest management are considered in developing the plan. The PDMP must clearly describe the responsibilities of each team member to ensure that each aspect of the PDMP is addressed. EPA expects most Decision-makers will have more than one individual on the team, except for those with relatively simple plans and/or staff limitations. The PGP requires that team members have ready access to any applicable portions of the PDMP and the permit.
Problem Identification
This section includes the pest problem description, action threshold(s), a general location map, and water quality standards.
1. Pest Problem Description.
The PGP requires that the PDMP include a description of the pest problem at the pest management area. A detailed pest management area description assists Decision-makers in subsequent efforts to identify and set priorities for the evaluation and selection of Pest Management Measures taken to meet effluent limitations set forth in Parts 2 and 3 of the PGP and in identifying necessary changes in pest management. The description must include identification of the target pest(s), source of the pest problem, and source of data used to identify the problem. The PGP allows use of historical data or other available data (e.g., from another similar site) to identify the problem at your site. If you use other site data, you must document in this section why data from your site is not available or not taken within the past year and explain why the data is relevant to your site. Additionally, the pest management area descriptions should include any sensitive resources in the area, such as unique habitat areas, rare or listed species, or other species of concern that may limit pest management options.
2. Action Threshold(s)
The PGP requires that the PDMP include a description of the action threshold(s) established for the target pest, including a description of how they were determined and method(s) to determine when the action threshold(s) has been met. An action threshold is a level of pest prevalence (or other indicator) at which an Operator takes action to reduce the pest population.
3. General Location Map
The PDMP must also contain a general location map of the site that identifies the geographic boundaries of the area to which the plan applies and location of the waters of the United States. To improve readability of the map, some detailed information may be kept as an attachment to the site map and pictures may be included as deemed appropriate.
4. Water Quality Standards
Operators must identify any Tier 3 Waters (Outstanding National Resource Waters) and any water(s) impaired for a specific pesticide or its degradates to which there may be a discharge of pollutants. Internet links to all state, territory and tribal water quality standards are available at: http://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech.
Description of Pest Management Measures Options Evaluation
The PGP requires that the PDMP include a description of the Pest Management Measures implemented to meet the applicable technology-based or water quality-based effluent limitations. The description must include a brief explanation of the Pest Management Measures used at the site to reduce pollutant discharge, including evaluation and implementation of the six management options (no action, prevention, mechanical/physical methods, cultural methods, biological control agents, and pesticides). Decision-makers must consider impact to non-target organisms, impact to water quality, feasibility, and cost effectiveness when evaluating and selecting the most efficient and effective means of Pest Management Measures to minimize pollutant discharge to waters of the United States.
All six management options may not be available for a specific use category and/or treatment area. However, the PDMP must include documentation of how the six management options, including combination of these options, were evaluated prior to selecting site specific Pest Management Measures. For the no action option, Operators should document the impact of this option without any current Pest Management Measures at the site. For the prevention management option, the Decision-maker should document the methods implemented to prevent new introductions or the spread of the pests to new sites, such as identifying routes of invasion and how these can be intercepted to reduce the chance of invasion. Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill; exclusion methods (e.g., barriers) and/or sanitation methods, like wash stations, to prevent reintroduction by vehicles, personnel, etc. Some prevention management methods may fall under mechanical/physical or cultural methods, as well.
For the pesticide management option, Decision-makers may include a list of active ingredients evaluated. Discussion may also identify specific equipment or methods that will prevent or reduce the risks to non-target organisms and pollutant discharges to waters of the United States.
Response Procedures
The following procedures necessary to minimize discharges of pollutants must be documented in the PDMP:
1. Spill Response Procedures
The PDMP must document procedures for expeditiously stopping, containing, and cleaning up leaks, spills, and other release. In addition, the PDMP must include documentation of the procedures for notification of appropriate facility personnel, emergency response agencies, and regulatory agencies.
2. Adverse Incident Response Procedures
In the PDMP, Decision-makers must document appropriate procedures for responding to an adverse incident resulting from pesticide applications. Decision-makers must identify and document the following:
Procedures for responding to any adverse incident resulting from pesticide applications;
Procedures for notification of the adverse incident, both internal to the Decision-maker's agency/organization and external;
State/Federal permitting agency contacts with phone numbers;
Name, location, and telephone of nearest emergency medical facility; and
Name, location, and telephone of nearest hazardous chemical responder (including police and fire department).
Documentation to Support Eligibility Considerations under other Federal Laws
Decision-makers must keep, with the PDMP, documentation supporting their determination with regard to Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the PGP (Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat Protection).
Signature Requirements
The PDMP must be signed and certified in accordance with the signatory requirements in the Standard Permit Conditions part of the PGP (Appendix B, 40 CFR 122.41(k) Signatory requirement). This requirement is consistent with standard NPDES permit conditions described in 40 CFR 122.22 and is intended to ensure that the Decision-maker understands his/her responsibility to create and maintain a complete and accurate PDMP. The signature requirement includes an acknowledgment that there are significant penalties for submitting false information.
