CJ
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, And
Toxic Substances
(7501C)
EPA735-B-93-005a
December 1993
<>EPA Guidance for Pesticides
and Ground Water
State Management Plans
-------
GUIDANCE FOR PESTICIDES
AND GROUND WATER
STATE MANAGEMENT PLANS
IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENT FOR THE
PESTICIDES AND GROUND WATER STRATEGY
vvEPA
(J.U. ..
Regior* G.
77 West j -
Chicago ,JL t
n Agency
Floor
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
-------
Contents
Chapter Page
1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background 1-3
1.2 Benefits of the SMP Approach 1-5
1.3 SMP Coordination with Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Program 1-7
1.4 SMP Coordination with Other Agriculture-Related Programs 1-9
2 State Management Plans 2-1
2.1 Generic State Management Plans 2-1
2.2 Pesticide State Management Plans 2-2
2.3 Legal Framework for State Management Plans 2-3
3 State Management Plan Components 3-1
Component 1: State's Philosophy and Goals Toward Protecting
Ground Water 3-1
Component 2: Roles and Responsibilities of State Agencies 3-4
Component 3: Legal Authority 3-5
Component 4: Resources 3-6
Component 5: Basis for Assessment and Planning 3-7
Component 6: Monitoring 3-10
Component 7: Prevention Actions 3-13
Component 8: Response to Detections of Pesticides 3-16
Component 9: Enforcement Mechanisms 3-18
Component 10: Public Awareness and Participation 3-19
Component 11: Information Dissemination 3-20
Component 12: Records and Reporting 3-21
4 Development of Support Documents 4-1
Also available from the Office of Pesticide Programs:
APPENDIX A: REVIEW, APPROVAL, AND EVALUATION OF STATE MANAGEMENT
PLANS
APPENDIX B: ASSESSMENT, PREVENTION, MONITORING, AND RESPONSE
COMPONENTS OF STATE MANAGEMENT PLANS
-------
Chapter 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
A central goal of EPA's Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy (October 1991) is
to provide States1 with the opportunity to manage the use of pesticides in ways that
protect ground water resources. Through the implementation of State Management Plans
(SMPs) for pesticides, States may promote the environmentally sound use of pesticides
that might otherwise pose an unreasonable risk to ground water resources. Through
SMPs, States should address pesticide use in all areas, including rural and urban areas,
golf courses, rights-of-way, and federal lands. Although EPA generally intends to require
SMPs for specific pesticides through a chemical-specific regulatory action, States are
strongly encouraged to take the initiative voluntarily to develop Generic SMPs which
establish the framework for SMPs that address specific pesticides (Pesticide SMPs). This
Guidance for Pesticides and Ground Water State Management Plans, with its Appendices,
(Figure 1) establishes the components of SMPs and provides approaches and methods
to assist States in developing and implementing SMPs. (In this Guidance, the phrase
"State Management Plan" refers also to "Tribal Management Plan").
This Guidance Document provides background on the development of the
Agency's ground water policy and the Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy. The
Introduction to this Guidance addresses the benefits of the SMP approach and the
relationship of SMPs to Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs and
other agriculture-related programs. The balance of this Guidance describes the two types
of State Management Plans (Generic and Pesticide SMPs) and presents the required
components and adequacy criteria of SMPs.
The guidance has two appendices:
(1) Appendix A: Review. Approval, and Evaluation of State Management Plans.
describes the process and time frame for EPA's review,
approval/concurrence, and oversight of SMPs. Specifically, Appendix A
outlines the procedures for assessing the SMP in terms of completeness
(whether it includes all the relevant components), content (how well it
addresses the components), and evaluation (how well a State is
implementing its SMP).
1 "State" denotes the 50 States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the District of
Columbia, Guam, American Samoa and other Pacific Island Territories of the United
States, as well as Indian Lands under Tribal jurisdiction.
Page 1-1
-------
Chapter 1
_ -
5 § * 8
E * °> g
CO
= 1 c' o ® «' c
§*&<£
2 O «
CO
(0
o.
S
(0
c
O
0)
,_ o
0) (0
3."2
(0
0)
o
1
<»
•o
Q) DQ
&
Q.
<
Page 1-2
-------
Chapter 1
(2) Appendix B: Assessment. Prevention. Monitoring, and Response
Components of State Management Plans, provides States with technical
guidance to assist in developing assessment, prevention, monitoring, and
response measures. Appendix B includes information on various ground
water protection practices and methods for implementing prevention
measures that States may adopt in the development of their prevention
components. The document also discusses the value and limitations of
several assessment, monitoring, and prevention approaches. For selected
approaches, it provides comparative costs and factors for evaluating site-
specific appropriateness. An array of response actions, such as education,
regulation, and remedial action, also are described in Appendix B.
This document represents EPA guidance to States on developing Generic and
Pesticide SMPs. EPA plans to propose the 12 components of a Pesticide SMP for public
comment in an upcoming regulation specifying pesticides for which a Pesticide SMP will
be required. This guidance document does not establish a binding norm -- Agency
decisions to approve or disapprove Pesticide SMPs will be made on a case-by-case basis
by applying the regulation to the specific facts of the case.
1.1 Background
In July 1989 EPA Administrator William K. Reilly established a Ground Water Task
Force to review the Agency's ground water protection program and to develop concrete
principles and objectives to ensure effective and consistent decision-making across all
Agency activities affecting ground water resources. The Task Force's efforts resulted in
the publication of Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990's
(Task Force Report) in May 1991. This publication articulates the Agency's policies and
implementation principles, which are intended to set forth an aggressive approach to
protecting the nation's ground water resource and to direct the Agency's activities and
efforts over the coming years.
The stated goal of EPA's ground water policy is to prevent adverse effects to
human health and the environment and to protect the environmental integrity of the
nation's ground water resources. In determining appropriate prevention and protection
strategies, EPA will also consider the use, value, and vulnerability of the resource, as well
as social and economic values. To implement this policy, EPA is using the
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP) approach. Under
the CSGWPP approach, States are encouraged to integrate all ground water-related
programs, authorities, and statutes into a comprehensive program consisting of six
strategic activities. A core premise of the CSGWPP approach is the recognition that the
States have primary responsibility in protecting the ground water resource, and that the
States need to design and implement programs consistent with distinctive local needs
and conditions.
