Dan Helfgott, Chief Government and International Services Branch

1. The FY 2008-2010 Water Quality Grant Guidance:The New Three-Tiered Approach and Performance Measures Dan Helfgott, Chief Government and International Services Branch US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Western Regions Pesticide Meeting May 17, 2007

2. Program Goal The goal of the Pesticide Water Quality Program is to insure that pesticides do not adversely affect the nation’s water resources.

3. How Much for WQ? • Approximately $4.4M are provided to States & Tribes in STAG funds. • Funds provided range between $11K to $180K. • This figure has remained steady for several years, and is basically unchanged in the President’s FY 08 Budget.

4. Three Tiered Approach • Evaluate: • Identify pesticides of concernover timeby evaluating a list of pesticides of interest that may have the potential to threaten water quality locally; • Manage: • Take actions over time to manage pesticides of concern; and • Demonstrate Progress: • Examine available data and trends to demonstrate improvement in water quality.

5. Pesticides of Interest • Pesticides with the potential to occur in ground or surface water at concentrations approaching or exceeding a human health or ecological reference point. • Pesticides that have been identified by the States in the survey conducted by SFIREG in 2005 • Currently registered pesticides that are the cause of water quality impairments under CWA §303(d). • Any other pesticides a State/Tribe wishes to add.

6. Evaulate Pesticides of Interest • To determine whether a human health or environmental reference pointis likely to be approached or exceeded in localized areas, and therefore, whether the pesticide should be elevated to a pesticide of concern which needs to be managed. • The reference point is the concentration of a pesticide active ingredient in water used to judge the severity of contamination. • Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), • Drinking water health advisory, • Surface or ground water quality standard (human or aquatic life toxicity), • EPA reference dose, • OPP benchmark (e.g, the drinking water level of concern). • Or another benchmark that the State or Tribe adopts by regulation or policy.

7. What Counts as an Evaluation? • A previous evaluation by the State or Tribe. • A re-evaluation is not required unless new information, new use patterns, or increased risk of exposure indicate the need for a new evaluation. • A state determination that there is no reasonable exposure expected (due to factors such as soil type, use pattern, state registrations status, sales, or volume of use). • A new quantitative technical evaluation. • New evaluations can be based on available monitoring data. • An evaluation may also be based on the pesticide’s environmental fate and use patterns, performance in the field, available prospective monitoring studies, peer-reviewed scientific literature, or monitoring results and experience from other States or Tribes with comparable conditions.

8. Measure #1 • Measure #1 is aimed at quantifying the progress of evaluating pesticides of interest. • Metric: # of pesticides of interest evaluated X 100 # of pesticides of interest • Goal: Over time, evaluate 100% of the pesticides of interest.

9. Manage • A pesticide of concern is actively “managed” when activities are carried out that are intended to prevent or reduce contamination so the active ingredient will not reach the water quality standard or other reference point, or is brought below the reference point.

10. Examples of Management • Applicator or user education, hands-on training, or public outreach on practices can minimize exposure. • Water quality assessment to identify vulnerable water resources. • Promotion and adoption of voluntary BMPs judged to prevent or reduce contamination by a particular pesticide e.g., riparian buffer zones, filter strips, no-till cultivation. • Management control decisions based on spatially and temporally focused surveillance monitoring. • Targeted inspections and enforcement of existing water quality-related label restrictions and cancellation notices. • Designation as State or Tribal “Restricted Use” due to water quality concerns. • Imposition of other use or label restrictions designed to reduce contamination of a pesticide. • Denial of State registration due to water quality concerns. • Activities specific to assessing and addressing CWA § 303(d) “impaired waters.”

11. Measure #2 • Measure #2 is aimed at quantifying State and Tribal efforts to manage pesticides that have been identified as posing a risk of significant contamination. • Metric: # pesticides of concern managed x 100 # pesticides of concern identified • Goal: Over time, manage 100% of pesticides of concern.

12. Demonstrated Progress • Management efforts show that concentrations in water are being held at acceptable levels or are being reduced toward acceptable levels (i.e., below a reference point), or certified widespread adoption of control measures.