5.2	Pesticide Discharge Management Plan Modifications.
The PGP requires that the PDMP be updated whenever any of the triggering conditions for corrective action in Part 6.1 of the PGP occur, or when a review following the triggering conditions in Part 6.1 requires the Operator to revise his/her Pest Management Measures as necessary to meet the effluent limitations in the PGP (Part 2). Keeping the PDMP up-to-date will help the Decision-maker ensure that the condition that triggered the corrective action does not reoccur. All changes to the PDMP must be made before the next pesticide application that results in a discharge of pollutants, if practicable, or if not, no later than 90 days after any change in pesticide application activities or after an annual review.
It is important to note that failure to update the PDMP in accordance with Part 5.2 of the PGP is a recordkeeping violation, not a violation of an effluent limit. For example, if the Decision-maker changes its spill response procedures but fails to update its PDMP to reflect these changes, a recordkeeping violation will result. The Decision-maker must revise its PDMP to reflect the new procedures and include documentation of the corrective action (in accordance with Part 6 of the PGP) to return to full compliance.
5.3	Pesticide Discharge Management Plan Availability.
The PGP requires that a copy of the current PDMP, along with all supporting maps and documents, be kept at the address provided on the NOI. The PDMP and all supporting documents must be immediately available to representatives of EPA, a state, tribal, or local agency governing pesticide applications, as well as representatives of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the time of an on-site inspection or upon request. This requirement is consistent with standard NPDES permit conditions described in 40 CFR 122.41. Part 5.3 of the PGP indicates that EPA may provide access to portions of your PDMP to a member of the public upon request. Confidential Business Information (CBI) may be withheld from the public, but consistent with 40 CFR Part 2, may not be withheld from EPA or the Services.
Corrective Action
The purpose of including corrective action requirements in the PGP is to assist this universe of NPDES permittees with effectively meeting technology-based and water-quality-based effluent limitations and implementing Pest Management Measures in the PGP. Corrective action requirements apply from the time any authorized Operator begins discharging pollutants under the PGP. These requirements are not tied to submission of an NOI. Corrective actions in this permit are follow-up actions an Operator must take to assess and correct problems. They require review and revision of Pest Management Measures and pesticide application activities, as necessary, to ensure that these problems are eliminated and will not be repeated in the future. The PGP makes clear that the Operator is expected to assess why a specific problem has occurred and document what steps were taken to eliminate the problem. This approach will help Operators in complying with the requirements of the permit on a consistent basis. Compliance issues with some of the permit's requirements -- for instance, those related to reporting and recordkeeping and some of those related to operation and maintenance -- may be able to be corrected immediately simply by following already established procedures, and therefore, are not considered problems that trigger the corrective action provisions of the PGP.
It should be noted that a situation triggering corrective action is not necessarily a permit violation and, as such, may not necessarily trigger a modification of Pest Management Measures to meet effluent limitations. However, failure to conduct (and document) corrective action reviews in such cases does constitute a permit violation.
6.1	Situations Requiring Revision of Pest Management Measures
Operators are required to review and, as necessary, revise the selection and implementation of their Pest Management Measures to eliminate any of the following situations:
An unauthorized release or discharge of pollutants associated with the application of pesticides (e.g., spill, leak, or discharge not authorized by this or another NPDES permit) occurs;
Operators become aware, or EPA concludes, that Pest Management Measures are not adequate/sufficient for the discharge of pollutants to meet applicable water quality standards;
Any monitoring activities indicate failure to meet applicable technology-based effluent limitations in Part 2 of the PGP;
An inspection or evaluation by an EPA official, or local, state, or Tribal entity, determines that modifications are necessary to meet the non-numeric effluent limitations detailed in Part 2 of the PGP; or
An Operator observes or is otherwise made aware (e.g., a third-party notification) of an adverse incident.
EPA considers the above situations to be of significant concern. Thus, EPA is requiring Operators to assess the cause of these situations, which may be affiliated with the Operator's discharge from the application of pesticides and to take any necessary steps to eliminate the situation and ensure that the situation will not be repeated in the future.
The purpose of Part 6.1 of the PGP is to ensure compliance with corrective action requirements through increased accountability and oversight. EPA views ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of Pest Management Measures and corrective actions as integral to an effective pesticide management program. Written records associated with corrective action assessments must be kept with the other recordkeeping documentation required by this permit.
6.2	Corrective Action Deadlines
The PGP requires that corrective action be completed "before or, if not practicable, as soon as possible after the next pesticide application that results in a discharge." EPA emphasizes that this timeframe is not a grace period within which an Operator is relieved of any liability for a permit violation. EPA is adopting this flexible deadline to account for the variation in types of responses (e.g., evaluate situation and select, design, install, and implement new or modified Pest Management Measures) that may be necessary to address any identified situations of concern. EPA recognizes that in rare cases a corrective action review may identify the need for substantial improvements to the Operator's Pest Management Measures and does not want to limit the selection and implementation of such controls with an inflexible deadline. Another possibility is that EPA or the Operator may determine that further monitoring is needed under Part 6.3 of the PGP to pinpoint the source of the problem, and this monitoring may need to be conducted during future pesticide application activities. In the vast majority of cases, however, corrective action reviews will identify responses that can be taken quickly, either before the next pesticide application that results in a discharge or shortly thereafter.