Page 1-3
-------
Chapter 1
Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy
The Agency's Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy is an integral part of the
Agency's new CSGWPP approach. It describes the policies, management programs, and
regulatory approaches that the Agency will use to protect the nation's ground water
resources from risks of contamination by pesticides. The Strategy describes how Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorities can be used to achieve
the Agency's ground-water policy goal of preventing adverse effects to human health and
protecting the environmental integrity of the resource. It emphasizes prevention and
resource protection over remedial treatment, envisions a variety of means to protect the
resource, and provides flexibility for decisions to be made on a geographic basis.
The centerpiece of the Strategy is the development and implementation of SMPs
for pesticides that pose a significant risk to ground water resources. The SMP approach
provides flexibility to States to tailor pesticide management approaches to local
conditions.
EPA began to develop the Strategy in 1986 by holding a major public workshop
in Coolfont, West Virginia, with representatives from federal agencies, State agriculture,
environment, and health agencies, industry groups, environmental groups, farmers and
representatives of grower groups, ground water experts, and Congressional staff. The
workshop identified a need for an overall plan to coordinate federal and State efforts and
to establish a common goal for ground water protection. It also identified the need to
balance national consistency in environmental and public health protection with flexibility
in tailoring management measures to local conditions.
A second public workshop was held at Coolfont during the Summer of 1987, also
with broad participation. Input from the first workshop formed the basis for a proposed
Strategy reviewed at the 1987 workshop. Participants were asked to comment on the
Agency's proposed Strategy and a number of associated implementation issues.
In February 1988, the Agency released for public comment the "Agricultural
Chemicals in Ground Water: Proposed Pesticide Strategy" (53 FR 5830) and distributed
the document widely to Congressional representatives, governors, federal and State
agency officials, members of the agricultural and environmental communities, and many
other interested parties. Comments from this review were incorporated into the document
and the Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy was released by the Agency in October
1991.
State Management Plan Guidance
In June 1988, EPA issued a Technical Support Document for the Aldicarb
Preliminary Determination (PD 2/3) (53 FR 24630). A draft State Management Plan
Guidance Document was issued as an appendix to the Aldicarb PD. The draft Guidance
Document was designed to help the States, Indian Tribes, and territories determine what
Page 1-4
-------
Chapter 1
efforts and resources would be necessary to develop an SMP that would protect ground
water from contamination that may result in unreasonable risks to human health or the
environment.
EPA sought comment on the draft Guidance Document from various State and
federal officials throughout the country during ten two-day Regional workshops held in
late 1988. The workshop participants included officials from State agriculture,
environment, and health agencies, as well as representatives from the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Indian Tribes.
Participants explored the SMP concept, including the appropriate components and
emphasis of such plans, and the degree of involvement that EPA should have in
developing and implementing SMPs.
In addition to the information provided to EPA at the ten Regional workshops, the
Agency received written comments on the concept of SMPs and their proposed
components in response to the June 1988 Aldicarb PD. Many of the comments received
were similar to those provided at the Regional workshops.
One major theme of the comments was that the Guidance Document did not
provide enough detail in four specific areas: (1) EPA's approval process for SMPs;
(2) how SMPs would be evaluated; (3) what an acceptable response program for the
States would be; and (4) what an acceptable monitoring component would be. In order
to address these concerns, EPA committed itself to develop support documents in these
areas. As a first step, in October and November 1989, EPA held two week-long
workshops in Fredericksburg, Virginia to discuss, with federal and State managers and
experts, the appropriate content and format of these support documents. After obtaining
this input, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs developed Appendix A: Review. Approval.
and Evaluation of State Management Plans and Appendix B: Assessment. Prevention.
Monitoring, and Response Components of State Management Plans.
All three documents (the Guidance, Appendix A and Appendix B) underwent
several major reviews in 1991 and 1992. Input was provided by many offices within EPA,
as well as by States, other Federal agencies, and ground water experts. In July 1992,
the Office of Pesticide Programs conducted a final review of the documents in which EPA
received over 40 sets of comments from State agriculture, health, environment, and
natural resource agencies as well as EPA offices, USDA, and USGS. The Office of
Management and Budget conducted its review of all three documents in the Fall of 1993.
Before finalizing the guidance documents, revisions were made based on the comments
received from the various agencies.
1.2 Benefits of the SMP Approach
Until the development of the Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy and the SMP
Guidance, EPA's policy for pesticides that pose an unreasonable threat to ground water
despite national labeling and restricted use designations probably would have been to
Page 1-5
-------
Chapter 1
cancel them nationally (in the case of pesticides currently in use) or not register them (for
pesticides not yet in use). National prohibition based on a national risk/benefit
assessment may not always fully consider local variability of the use, value, and
vulnerability of ground water. The goal of the SMP approach is to prevent contamination
of ground water resources that present adverse effects to human health and the
environment resulting from the normal, registered use of pesticides, by taking appropriate
actions in vulnerable areas where such risks occur. Priorities should be focused on
currently used and reasonably expected sources of drinking water and ground water
closely hydrologically connected with surface water.
The SMP approach offers States the opportunity to continue to use a pesticide that
would otherwise be unavailable due to cancellation or lack of registration. In developing
SMPs, States address:
• Local ground water vulnerability;
• Current use and value of ground water;
• Future trends of ground water use for various locations; and
• Social and economic values of alternative preventive strategies.
SMPs allow States to tailor prevention measures in a given area to reflect local
characteristics.
The SMP approach is also a significant part of the Agency's larger ground water
protection policy, which seeks to develop Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
Programs (CSGWPPs) that integrate all State and federal programs to protect ground
water resources. As a result, the SMP approach will benefit from the increased efficiency
and effectiveness of efforts by EPA and the States to coordinate new and existing ground
water protection efforts. A State, with the assistance of EPA, should develop and
implement its SMPs in the context of the State's CSGWPP, which outlines the State's
overall ground water protection approach. The additional benefits of coordinated
implementation of a State's CSGWPP and its SMPs include:
• More effective and consistent protection of the resource;
• Increased State control to target efforts towards highest priority
protection;
• More efficient use of limited program resources; and
• Reduced potential for ground water protection activities to be at
cross-purposes.
Page 1-6
-------
Chapter 1
1.3 SMP Coordination with Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program
EPA's Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP)
approach seeks to integrate all ground water protection activities within a State to avoid
duplication of effort as well as to provide a coordinated approach to ground water
protection. The six strategic activities of a CSGWPP (outlined in the CSGWPP Guidance)
provide an underlying framework ensuring that all ground water protection activities
occurring under State, local, and federal laws are based on a consistent understanding
of the characteristics of a State's ground water, priority geographic areas, priority
contaminants, and other similar parameters. The CSGWPP approach, like the SMP
approach, is based on recognition of the State's primary responsibilities in protecting the
ground water resource, and the State's need to design and implement programs
consistent with distinctive local needs and conditions.
The Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy is one of the first EPA programs to be
developed based on principles consistent with the CSGWPP approach. In this respect,
State Management Plans should be considered a program-specific subset of a CSGWPP.
Undertaking all six CSGWPP strategic activities, which spell out the goals, objectives, and
approaches of the State's overall ground water protection program, will address most,
if not all, requirements for a Generic SMP, as illustrated by Figure 2. However, both
Generic and Pesticide SMPs have certain requirements specific to pesticides concerns
that are more detailed than what is required under a completed CSGWPP. For example,
under the Prevention SMP component, specific pesticide best management practices
need to be listed and described. To meet SMP requirements efficiently, a State can
extensively reference relevant portions of its CSGWPP, but the State also will need to
build on the basic policies and approaches of the CSGWPP. Similarly, in the
development of its CSGWPP, a State should ensure that aspects relevant to pesticides
management are consistent with the requirements of an SMP. Because development of
SMPs and CSGWPPs will occur at the same time in most States, the development of
SMPs should not wait until a CSGWPP is completed.
On an operational level, significant overlap exists between the SMP components
that States must address for SMP approval and the six strategic activities of a CSGWPP.
By addressing SMP components States will also be fulfilling many requirements for a
EPA-recognized CSGWPP. In order to avoid duplication, Chapter 3 of this Guidance
highlights and describes SMP requirements that should also be part of the State's overall
ground water protection program and CSGWPP.
Page 1-7
-------
Chapter 1
Figure 2
Crosswalk Between SMP Components and
CSGWPP Strategic Activities
SMP Components
CSGWPP Strategic Activities
State's Philosophy and Goal
Basis for Assessment and Planning
Roles and Responsibilities of State Agencies
Legal Authority
Resources
Prevention Actions
Response to Detections
Enforcement Mechanisms
Records and Reporting
Monitoring
Information Dissemination
Public Awareness and Participation
Establish a Common Ground Water
Protection Goal Across
all Relevant Programs
Establish Priorities, Based on
Characterization of the Resource,
Identification of Sources of Contamination,
and Programmatic Needs to Direct
all Relevant Programs and Activities
Define Roles, Authorities, Responsibilities,
Resources, and Coordinating Mechanisms
for Addressing Identified Priorities
Implement Necessary Activities to
Accomplish the State's Goal
Consistent with State Priorities
and Schedules
Conduct Information Collection and
Management to Measure Progress,
Re-evaluate Priorities, and Support
all Related Programs
Improve Public Education and
Participation in all Aspects of
Ground Water Protection
Page 1-8
-------
Chapter 1
1.4 SMP Coordination with Other Agriculture-Related Programs
Through the CSGWPP approach and the Agency's Ground Water Protection
Principles, the SMP approach is linked to and can be integrated with other evolving EPA
programs in order to avoid duplication of effort while promoting related activities (i.e.,
State-level assessments of various threats to ground water). This is particularly true of
other programs focusing on agricultural pollution prevention measures (e.g., best
management practices). SMP activities and prevention measures should be coordinated
and integrated with programs having agricultural components, including:
• Nonpoint source (NPS) programs under Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Under the NPS program, States have developed
management plans to protect surface and ground waters from all
types of nonpoint source pollution.
• State Ground Water Protection Grants under Section 106 of the
CWA. These grants promote State inter-agency coordination for the
assessment, classification, and protection of ground water resources.
• Wellhead Protection (WHP) Programs under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). WHP programs include State assessment of hydrologic
data and sources of contamination around public water supply wells.
• National Primary Drinking Water Regulations under the SDWA. EPA
has developed Maximum Contaminant Levels for 18 pesticides that
are enforceable for public drinking water supply systems.
• Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program under the SDWA. The
UIC program affords protection of underground sources of drinking
water from contamination by injection well operations, including
agricultural drainage wells.
• Coastal Nonpoint Source Program under Section 6217 of the Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Under the Coastal
NPS program, States are to develop State programs to ensure
implementation of NPS management measures to restore and
protect coastal waters.
Ground water protection and related pesticides issues are also being addressed
through a variety of initiatives involving agencies in addition to EPA. For example, water
quality programs in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are part of a coordinated
government-wide initiative. A major objective of the USDA water quality initiative is to
provide farmers, ranchers, and other land managers with information necessary to
voluntarily adopt improved, environmentally sound management practices that do not
sacrifice profitability.
Page 1-9
-------
Chapter 1
The SMP approach should be viewed as a piece of a larger mosaic that includes
regulatory, research, and legislative initiatives in which agricultural and environmental
policy issues converge. In developing their SMPs, States with the assistance of EPA
should work to coordinate and where appropriate integrate these existing authorities to
meet the objective of promoting both a healthy agricultural economy and responsible
environmental protection.
Page 1-10
-------
Chapter 2
Chapter 2
State Management Plans
There are two types of SMPs: Generic SMPs that address the SMP components
in generalized terms and Pesticide SMPs that address specific pesticides. Both types of
SMPs consist of twelve components that must be addressed to varying degrees to reflect
the degree of risk represented by the differences in aquifer sensitivity, pesticide use, and
agronomic practices in a particular State. The components of SMPs are discussed in
detail in Chapter 3.
2.1 Generic State Management Plans
States are strongly encouraged to take the initiative voluntarily in the development
of Generic SMPs even before EPA requires Pesticide SMPs through a chemical-specific
regulatory action. In addition, FIFRA ground water-related and CWA Section 106 (ground
water) grant funds are available to support activities to develop a Generic SMP
(requirements for FIFRA grant funds are described in the Agency document Consolidated
Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance, issued annually by the Office of Pesticide
Programs).
EPA acknowledges that development of Pesticide SMPs initially will be time- and
resource-intensive. Therefore, EPA encourages States to begin developing a Generic
SMP prior to identification of a specific pesticide of concern. A Generic SMP should
assist the State in preparing for the eventuality that SMPs are required for specific
pesticides of concern.
EPA believes that certain aspects of each SMP component will be generic within
a State regardless of the specific pesticide in question. Under a Generic SMP, a State
will address all SMP components, but will cover those elements in generalized terms that
are not specific to a particular pesticide. For example, the Generic SMP could describe
fully the State's general philosophy and goals toward protection of ground water;
describe fully the various agencies and entities involved in SMP implementation and their
responsibilities for carrying out the SMP, including coordination mechanisms; and set
forth a detailed scheme of varying degrees of preventive measures, educational efforts,
and pesticide use and agronomic practices the State may employ in a Pesticide SMP.