13. What Demonstrates Progress? • Targeted monitoring of water samples from vulnerable use areas that determines that mitigation measures are preventing residue levels from approaching or exceeded a reference point. • Downward trends in concentration levels established by monitoring data in geographic areas where the pesticide of concern is being used (data from USGS, registrant, USDA, or other sources). • The results of targeted surveys or inspections that document the wide adoption of voluntary or regulatory measures which have been proven via research to protect water quality.

14. Measure #3 • The third measure is aimed at quantifying the number of pesticides for which some form of management has demonstrated progress toward keeping (or returning) pesticide concentrations in water to below a reference point. • Metric: # pesticides of concern managed with demonstrated progress toward reduction x 100 or maintenance of concentrations below the Reference Point . # pesticides of concern managed

15. Pesticide of Interest (POI) POI list = 57 from 2008-2010 EPA Grant Guidance + 303(d) listed (but only for currently registered a.i.s) + others added by states Metric 1: Evaluate Concentrations Approaching/Exceeding Reference Point or State/Tribe Action-Trigger Yes No POC Not a POC Re-evaluate Metric 2: Manage Re-evaluations not to be included in first metric Information from ongoing monitoring; changes in use patterns; or state/tribal program guidance, rule or statute that triggers periodic re-evaluation Information used to re-evaluate POIs and POCs may come from from ongoing monitoring, use-tracking or other sources Managed POC Metric 3: Measure Progress POC below level of concern

16. Additional Pesticides WQ Measures

17. Support in Reducing Impairments Due to Pesticides • EPA’s Office of Water (OW) strategic target: • By 2012, remove at least 5,200 of the specific causes of water body impairment identified by States in 2002. (2002 Baseline: estimate of 64,250 specific causes of water body impairment identified by States and Tribes.) • SLAs can help by consulting and coordinating with State water agencies, where possible, to help validate listing decisions due to specific, currently registered pesticides and/or by managing specific pesticides to mitigate the cause of impairment. • Pesticide evaluations, and any supporting data, of specific pesticide inputs to §303(d)-listed water bodies, which do not appear to rise to the level of a pesticide of concern, should be shared with the State water agency with responsibility for the CWA §303(d) list.

18. OPP Mission Area Measure Protect the Environment • The specific pesticide water quality strategic targets from the Agency’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, Sub-Objective 4.1.4 “Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, “ are: • By 2011, reduce the percentage of urban watersheds that exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion). • By 2011, reduce the number of agricultural watersheds, that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides (azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos.).

19. End-Of-Year Reporting • The Grant Guidance also includes streamlined End of Year (EOY) reporting forms to: • allow EPA verify that States are meeting the core requirements of the grant guidance; • ensure EPA is receiving the data necessary to support the performance measures of the national pesticide program. • facilitate uniform reporting and easier compilation of the reported information without creating an additional burden in terms of time and resources.

20. On-Line Reporting • In cooperation with Regions, States, and Tribes, OPP is developing an on-line EOY reporting tool that will provide this data in an accessible database that will make it easier for pesticide lead agencies to review information from across the country e.g., citations on new studies, regulatory standards in use, pesticides of concern, successful BMPs etc.

22. Monitoring • Monitoring is not required, but is encouraged to assess the potential for contamination, the extent/magnitude of contamination, and/or demonstrate success of management actions. • Monitoring activities should be coordinated with State water quality agencies.

23. Reporting: Monitoring • If cooperative agreement funds are used for water quality monitoring, a report is required to be submitted to EPA • EPA encourages States and Tribes to submit any monitoring data) to EPA regardless of the funding source. • EPA access to this information will further inform and influence its risk assessment and risk management process, and may lead to better registration decisions to protect human health and the environment. • This data will also help the national program refine its measures of success for field program activities. • Any monitoring results need to be provided in electronic format (easy to import into a spreadsheet or database).

25. Core Activities • Streamlined Guidance will require as “core program activities” only those activities that are essential to baseline operation of the WQ program, achieving environmental results, and are needed to feed the new performance measures. • At a minimum, states/tribes must commit to accomplishing the “core activities”.

26. Supplemental Activities • The guidance also includes "supplemental activities” which States/tribes should strongly consider. • “Supplemental activities” are optional and not considered essential to the baseline operation of programs, however, EPA feels these activities will enhance program effectiveness. • EPA separated these supplemental activities from the core activities in order to give the state/tribes more flexibility in recognition of budget constraints.