6.3	Effect of Corrective Action
The occurrence of a situation described in Part 6.1 of the PGP may, but does not necessarily, constitute a violation of the 2021 PGP. The occurrence of a situation identified in Part 6.1 does require the Operator to immediately review and as necessary, revise the selection and implementation of their Pest Management Measures to eliminate the situation. Part 6.3 of the PGP explains that taking corrective action does not absolve the Operator of any liability for a permit violation requiring that action, however, failure to take required corrective action will constitute an original or an additional permit violation. EPA will consider the appropriateness and promptness of corrective action in determining enforcement responses to permit violations. EPA may impose additional requirements and schedules of compliance, including requirements to submit additional information concerning the condition(s) triggering corrective action, additional site-specific water-quality based limitations, additional monitoring requirements, or other schedules and requirements more stringent than specified in this permit. Those requirements and schedules will supersede those of Parts 6.1 and 6.2 of the PGP if such requirements conflict.
6.4	Adverse Incident Documentation and Reporting
Part 6.4 of the PGP requires Operators to take specific actions in response to identified adverse incidents which may have resulted from a discharge from the Operator's pesticide application. Namely, Operators are required to provide oral notice to EPA within 24 hours and then follow-up with a written report within 30 days of becoming aware of the adverse incident. EPA defines an "adverse incident" in Appendix A of the PGP, but generally it is defined as any effect of a pesticide's use that is unexpected or unintended, in which there is evidence that a person or non-target organism has likely been exposed to a pesticide residue and suffered a toxic or adverse effect.
Part 6.4.1 of the PGP requires Operators to call the appropriate EPA Incident Reporting Contact within 24 hours of any identified adverse incident and provide basic information about it. The purpose of this requirement is twofold: (1) to provide an opportunity for the Agency to respond to these incidents as soon as reasonably can be expected, and (2) to provide a basis for potential corrective actions. EPA does not expect this initial notification to be detailed but merely a reporting of the date of the finding, a general discussion of the incident and a review of the necessity to conduct corrective action. The PGP requires Operators to document the information identified in Part 6.4.1, including the date and time that EPA was notified and a description of any deviations from Part 6.4.1 notification requirements based on nuances of the adverse incident. For example, an Operator may decide to notify multiple EPA contacts because of the severity of the adverse incident. This type of information should be included in the written documentation of the 24-hour notification as described below.
Part 6.4.2 of the PGP requires Operators to provide a written report of the adverse incident to the appropriate EPA Regional office and to the State Lead Agency for pesticide regulation within 30 days of discovering the adverse incident. The adverse incident report must include the following information:
Information required to be provided in Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the PGP;
Date and time you contacted EPA notifying the Agency of the adverse incident;
Location of incident, including the names of any waters affected and appearance of those waters (sheen, color, clarity, etc.);
A description of the circumstances of the incident including species affected, number of individuals and approximate size of dead or distressed organisms;
Magnitude of the effect (e.g., aquatic square area or total stream distance affected);
Quantity of pesticide applied and EPA registration number of pesticide product, intended use site (e.g., banks, above, or direct to water), and method of application;
Description of the habitat and the circumstances under which the incident occurred (including any available ambient water data for pesticides applied);
Information on any laboratory tests performed and test results; and
Actions to be taken to prevent recurrence of the incident.
Adverse incident information associated with discharges from the application of pesticides is useful to the Agency because the information:
Provides the Agency with an indication of the effectiveness of the permit in controlling discharges of pollutants to protect water quality, including data upon which the Agency may base future permit decisions (e.g., modifications to or reissuance of this permit).
May be considered when reviewing applications for registration of new pesticides that are chemically similar to existing pesticides, as well as re-evaluations of existing pesticides;
May be considered in ecological risk assessment and during deliberations on risk management decisions;
May be reviewed to determine trends that may indicate potential ecological impacts with an existing pesticide and/or to track improvements when mitigation measures are applied;
Provides information on the nature, extent, and severity of incidents to decision-makers, stakeholders, and the public; and
Provides the Agency with information on which to assess compliance with regulatory requirements, including documentation and reporting.
Currently, there is no database that includes adverse reporting from anyone other than the registrant under 6(a)(2) of FIFRA. EPA does not consider inclusion of adverse incident reporting in the NPDES permit to be a duplicative requirement to the FIFRA section 6(a)(2) requirements for registrant reporting of adverse incidents. This is because pesticide registrants are not likely to be directly covered under the PGP. Although some pesticide product labels may require that adverse incidents be reported, requiring the reporting of all adverse incidents and follow-up corrective actions may address the lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty for pesticide users to report adverse incidents, at least for the pesticide use patterns covered by the PGP.