The Generic Plan should also give schedules and milestones. Moreover, the Generic
SMP needs to go beyond a planning document. States should use the Generic SMP to
put in place the resources and coordinating mechanisms that will be required to develop
and implement a Pesticide SMP. A Generic SMP, for example, might provide the State's
program and time frame for mapping its ground water resources and even describe their
basic operations; a Pesticide SMP would require the mapping program to be in
operation.
Page 2-1
-------
Chapter 2
EPA does not intend to require that Generic SMPs be submitted for concurrence.
However, EPA strongly encourages States to seek EPA review, comment, and
concurrence on their Generic SMPs. This will not only facilitate EPA's review of future
Pesticide SMPs, but will also ensure that States have adequate time to develop the
pesticide-specific information within the time allowed once a pesticide is identified as
requiring an approved Pesticide SMP for continued use. If a State is required to have an
approved Pesticide SMP and fails to gain approval, legal sale and use of that pesticide
within the State will not be permitted. Thus, to assist in ensuring the continued availability
of a pesticide of concern, EPA encourages States to develop Generic SMPs prior to the
need for a Pesticide SMP.
Finally, development of Generic SMPs will complement the overall Ground Water
Protection Principles and their objective of implementing Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) because many of the components that would be
adequately addressed in a Generic SMP are activities that also need to be defined within
the context of a CSGWPP. The Agency believes that developing coordination
mechanisms within the States, outlining responsibilities and authorities, and working with
the Agency toward an acceptable SMP will accomplish two critical objectives: (1) it will
improve a State's institutional framework for coordinating all ground water activities (i.e.,
program enforcement, ground water classification/mapping, monitoring, etc.), which will
better prepare the States to focus prevention and source reduction measures on areas
of ground water vulnerability and high use and value; and (2) it will build the relationships
necessary to comprehensively manage ground water as a resource within the States and
between the States and federal government.
2.2 Pesticide State Management Plans
EPA will invoke the SMP approach for a specific chemical if: (1) the Agency
concludes from the evidence of a chemical's contamination potential that the pesticide
"may cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment" in the
absence of effective local management measures; and (2) the Agency determines that,
although labelling and restricted use classification measures are insufficient to ensure
adequate protection of ground water resources, national cancellation would not be
necessary if States assume the management of the pesticide in sensitive areas to
address effectively the contamination risk. If EPA invokes the SMP approach for a
specific chemical, its legal sale and use would be confined to States with an EPA-
approved Pesticide SMP.
As with Generic SMPs, Pesticide SMPs must address all twelve components as
illustrated in Figure 1 and described in Chapter 3. However, a Pesticide SMP should
contain all the generic information appropriate to the Generic SMP plus all the information
specific to the pesticide of concern. If EPA determines that a Pesticide SMP is necessary
for a specific pesticide, both the generic and specific aspects of the SMP components
will have to be addressed in order for the Pesticide SMP to be deemed adequate. In
addition, the Pesticide SMP must demonstrate that a State's programs are in place and
Page 2-2
-------
Chapter 2
operating to protect ground water from pesticide contamination. Pesticide SMPs will be
allowed a substantial range of flexibility in the form and manner of their assessment,
prevention, monitoring, and response actions, reflecting each State's ground water
protection philosophy and differing regulatory approaches. Further, the components may
vary in detail in relation to the prospective magnitude of the ground water contamination
threat.
2.3 Legal Framework for State Management Plans
Two provisions of FIFRA support the use of SMPs as a condition of initial
registration, continued registration, or legal availability of a pesticide. These are the
restricted use provisions under Section 3, and the cancellation provision under Section
6 of the Act. Under Section 3 "other regulatory restrictions" authority, EPA would
undertake a rulemaking, with publication in the Federal Register, of the details of the
proposed action and opportunity for public comment, to classify one or more pesticides
for restricted use. SMPs would be specified as part of the restrictions required. The
basis for the action is a determination that the reduction in risk outweighs the decrease
in benefits (this may be quantified as an increase in costs) imposed by restrictions.
The Section 6 approach is to propose cancellation of the pesticide, unless there
is an approved SMP in place. The basis for the action is a determination that, as the
pesticide is currently used, its risks outweigh benefits, and cancellation is warranted.
However, use under an approved SMP is found to have an acceptable balance of
benefits over risks.
In actions under either Section 3 or Section 6, the SMP requirement is referenced
on the product label, so that the product can be legally sold and used only in States with
an approved SMP.
Page 2-3
-------
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
State Management Plan Components
A thorough and complete SMP will contain twelve program components that are
developed in sufficient detail and scope to attain the ultimate objective of preventing
ground water contamination that may present adverse effects to human health and the
environment.
The Agency has identified the following 12 program components that must be
included in a Generic and a Pesticide SMP.
1. State's philosophy and goals toward protecting ground water;
2. Roles and responsibilities of State agencies;
3. Legal authority;
4. Resources;
5. Basis for assessment and planning;
6. Monitoring;
7. Prevention actions;
8. Response to detections of pesticides;
9. Enforcement mechanisms;
10. Public awareness and participation;
11. Information dissemination; and
12. Records and reporting.
While all twelve of these components need to be discussed in both a Generic and
a Pesticide SMP, the extent to which each is addressed will depend on the State's unique
hydrogeologic and institutional characteristics, including its ground water protection
philosophy, ground water sensitivity, degree of pesticide use, agronomic practices, and
the use, value, and vulnerability of ground water.
A discussion of SMP components for both Generic and Pesticide SMPs follows:
Component 1: State's Philosophy and Goals Toward Protecting Ground Water
The general goal of EPA's Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy is to manage the
use of pesticides in order to prevent unreasonable adverse effects to human health and
the environment and to protect the environmental integrity of the nation's ground water
resources. This strategic approach emphasizes the prevention of contamination over
remedial treatment. Further, it focuses priorities on currently used or reasonably
expected sources of drinking water and ground water that is closely hydrologically
Page 3-1
-------
Chapter 3
connected to surface waters.1 The goal of EPA's Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy
fits in with that of EPA's Ground Water Protection Principles, which guide all the Agency's
ground water programs.