EPA acknowledges that assessing and correcting adverse incidents may be complicated in certain instances. For example, symptoms associated with adverse incidents are often vague or mimic other causes which may lead to incorrect diagnoses. Thus, it may be difficult to identify and track chronic effects resulting from pollutant discharges. It may also be difficult to observe adverse effects because of limited visibility or access such as dead fish poisoned in a wetland under dense vegetation or in sparsely populated areas or because scavengers scatter or devour carcasses before discovery. It is important, however, to identify to the extent feasible situations where adverse effects occur where discharges from the application of pesticides also occur.
Immediately observable signs of distress or damage to non-target plants, animals and other macro-organisms within the treatment area may warrant concern for a possible adverse incident related to a discharge of pesticides during application. EPA acknowledges that some degree of detrimental impact to non-target species may occur and may be acceptable during the course of normal pesticide application. EPA expects Operators to use their best professional judgment in determining the extent to which non-target effects appear to be abnormal or indicative of an unforeseen problem associated with an application of pesticides.
During a visual inspection, Operators should watch for distressed or dead juvenile and small fish, washed up or floating fish, fish swimming abnormally or erratically, fish lying lethargically at the water surface or in shallow water, fish that are listless or nonresponsive to disturbance, the stunting, wilting, or desiccation of non-target submerged or emergent aquatic plants, and other dead or visibly distressed non-target organisms including amphibians, turtles, and macro-invertebrates. These observations must be noted unless they are deemed not to be aberrant (for example, distressed non-target fish are to be expected when conducting pest control with rotenone and non-target vegetation will be stressed near the target of contact herbicides). It should be noted that observation of these impacts does not necessarily imply that a pesticide has been misused or that there has been a permit violation or an instance of noncompliance, but may provide cause for further investigation of local water quality or reconsideration of Pest Management Measures.
Complete information concerning adverse impacts will aid EPA in any review of current or future pesticide use, adherence to Pest Management Measures, or effectiveness of these measures. Reporting of adverse incidents is not required under this permit in the following situations: (1) you are aware of facts that indicate that the adverse incident was not related to toxic effects or exposure from the pesticide application; (2) you have been notified in writing by EPA that the reporting requirement has been waived for this incident or category of incidents; (3) you receive information notifying you of an adverse incident but that information is clearly erroneous; (4) an adverse incident occurs to pests that are similar in kind to pests identified as potential targets on the FIFRA label. However, even for these situations, certain records must be kept on site by those Decision-makers who are required to submit NOIs, pursuant to Part 7.3 and 7.4 of the PGP.
6.5	Reportable Spills and Leaks
Part 6.5.1 of the PGP requires Operators to call the appropriate EPA Incident Reporting Contact to report any spill or leak of a hazardous substance or oil into waters of the United States with 24 hours of becoming aware of the spill or leak. Part 6.5.2 of the PGP requires Operators to document this notification within 30 days of becoming aware of such spill or leak. If the spill or leak triggers the notification in Part 6.5.1 and results in an adverse incident, then Operators must report the incident per the guidelines in Part 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 of the PGP. If the spill or leak triggers the notification in Part 6.5.1, but does not result in an adverse incident, then Operators must document and retain information outlined in Part 6.5.2 within 30 days of becoming aware of the situation. This documentation provides a written record of what you reported to EPA orally. It should also include a description of the reporting system that will be used to alert responsible managers and legal authorities in the event of a future spill or leak and a description of preventive measures to prevent, contain, or treat spills and leaks of these materials. Part 6.4.3 of the PGP requires Operators to notify either the National Marine Fisheries Service or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service if the Operator becomes aware of an incident that may have resulted from a discharge from the pesticide application that adversely affects a federally-listed threatened or endangered species or its federally-designated critical habitat. This information will be used by EPA to ascertain compliance with permit conditions.
6.6	Documentation for Other Corrective Action
For any event described in Part 6.1 of the PGP, other than for adverse incidents or reportable spills or leaks, immediate reporting to EPA is not required, but Operators must document basic information describing the event and the Operators' response to that event within 30 days. For triggering events in Part 6.1, where the Operator determines that revision to Pest Management Measures is not necessary, the Operator must still document the review and the basis for this determination. EPA is not requiring Operators to submit this documentation to the Agency. Rather, EPA expects Operators to retain this information on-site and upon request, to make any such records available to EPA or any other Federal, state, or local regulatory agency governing pesticide applications. A summary of this information must also be included in the annual report for Operators subject to the annual reporting requirement.
Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting
The PGP requires all Decision-makers and Applicators to maintain certain records to help them assess performance of Pest Management Measures and to document compliance with permit conditions. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements apply from the time any authorized Operator begins discharging pollutants under the PGP. These requirements are consistent with Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(j), but have been tailored to more closely reflect the requirements in the PGP. The PGP requires a basic set of records to be maintained by all Decision-makers and Applicators, as well as separate requirements depending on the type of Operator (i.e., Applicator, For-Hire Applicators, NOI submitting Decision-maker who is a small entity and NOI submitting Decision-maker who is a large entity). Part 7 of the PGP sets forth the recordkeeping requirements for each of these types of Operators. Operators can rely on records and documents developed for other programs, such as requirements under FIFRA, provided all requirements of the permit are satisfied.
EPA has found that it is appropriate and reasonable to require different records for different types of Operators, reasoning that the recordkeeping responsibilities assigned in the permit reflect the nature of involvement in pesticide application activities for the Operators described. The following sections describe the sets of records that the PGP requires different types of Operators keep and enumerates the specific information items to be recorded.
7.1	Records to be Kept by all Operators (all Decision-makers and all Applicators)
These records must be kept by all Operators, including those not submitting an NOI. Although this section is a universal requirement, these particular records are necessary only in the event of an adverse incident, the case that corrective action was required, or in the event of a discharge resulting from a spill or leak.
     a.	A copy of any Adverse Incident Reports (See Part 6.4.2);
     b.	Rationale for any determination that reporting of an identified adverse incident is not required, consistent with allowances identified in Part <IP_ADDRESS>;
     c.	A copy of any corrective action documentation (See Part 6.6); and,
     d.	A copy of any spill and leak or other unpermitted discharge of pollutants documentation (See Part. 6.5.2)
7.2	Records to be Kept by all For-Hire Applicators
All Operators who are For-Hire Applicators, as defined in Appendix A of the PGP, must keep the records listed above, as well as records that specifically document pesticide application equipment maintenance and details of the pesticide application event. Since Decision-makers who are not themselves performing pesticide applications are generally not able to record such information, EPA requires different recordkeeping requirements depending on the type of Operator.
     a.	Documentation of equipment calibration; and
     b.	Information on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including:
        1.	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;
        2.	Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, weed and algae, animal pest, or forest canopy);
        3.	Target pest(s);
        4.	Documentation of any assessment of weather conditions in the treatment area prior to and during application to ensure application is consistent with all applicable federal requirements;
        5.	Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number;
        6.	Quantity of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area;
        7.	Pesticide application date(s); and
        8.	Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or post-application and if not, why not and whether any unusual or unexpected effects identified to non-target organisms.
7.3	Records to be Kept by Small Entities, Submitting an NOI
As mentioned in Part 5, any Decision-maker that is required to submit an NOI and is below the SBA thresholds for small businesses or is a public entity serving a population of fewer than 10,000, is defined as a small entity in the permit. Small entities are required to keep a basic records set, outlined in Part 7.3 of the PGP, all of which can be recorded on the Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet provided in the PGP Appendix F.
Decision-makers who are required to submit an NOI and who are defined as small entities (as identified in Part 5) are required to keep the following records at the address provided on the NOI, as identified in Part 1.2.2 of the PGP. A worksheet for documenting this information on each treatment area is provided in Appendix F of the PGP, Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet.
     a.	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 with the assigned permit tracking number;
     b.	Documentation of equipment calibration (only if Decision-maker is also the Applicator);
     c.	Information on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including:
        1.	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;
        2.	Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, weed and algae, animal pest, or forest canopy);
        3.	Target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control;
        4.	Description of pest management measure(s) implemented prior to the first pesticide application;
        5.	Company name and contact information for pesticide applicator;
        6.	Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number;
        7.	Quantity of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area;
        8.	Pesticide Application Start Date;
        9.	Pesticide Application End Date; and
        10.	Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or post-application and if not, why not and whether any unusual or unexpected effects identified to non-target organisms.
7.4	Records to be Kept by Large Entities, Submitting an NOI
Any Decision-maker who is required to submit an NOI and is above the Small Business Administration (SBA) threshold for a small business or a public entity who serves a population of 10,000 or more is defined as a large entity in the permit. Large entities are required to keep the records listed in Part 7.4 of the PGP. EPA expects that large entities will have a greater capability than small entities to record specific details of the pest treatment area, and is therefore requiring slightly more comprehensive recordkeeping. In addition, much of the records set for large entities are reflected in the annual report that these entities must submit. The reported information will allow EPA to better characterize the discharges resulting from pesticide applications in a variety of different circumstances.
Decision-makers who are to submit an NOI and are defined as large entities (as defined in Appendix A of the PGP)) must keep the following records as identified in Part 7.4 of the PGP.
     a.	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 with the assigned permit tracking number;
     b.	A copy of the PDMP, including any modifications made to the PDMP during the term of this permit;
     c.	Copy of annual reports submitted to EPA;
     d.	Documentation of equipment calibration (only if Decision-maker is also the Applicator);
     e.	Information on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including:
        1.	Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of treatment area and identification of any waters of the United States, either by name or by location, to which pesticide(s) are discharged;
        2.	Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, weed and algae, animal pest, or forest canopy);
        3.	 Target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control;
        4.	Action Thresholds;
        5.	Method and/or data used to determine that action threshold(s) has been met;
        6.	Description of pest management measure(s) implemented prior to the first pesticide application;
        7.	Company name and contact information for pesticide applicator;
        8.	Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number;
        9.	Quantity of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area;
        10.	Pesticide application date(s); and
        11.	Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or post-application and if not, why not and whether any unusual or unexpected effects identified to non-target organisms.
 7.5	Retention of Records
All required records must be prepared as soon as possible but no later than 14 days following completion of the associated activity. Operators must retain copies of these documents for a period of at least 3 years from the date their coverage under this permit expires or is terminated.