Through the Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
(CSGWPP) Guidance. EPA has expanded and clarified its ground water protection goal
as shown on page 3-3. In order to strive to meet this expanded goal, States are
encouraged to develop SMPs that pursue prevention of contamination whenever possible
and that share the same goals as CSGWPPs. While States are encouraged to protect
all ground water in SMPs, protection of the nations currently used and reasonably
expected sources of drinking water supplies, both public and private, is a required SMP
priority. Further, ground water that is closely hydrologically connected to surface water
must receive priority attention to ensure the attainment of surface water quality standards,
which are necessary to protect the integrity of associated ecosystems.
To ensure the quality of the resource, the Agency will use maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), water quality standards under
the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA Health Advisory (HA) numbers, or other approved
health-based reference points. EPA's policy on the use of Quality Standards is included
on page 3-15.
Generic and Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generic and a Pesticide State Management Plan must include:
• A statement that addresses both the ground waters to be protected
and the degree of protection to be achieved under the SMP. The
States goal must be no less protective than EPA's Pesticides and
Ground Water Strategy goal of preventing unreasonable adverse
effects to human health and the environment and protecting the
environmental integrity of the nation's ground water.
• The stated goal of protection efforts, whether it is the use of
established reference points, a more stringent standard, or a goal of
pristine ground water quality. If established reference points are
used, reaching those points should be considered a failure of
prevention and therefore failure to meet the ground water protection
goal.
1The process that States can use to define reasonably expected sources of
drinking water and ground water supporting surface water ecosystems is described in
the Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance.
Page 3-2
-------
Chapter 3
An Excerpt from the Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
Program Guidance (December 1992, pages 1-1 and 1-2)
"EPA's overall goal is to prevent adverse effects to human health and the
environment and to protect the environmental integrity of the nation's ground water.
This goal calls for CSGWPPs that ensure protection of drinking water supplies and
maintenance of the environmental integrity of ecosystems associated with ground
water. In addition, EPA's goal statement notes that "in determining appropriate
prevention and protection strategies, EPA will also consider the use, value, and
vulnerability of the resource, as well as social and economic values." Given the
lessons learned over the last several years regarding the extensive use and high
value of ground water, its vulnerability to contamination, and the social and
economic consequences of such contamination, EPA will pursue the following three-
tiered hierarchy of preferred ground water protection objectives:
• Prevention of contamination whenever possible. In order to meet
the Agency's goal of preventing adverse effects to human health and
the environment and protecting environmental integrity, prevention of
contamination must be the first priority of the CSGWPP approach.
• Prevention of contamination based on the relative vulnerability of
the resource, and where necessary the ground water's use and
value. While prevention of contamination whenever possible must be
the first priority of a CSGWPP, EPA also recognizes that basic human
activity has impacts on ground water. Prevention of all discharges to
all ground water is not possible. This should not be construed as
allowing ground waters to be "written-off." Rather, EPA believes that
some level of protection should be considered for all ground water
resources...
• Remediation based on relative use and value of ground water.
Although the focus of ground water protection should be on the
prevention of contamination, remediation must be pursued as a final
option when prevention fails or where contamination already exists..."
Page 3-3
-------
Chapter 3
Component 2: Roles and Responsibilities of State Agencies
State efforts to implement the EPA's Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy will,
out of necessity, require extensive coordination among State health, environment,
agriculture, and water agencies. The SMP must include a description of the roles and
responsibilities and coordination mechanisms of involved State agencies. While a
description of intraState coordination is required, a State may choose to include a
discussion of potential interstate ground water issues and coordination efforts. For
example, the State may wish to enter into an agreement with an adjoining State to share
monitoring data relevant to a common aquifer or compliance monitoring data identifying
violators and/or violations relevant to a common aquifer.
Generic Plan Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generic and a Pesticide State Management Plan must:
• Identify and describe the general responsibility of each participating
agency responsible for the development and implementation
(including enforcement) of the SMP. This should also include a
description of how the State agencies intend to use the programs
and expertise of federal agencies -- e.g., the U.S. Geological Survey,
USDA Soil Conservation Service, USDA Extension Service, etc. -- in
carrying out the SMP. Appendix B provides a description of
technical assistance that is available from other agencies.
• Identify a liaison who will serve as a single contact point for all format
communications concerning the SMP process between EPA and the
State. The purpose is to have a single contact point responsible for
the transmittal and receipt of official correspondence and information.
The nature of the liaison could take the form of a task force
chairperson, a special council secretary, or any other entity or
person that is able to communicate with EPA regarding the SMP.
• Describe the coordination mechanisms between all participating
State agencies, local entities, and appropriate federal agencies. This
must include a description of the process the State will use to work
with the USDA Soil Conservation Service State office to coordinate
pesticide management measures of SMPs and Conservation
Compliance Plans developed under the Food Security Act of 1985.
Any Memoranda of Understanding between participating agencies
or other coordination mechanisms to implement the SMP should be
discussed.
• Describe how local governments are included in activities under the
SMP. If the State delegates pesticide management responsibilities
Page 3-4
-------
Chapter 3
to localities, describe the general responsibilities delegated, the
criteria, if any, for delegation, and the State's oversight of these
activities. When local governments have authority to address State
ground water-related objectives and priorities, States must
demonstrate that program coordination, guidance, or oversight is
provided.
• Contain official concurrences from the directors of all State agencies
with responsibilities under the SMPs stating their agreement with the
plan.
Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
In addition to the Generic Plan Criteria listed above, a Pesticide Plan must:
• Describe the specific technical and administrative tasks to be
performed by each participating State agency.
• Contain official concurrences from the directors of all State agencies
with responsibilities under the SMP stating their commitment to carry
out their responsibilities under the program.
• Contain a statement that the State has worked with the USDA Soil
Conservation Service State office in coordinating pesticide
management measures of Pesticide State Management Plans and
Conservation Compliance Plans (CCPs) in the State. The reason for
this is to ensure that management measures do not conflict with one
another. (See Appendix A for more information on CCPs.) In
reviewing Plans, EPA will consult with the USDA Soil Conservation
Service Office and provide an opportunity to appeal measures under
the SMP.
• Discuss any relevant intraState multi-jurisdictional coordination. For
example, States that are monitoring ground water for pesticides
under different authorities may coordinate their efforts and share
data. Relevant intraState multi-jurisdictional issues should be
discussed, including how they will be resolved for purposes of
implementing the SMP.