EPA recommends that all Decision-makers keep records of acres or linear miles treated each calendar year for all applicable use patterns covered under this general permit. This record will help Decision-makers estimate when they will exceed the annual treatment area threshold (requiring submission of an NOI), or to complete an annual report if required.
7.6	Annual Reports
In addition to recordkeeping, EPA is requiring Decision-makers who are required to submit an NOI and are large entities as identified in Part 5 of the PGP to submit annual reports that contain basic information on their pollutant discharges to waters of the United States. An annual report form, along with instructions on how to complete it is available in Appendix G of the PGP.
The annual report must include information for the calendar year, with the first annual report required to include activities for the portion of the calendar year after the effective date of the NOI. If the effective date of the NOI is after December 1, the Operator is not required to submit an annual report for that first partial year but must submit annual reports thereafter, with the first annual report submitted also including information from the first partial year. When an Operator terminates permit coverage, as specified in Part 1.2.5 of the PGP, the Operator must submit an annual report for the portion of the year up through the date of the termination. The annual report is due no later than 45 days after the termination date, or February 15 of the following year, whichever is earlier.
This information in the annual report will be used by EPA to assess permit compliance and to determine whether additional controls on pollutant discharges are necessary to protect water quality. For example, these data will help the Agency identify where pollutant discharges are occurring, and the types of pesticides being discharged. The annual report provides specific information concerning the scope and nature of discharges of pollutants permitted under the 2021 PGP. Annual reports submitted under EPA 2011 PGP and 2016 PGP are available online at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-permitting. A summary of data submitted in the annual reports is in the administrative record for this 2021 PGP. See 2017-2019 PGP Annual Report Data document in the docket at EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0005.
The annual report is a summary of the pest control activities for each applicable use pattern and must contain:
     a.	Decision-maker's name and contact information;
     b.	NPDES permit tracking number(s);
     c.	Contact person name, title, e-mail address (if any), and phone number; and
     d.	For each treatment area, report the following information:
        1.	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;
        2.	Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, weed and algae, animal pest, or forest canopy) and target pest(s);
        3.	Company name(s) and contact information for pesticide applicator(s), if different from the Decision-maker;
        4.	Total amount of each pesticide product applied for the reporting year by the EPA registration number(s) and by application method (e.g., aerially by fixed-wing or rotary aircraft, ground based spray, etc.);
        5.	Whether this pest control activity was addressed in a PDMP prior to pesticide application;
        6.	If applicable, any adverse incidents as a result of these treatment(s), for incidents, as described in Part 6.4.1; and
        7.	If applicable, description of any corrective action(s), including spill responses, resulting from pesticide application activities and the rationale for such action(s).
7.7	Annual Reporting for Any Decision-maker with Discharges of Pollutants to Waters of the United States Containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, as Defined in Appendix A of the Permit, and Who is a Small Entity
Any Decision-maker who is required to submit an NOI for discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, as defined in Appendix A of the PGP, and is a small entity, as defined in Appendix A of the PGP, must submit an annual report to EPA. Large entities with discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern are required to submit annual reports consistent with Part 7.6 of the PGP. Decision-makers must submit the annual report electronically through EPA's NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT), available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-permitting, unless NeT is otherwise unavailable or the Decision-maker meets the waiver requirements for submitting a paper annual report. Decision-makers waived from the requirement to use NeT for annual report submission must certify on the paper annual report submitted to EPA the rationale for eligibility to use the waiver. The annual report must be submitted to EPA Headquarters (either through NeT or if NeT is otherwise unavailable or the Decision-maker meets the NeT waiver requirement, to the EPA Headquarters address identified in Part 8.1 of the PGP) no later than February 15 of the following year for all pesticide activities covered under this permit occurring during the previous calendar year. Annual reporting requirements begin with those activities occurring during calendar year 2022.
When Decision-makers terminate permit coverage, as specified in Part 1.2.5 of the PGP, an annual report must be submitted for the portion of the year up through the date of termination. The annual report is due no later than February 15 of the next year.
For small entities, the annual report is a summary of the pest control activities for each applicable use pattern that results in a discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States containing a NMFS Listed Resource of Concern, as defined in Appendix A of the PGP. For small entities, discharges of pollutants to waters that do not contain NMFS Listed Resources of Concern do not need to be included in the annual report. The annual report must contain:
     a.	Decision-maker's name and contact information;
     b.	NPDES permit tracking number(s);
     c.	Contact person name, title, e-mail address (if any), and phone number; and
     d.	For each treatment area, report the following information:
        1.	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;
        2.	Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, weed and algae, animal pest, or forest canopy) and target pest(s);
        3.	Company name(s) and contact information for pesticide applicator(s), if different from the Decision-maker;
        4.	Total amount of each pesticide product applied for the reporting year by the EPA registration number(s) and by application method (e.g., aerially by fixed-wing or rotary aircraft, ground based spray, etc.);
        5.	The approximate date of any discharge of pollutants;
        6.	If applicable, any adverse incidents as a result of these treatment(s), for incidents, as described in Part 6.4.1; and
        7.	If applicable, description of any corrective action(s), including spill responses, resulting from pesticide application activities and the rationale for such action(s).
7.8	Electronic Reporting Requirement
Any Decision-makers required to submit Notices of Intent (NOIs), Notices of Termination (NOTs), and/or Annual Reports, must submit them electronically unless a waiver is granted. Part 7.8 of the PGP outlines the conditions for obtaining a waiver. The 2021 PGP requires that all NOIs, NOTs, and annual reports be submitted electronically, unless EPA's NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT) is otherwise unavailable or the Decision-maker has obtained a waiver from the requirement to use the NeT. Electronic reporting improves efficiency for both Decision-makers and EPA and allows Decision-makers to obtain authorization to discharge in a timely manner (as is important for many pesticide applications).
In those rare cases where Decision-makers are unable to report electronically, the 2021 PGP contains language that allows for hard copy submittal of information when the following exemptions apply: (1) If the Decision-maker is physically located in a geographic area (i.e., zip code or census tract) that is identified as under-served for broadband Internet access in the most recent report from the Federal Communications Commission; or (2) If the Decision-maker has limitations regarding available computer access or computer capability. A Decision-maker who wishes to use paper submittals must submit a request to the EPA contact in the appropriate EPA Regional Office listed in Part 8 of the PGP to obtain a waiver from submitting reports electronically.
EPA Contact and Mailing Addresses
Part 8 of the PGP identifies contact information and mailing addresses for any applicable reporting requirements of the PGP. Note that depending on the requirement, some reports/notifications are to go to the EPA Regional office while others are to be sent to an EPA Headquarters location. Generally, Regions are notified for information that may require rapid review and response by the Region to address potential adverse effects or other concerns requiring more immediate attention.
Permit Conditions Applicable to Specific States, Indian Country, or Territories
Part 9.0 of the PGP, when finalized, will include specific permit conditions provided by states, territories, and tribes as part of their Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 certifications and their Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) concurrences.
EPA cannot issue an NPDES permit until the state, territory or tribe in which the discharge originates certifies that the discharge will comply with applicable provisions of the CWA, or waives certification. Part 9 of the PGP identified provisions provided to EPA by States, Territories and Tribes in their CWA § 401 certifications that the States, Territories and Tribes deem necessary to assure compliance with applicable provisions of the CWA and any other appropriate requirements of State, Territory and Tribal law. See 33 U.S.C. 1341(d); 40 CFR § 124.53(e)(1). Pursuant to CWA § 401(d), EPA attached those State, Territory and Tribal provisions to the PGP; those that constitute effluent or other limitations or monitoring requirements are enforceable conditions of the federal permit. American Rivers, Inc. v. FERC, 129 F.3d 99, 107 (2[nd] Cir. 1997). These conditions are subject to review in State, Territory and Tribal administrative and judicial tribunals with appropriate jurisdiction. 40 CFR § 124.55(e); American Rivers, Inc. v. FERC, 129 F.3d 99, 102 (2nd Cir. 1997); Roosevelt Campobello Int'l Park Comm'n v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1041, 1056 (1st Cir. 1982).
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and its implementing regulations (15 CFR Part 930) require that any Federal licensed activity directly affecting the coastal zone of a state with an approved Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) be consistent with the enforceable policies of that approved program to the maximum extent practicable. Agency general permits that do not involve case-by-case or individualized determinations by the Agency are federal activities for the purposes of CZMA section 307(c)(1). For the PGP, EPA made a consistency determination regarding the enforceable policies in each approved state CZM program for the coastal zones including state waters where the final 2021 PGP authorizes discharges of pollutants. [15 CFR 930.31(d)].
Permit Appendices
 Definitions and Acronyms
Appendix A of the PGP provides permit-specific definitions of statutory, regulatory, and other terms important for understanding its requirements. Any terms that are not listed in this definitions part have the meaning given to the terms by 40 CFR Part 122.2 (the definitions section of the NPDES regulations). To develop these definitions, EPA has, where possible, relied on existing definitions in other laws and regulations applicable to this universe of permittees in order to provide consistency with those laws and provide permittees with a familiar framework.
 Standard Permit Conditions
Federal regulations require that all NPDES permits contain the standard permit conditions specified in 40 CFR 122.41. Appendix B of the PGP includes all of the standard permit conditions published in federal regulations at 40 CFR §122.41.
 Areas Covered
As noted above, the PGP is available in those areas where EPA remains the NPDES permitting authority for discharges from the application of pesticides to or over, including near, waters of the United States. NPDES-authorized states issue permits elsewhere in the United States for these types of discharges of pollutants. Appendix C of the PGP includes a list of those areas where this EPA permit is available which includes portions of all ten EPA Regions where EPA remains the NPDES permitting authority.