Component 3: Legal Authority
The foundation for a State's ability to carry out prevention and response actions
for pesticides in ground water is dependent on its legal authority to regulate pesticide use
and protect ground water. Regulatory authorities must be sufficient to accomplish the
Page 3-5
-------
Chapter 3
desired outcomes of the SMP. (This component should be considered in parallel with
Component 9 on enforcement mechanisms. Descriptions of enforcement authorities
provided in this component should be cross-referenced in Component 9.)
Generic Plan Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generic and a Pesticide State Management Plan must:
• Describe the general legal authorities of the State to implement the
plan successfully. This includes federal legislation, regulations and
program delegation, and State legislation and regulations, available
to the State. The SMP should cite relevant State laws and
regulations. Gaps that may exist in current authorities must be
identified and measures to remedy those deficiencies should be
outlined (include a timeline).
Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
In addition to the Generic Plan Criteria listed above, a Pesticide Plan must:
• Specify the State's authority to impose any necessary preventive
measures and its remedial action authority.
• Identify the specific authorities that will be used to carry out the
specific commitments made in the Pesticide SMP. For example, the
authority to conduct or require others to conduct monitoring, prohibit
use in specific areas, close public wells, or supply or require others
to supply alternative sources of water, where such actions are
elements of the SMP, should be identified.
Component 4: Resources
A State's ability to carry out the commitments delineated in its SMP depends on
the resources available to implement the program. Resources include technical expertise
and personnel, physical, and operational capabilities, and funding. The SMP must
demonstrate there is an adequate match between revenues and proposed expenditures
and that the necessary expertise is available.
Generic Plan Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generic and a Pesticide State Management Plan must:
• Indicate generally what categories of personnel or technical expertise
are anticipated to be necessary for planning and implementation of
Page 3-6
-------
Chapter 3
the SMP and whether the State currently has access to those
categories of individuals.
• Include an estimate of the costs, both physical and operational, to
develop and implement the plan. Costs associated with
implementing preventive measures, conducting vulnerability
assessments, public education, monitoring (including laboratory
costs), and enforcement, responding to detections, promoting public
participation, record-keeping, and reporting should be considered
when projecting costs.
• Discuss the current funding available for implementation of the
program, existing and potential funding sources for the future, and
a commitment to pursue additional funding if needed. If the SMP
indicates that adequate funding is not available at the present time,
the State should indicate what activities in the SMP will go unfunded
and what impact less than full implementation will have on the goal
of protecting the ground water resource.
Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
In addition to the Generic Plan Criteria listed above, a Pesticide Plan must:
• Indicate categories of personnel and technical expertise that the
State has available for SMP implementation. For example, if an
element of an SMP is to conduct sampling of existing drinking water
wells that meet pre-described construction standards, the plan must
indicate the availability of expertise, personnel, and laboratory
capacity to characterize the adequacy of the wells, take the samples,
and analyze the samples.
• Contain an estimate of the costs to implement Pesticide SMP
measures beyond those projected in the Generic Plan estimate.
Component 5: Basis for Assessment and Planning
One of the fundamental principles in EPA's Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy
is the tailoring of protection activities to the unique hydrogeologic settings, pesticide
usage patterns, and agronomic practices of each State. The effectiveness of protection
activities depends to a large extent on the degree to which vulnerable areas in need of
protection can be accurately identified. Therefore, States must have an ongoing program
that provides basic information on the occurrence, movement, and quality of ground
water in relation to the occurrence, movement, and quantity of pesticides. State Agencies
of environment, water, agriculture, and health must all have input into this program.
Page 3-7
-------
Chapter 3
Prevention is the central principle of EPA's approach to managing pesticide use
in order to protect ground water resources. To this end, EPA will pursue a goal of
preventing and reducing contamination whenever possible.
Prevention and response priorities under an adequate SMP need to be based, in
part, on the relative vulnerability of the resource, and the ground water's use and value.
A State may also establish priorities based on the magnitude of risks and the costs of
prevention or remediation actions, provided these priorities are consistent with the overall
goal of the SMP. While a State is encouraged to protect all ground water, protection of
the nation's currently used and reasonably expected sources of drinking water supplies,
both public and private, is a required SMP priority. Further, ground water that is closely
hydrologically connected to surface water must receive priority protection to ensure the
attainment of surface water quality standards, which are necessary to protect the integrity
of associated ecosystems. Even when a State's goal is to protect all of its ground water,
the State should assure priority attention in day-to-day program operations to ground
water with these valuable uses. Further, priority setting under the SMP must be
coordinated with the efforts of the State's ongoing or planned CSGWPP. EPA
encourages this integration of effort rather than setting up a separate and possibly
duplicative program under SMPs.
Ground water use may be considered in terms of the currently used or reasonably
expected sources of drinking water supplies as well as other uses important to the State,
including crop irrigation, livestock watering, mining, and industrial use. Ground water
value reflects the relative worth of the resource and its benefits to society. For instance,
ground water with high value may include irreplaceable sources of drinking water, and
ground water that is ecologically vital.
Ground water vulnerability refers to the relative ease with which a contaminant (in
this case a pesticide) applied on or near the land surface can migrate to the aquifer of
interest under a given set of agronomic management practices, pesticide characteristics,
and aquifer sensitivity conditions. Appendix B: Assessment. Prevention. Monitoring, and
Response Components of State Management Plans, as well as EPA's Technical
Assistance Documents on ground water resource assessments, provides methods and
tools that can be used to conduct aquifer and ground water assessments.
Generic and Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generic and a Pesticide State Management Plan must:
• Discuss the State's approach and activities to assess vulnerability
(considering factors such as pesticide usage, soil type, depth to
ground water, aquifer material, precipitation, and irrigation use) on
Page 3-8
-------
Chapter 3
a sub-county level2 for the geographic area in which the State
intends to allow pesticide use.
In addition, the use of monitoring (see Component 6), modeling,
other geographic planning methods or tools, such as Geographic
Information Systems (GIS), or work developed by other programs
used in developing the approach should be described. Sources of
the above data must be identified. Assessment and planning efforts
should utilize and integrate the data available from ongoing State
and federal assessment and mapping programs such as those
available from the USGS and USDA's Soil Conservation Service.
Discuss how the State will determine current or reasonably expected
sources of drinking water (taking into account factors such as land
use, remoteness, quality and/or availability of alternative water
supplies) and ground water that is hydrologically connected to
surface water. If a State is affording priority protection to all ground
water no matter the use and value, as many States are, then the
State may not have to delineate and define these.
Discuss how the State's assessment of ground water vulnerability
and monitoring, and the use and value of ground water, will be used
to set priorities for protection activities, design and implement
prevention and response programs, and determine and evaluate the
effectiveness of management measures.