 Notice of Intent Form
Part 1.2.2 of the PGP identifies certain Decision-makers required to prepare and submit a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) form to be authorized to discharge pollutants under the PGP. Decision-makers must submit NOIs in accordance with the deadlines provided in Part 1.2.3 of the PGP. The NOI form provides EPA with the information necessary to determine a Decision-maker's eligibility to discharge pollutants under this permit and enables EPA to better match up Operators with other reporting requirements and to prioritize oversight activities. Appendix D of the PGP contains information that is required to be provided on the NOI form. Except in special circumstances, EPA requires that Decision-makers submit that information electronically, using EPA's NeT available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-permitting, because it is easier (including availability of online instructions and help menus to guide you through the process), faster (NOIs can be processed 2 weeks or more faster than paper forms), and more accurate (NeT will ensure form is completed and will auto check certain key elements to improve accuracy of information submitted). See Part 7.8 of the PGP for waiver information.
 Notice of Termination Form
Part 1.2.5 of the PGP requires certain Decision-makers (i.e., those required to submit an NOI to be authorized under this permit) to submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) form within 30 days of the occurrence of one of several different triggering events: (1) when a new Decision-maker has taken over responsibility for the pest control activity, (2) the Decision-maker has ceased aquatic pesticide application covered under the general permit, (3) there is not and no longer will be pollutant discharge, or (4) the Decision-maker has obtained coverage under an individual permit or an alternative general permit. Appendix E of the PGP contains a copy of the information required to be submitted on the NOT form. Like the NOI, EPA requires that Decision-makers complete and submit the NOT form electronically using EPA's NeT available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-permitting, except in specified circumstances. See Part 7.8 of the PGP for waiver information.
 Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet
Part 7.3 of the PGP requires Decision-makers who are required to submit an NOI and are small entities, as defined in Appendix A of the PGP, to complete and retain a worksheet for at least 3 years from when an Operator's coverage under the PGP expires or is terminated. Decision-makers are required to make this worksheet available to EPA, including an authorized representative of EPA, upon requires. Appendix F of the PGP contains a copy of the worksheet required to be retained by Decision-makers.
 Annual Report Template
Part 7.6 of the PGP requires Decision-makers who: (1) are required to submit an NOI and are large entities, as identified in Part 5 of the PGP; and/or (2) discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, to submit Annual Reports. The Annual Report must be submitted no later than February 15 of the following year for all pesticide activities covered under the PGP occurring during the previous calendar year. When Decision-makers terminate permit coverage, as specified in Part 1.2.5 of the PGP, an Annual Report must be submitted for the portion of the year up through the date of termination. Appendix G of the PGP contains a copy of the information required to be submitted with an Annual Report. Like the NOI and NOT, EPA requires that Decision-makers complete and submit the Annual Report form electronically using EPA's NeT that is available for use at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-permitting unless eNOI is otherwise unavailable or the Decision-maker has obtained a waiver from the requirement to use NeT for submitting the Annual Report. See Part 7.8 of the PGP for waiver information.
 Adverse Incident Report Template
Part 6.4 of the PGP requires Operators to: (1) provide oral notice to EPA within 24 hours, and (2) submit a written report within 30 days of becoming aware of an adverse incident which may have resulted from a discharge from the Operator's pesticide application. Adverse Incident, as defined in the PGP Appendix A, is an unusual or unexpected incident that an Operator has observed upon inspection or of which the Operator otherwise become aware, in which: (1) There is evidence that a person or non-target organism has likely been exposed to a pesticide residue, and (2) The person or non-target organism suffered a toxic or adverse effect. Appendix H of the PGP contains a copy of the information required to be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional office and to the State Lead Agency within 30 days of discovering the adverse incident.
 Endangered Species Procedures
The PGP specifies procedures to protect federally-listed endangered and threatened species and its designated critical habitat. As discussed in section <IP_ADDRESS> of the PGP, coverage under this permit is available only for discharges of pollutants and discharge-related activities that are not likely to result in any short or long term adverse effects to species that are federally-listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA or federally-designated critical habitat under the ESA, except as provided in eligibility Criterion B, C and, for 60 day, D. For discharges of pollutants to a subset of these resources, identified in this permit as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, which are defined in Appendix A of the PGP, the operator must document that discharges of pollutants meet these conditions by certifying eligibility under one of Criteria A-F. (Note that operators not otherwise required to submit an NOI do not need to do so merely to certify under Criterion A, which indicates that discharges of pollutants will not occur to waters of the U.S. where NMFS Listed Resources of Concern are present.) Appendix I contains a four-step process that must be followed for determining whether an Operator is eligible for permit coverage, prior to submittal of the NOI. In order to become eligible for this permit, each Operator must determine its compliance with one of six eligibility criteria (A  -  F). If Operators cannot determine if they meet one of the eligibility criteria related to NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, the operator cannot submit an NOI to gain coverage under the PGP. In these instances, the Operator may consider applying to EPA for an individual NPDES permit.
Fact Sheet Appendices
 APPENDIX A. List of Pesticides and Degradates Which Exceeded Aquatic-life Benchmarks in the USGS 2014 Study and the CA Central Valley Regional 303(d) Impairment List of Pesticides.

Table A1. Sites that exceed one or more aquatic-life benchmarks in the last decade (2002-2011) USGS 2014 study
                              Pesticide/Degradate
             Sites that exceed one or more aquatic-life benchmarks