For example, the SMP may discuss how a combination of modeling
and monitoring will be used to determine what management
practices should be employed in those areas. Some States may
choose to use information developed by one agency on pesticide
use and cropping practices in combination with hydrogeologic
sensitivity maps produced by another agency to determine specific
ground water protection management measures to be implemented
in vulnerable areas. A State also may decide to place a moratorium
on pesticide use within Wellhead Protection Areas, critical recharge
areas, or highly valued aquifers.
2 Both the General Accounting Office (GAO), in its report, Groundwater Protection.
Measurement of Relative Vulnerability to Pesticide Contamination, and EPA, in the
National Pesticide Survey Phase II Report, have reported that assessing vulnerability
on the county level generally is not useful in predicting the vulnerability at smaller
scales. Therefore, vulnerability assessments developed for State Management Plans
should consider including sub-county level, rather than county level, data (see
Appendix B, Chapter 3).
Page 3-9
-------
Chapter 3
• Identify the limitations of the assessment and discuss how those
limitations are taken into account in the design of prevention and
response programs. For example, if a State applies prevention
measures on broad regional or county-level designations, then sub-
county level assessments may not be needed, but the State should
explain why the measures chosen are likely to be adequate to meet
program goals. Conversely, if a State plan allows sub-county or
farm-level distinctions in applying prevention measures in order to
avoid overregulation, it should explain the basis for making such
distinctions, and how protection goals will be met.
Note: The State's assessment and priority should reflect the SMP goal
(Component 1) and should be at a level that complements
monitoring (Components), prevention (Component?), and response
(Component 8) activities. Over time, new or changed information
from monitoring and on-going assessment activities should be used
to refine and update the assessment.
Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
In addition to the Generic Plan Criteria listed above, a Pesticide Plan must:
• Describe the State's available pesticide use data (e.g., geographic
use, application rates) and how it will be factored into assessing
vulnerability.
6: Monitoring
Broadly defined, "ground water monitoring" is the set of activities that provide
chemical, physical, geological, biological, and other environmental data needed by
environmental managers/decision-makers to assist in developing and implementing
ground water protection policies and programs. Ground water monitoring is viewed as
a continuum of activities ranging from defining background conditions, to defining the
existence and extent of contamination, to defining the success of prevention and
response measures and programs to protect the ground water resource.
., - -EPA recognizes that many States have already implemented monitoring programs
as^'part of their ground water protection strategy. The Agency also recognizes that there
are various functions, designs, and ways of conducting monitoring programs. Therefore,
EPA will not specify how a State will conduct its monitoring program, but will allow each
State to choose an approach most appropriate to its control strategy, its resources, the
use patterns of the pesticide in the State, and sensitivity of areas where the pesticide is
used. EPA will assess whether the State's program is appropriate for its intended
purpose and if there are assurances that the program will be carried out adequately.
Page 3-10
-------
Chapter 3
State Agencies of environment, water, agriculture, and health must all have input into this
program. The scope and design of the State's monitoring program must reflect and
support the State's goal (Component 1), assessment and priority-setting scheme
(Component 5), and prevention and response programs (Components 7 and 8).
In addition to monitoring performed by the State during implementation of its SMP,
States can obtain monitoring data through: 1) EPA or State registration requirements,
or 2) other regulatory programs and private efforts. States could also request that
registrants provide monitoring protocols to assist in the evaluation of their pesticide.
To ensure that monitoring data can be communicated efficiently and shared within
the ground water community at all levels of government, States are encouraged to use
EPA's Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground Water Quality (MSDE). The MSDE is
a set of 21 ground water quality-related data elements that contain geographic, well, and
sample descriptors. EPA is required to use the MSDE for all ground water data collection
activities, including research and development and enforcement. EPA encourages States
to implement the MSDE when developing a new ground water quality data base or when
updating an existing data base that contains ground water quality information. The 21
data elements that make up the MSDE are listed on page 3-12. For more information on
the MSDE refer to EPA's Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground
Water Quality. EPA encourages use of the MSDE, but if States choose not to use the
EPA set, they should at least have their own set of data elements that are consistently
collected at each sampling site.
Technical considerations and various monitoring designs for the development and
implementation of the monitoring component for SMPs are presented in Chapter 5 of
Appendix B: Assessment. Prevention. Monitoring, and Response Components of State
Management Plans.
Generic Plan Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generic and a Pesticide State Management Plan must:
• Describe the State's monitoring program for pesticides and pesticide
degradates (breakdown products or metabolites); the uses to which
monitoring will be applied; and the parties responsible for various
functions associated with monitoring. Key elements of a monitoring
program must include scope and objective, design and justification,
monitoring protocols, quality assurance/quality control, sampling
methodology, analytical methods, and analytes.
Page 3-11
-------
Chapter 3
MINIMUM SET OF DATA ELEMENTS FOR GROUND WATER QUALITY
Element Category
General Descriptor: describes
where the well Information is
maintained
Geographic Descriptors:
describe the well or spring in
relation to the earth's surface
WeH Descriptors: describe
various features of a well or
spring
Sample Descriptors: describe
different aspects of collecting,
analyzing, and recording the
results of a ground water
sample
Element Names
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13,
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Data Sources
Latitude
Longitude
Method Used to Determine Latitude and Longitude
Description of Entity
Accuracy of Latitude and Longitude
Attitude
Method Used to Determine Altitude
State FIPSS' Code
County FIPS^ Code
Well Identifier
Well Use
Type of Log
Depth of Well at Completion
Screened/Open Interval
Sample Identifier
Depth to Water
Constituent or Parameter Measured
Concentration/Value
Analytical Results Qualifier
Quality Assurance Indicator
~ Federal Information Processing Standard.
Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
In addition to the Generic Plan Criteria listed above, a Pesticide Plan must:
• Describe the purpose of each specific monitoring protocol. For
example, SMP monitoring may be used (1) to confirm detections at
specific sites; (2) to define the extent of the problem at a specific
site; and/or (3) to evaluate the quality of ground water on an annual
basis. Each SMP would describe, for each of the three uses, the
Page 3-12
-------
Chapter 3
specific monitoring protocols to be used and who will conduct
sampling, analysis, quality assurance/quality control, etc.
Include specific monitoring designs and justifications that address
the number of sites to be sampled, the number of samples to be
taken, the frequency of sampling, and the analytical methodology
that will be used to evaluate the samples. Quality Assurance/Quality
Control measures must be provided. Monitoring data collected by
the State should be of known and reliable quality and properly
stored for retrieval and use. (See Component 12)
Include Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures as described in
Section 5.4 of Appendix B.
Describe how the placement of monitoring wells relates to the State's
priorities for protecting ground water and how the placement will
allow for evaluation of the effectiveness of prevention and response
measures. (See Component 5).
Component 7: Prevention Actions
The emphasis of EPA's Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy is on the prevention
of contamination. The SMP must identify general management approaches designed to
prevent ground water contamination associated with the use of registered pesticides.
Preventive management approaches may vary based on ground water vulnerability,
ground water use and value, and social and economic factors, and may range from
education efforts to use restrictions or prohibitions in certain areas. This discussion of
prevention measures overlaps with the presentation of response measures at the point
that pesticide contamination of ground water is found. At the point of pesticide detection
however, preventive actions can still be pursued to prevent further contamination. States
may choose to combine their prevention and response discussions because of this
overlap. (See Component 8)
The Office of Pesticide Programs' Appendix B: Assessment. Prevention,
Monitoring, and Response Components of State Management Plans support document
identifies ground water protection practices and methods for implementing prevention
efforts that States can consider in the development of their prevention component. (See
Chapter 4.) In addition, in order to assist States in determining specific prevention
approaches and measures, EPA will be disclosing information about the
physical/chemical characteristics of each pesticide that requires a Pesticide State
Management Plan.
EPA encourages adoption of best management practices, use of integrated pest
and crop management, sustainable agriculture, and other approaches that result in
Page 3-13
-------
Chapter 3
reduced risk of ground water contamination, even in the absence of any actual detections
of pesticides in ground water. If additional measures are applied to an area where
detections have been found, EPA supports application of those measures to other areas
where similar factors (e.g., ground water vulnerability, use and value) are present.
Further, a State's prevention and response measures must be based on its ground water
protection philosophy and the considerations described in Components 5 and 6. Finally,
in developing SMPs, States should coordinate preventive measures with measures under
existing EPA programs, such as the Nonpoint Source, Coastal Zone Management,
Wellhead Protection, and Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs.
Measures must also be coordinated with the USDA Soil Conservation Service's
Conservation Compliance Plans.
Generic Plan Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generic and a Pesticide State Management Plan must:
• Address the types of preventive measures that will be implemented
in the absence of actual detection of pesticides in ground water
which the State has deemed to be valuable or vulnerable. Indicate
how prevention measures will be reevaluated and what increasingly
stringent types of measures will be imposed if contamination of
ground water is found or is increasing toward the reference point.
The SMP must also indicate the factors and rationale considered in
choosing these measures and the triggers that wouiJ lead to a
State's implementation of more stringent measures. At a minimum,
confirmed detections of a pesticide in ground water need to be
treated as a cause for concern and should trigger some action to
diagnose the cause of the particular detection and determine
whether any further regulatory/management approaches are needed.
For example, a State may indicate that it will implement educational
efforts regarding source reduction of pesticides, even when the
pesticide has not been detected in ground water; that if detections
are confirmed in ground water the State will move to measures that
involve enforceable use limitations; and that if the level of a pesticide
or breakdown product in ground water is found to be increasing
toward the MCL or other established reference point, the State will
implement use prohibitions.
Pesticide SMP Plan Adequacy Criteria
In addition to the Generic Plan Criteria listed above, a Pesticide Plan must:
• Identify specific preventive approaches (i.e., specific application
rates, specific tilling practices or other best management practices,
use restrictions and prohibitions, etc.) that will be employed on a
Paae 3-14
-------
Chapter 3
voluntary or required basis. Pesticide SMPs should be self adjusting
and include a range of contingency plans that would be triggered by
pesticide detections found in ground water, or new information on
the level of risk posed by the contamination, pesticide usage
patterns, as well as ground water vulnerability, use and value.
Explain the rationale for the specific prevention measures chosen
and indicate the feasibility of implementing those measures. For
example, the plan could briefly document how the specific prevention
measures have been used successfully in the State or, for new
measures, the results of research or demonstration trials where the
measures have been shown to be effective.
Describe at what levels of detection (from zero to the reference
point) the State will implement certain prevention or response
measures. (See EPA's Policy on Use of Quality Standards.)
Agency Policy on EPA's Use of Quality Standards in Ground Water Prevention
Activities
When EPA is carrying out its programs, the
Agency will use maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act as
"reference points" for water resource protection
efforts when the ground water in question is a
potential source of drinking water. Water
quality standards, under the Clean Water Act,
will be used as reference points when ground
water is closely hydrologically connected to
surface water ecological systems. Where MCLs
are not available, EPA Health Advisory numbers
or other approved health-based levels are
recommended as the point of reference. If
such numbers are not available, reference
points may be derived from the health-effects
literature where appropriate. In certain cases,
maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs)
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or
background levels may be used in order
to comply with Federal statutory
requirements. Reference points are to be
applied differently for prevention and
cleanup purposes.
* Prevention: Best technologies and
management practices should be relied on
to protect ground water to the maximum
extent practicable. Detection of a
percentage of the reference point at an
appropriate monitoring location would then
be used to trigger consideration of
additional action (e.g., additional
monitoring; restricting, limiting use or
banning the use of a pesticide). Reaching
the MCL or other appropriate reference
point would be considered a failure of
prevention.
In establishing preventive steps and response actions the State
should consider, among other factors, the level of contamination
compared to the MCL or other established reference point. Where
a pesticide has or is considered likely to reach reference points
(reaching the reference point marks the point of failure of the ground
Page 3-15
-------
Chapter 3
water protection goal), the most stringent actions should be taken to
stop further contamination. These actions can range from
enforcement actions to modification of the way a pesticide is
managed, including geographically-defined prohibitions or moratoria
on the pesticide's use. (See Component 8.)
Address potential adverse impacts of the specific measures
employed by a State to surface water in addition to ground water.
For example, the plan would address whether a change in a tillage
practice instituted to reduce ground water contamination infiltration
may in some instances increase surface water runoff. In addition, if
a State expects that a risk reduction measure will lead users to use
alternative chemicals, then EPA encourages the State to consider
whether the alternative chemicals will cause adverse effects for
ground water, surface water or other areas. (EPA rulemaking will
have analyzed the most likely alternative chemicals including their
risks and benefits.)
EPA also strongly encourages States to implement 'measures to
protect surface water from pesticide contamination that is likely to
impair water quality.
Component 8: Response to Detections of Pesticides
The Agency's priorities for contamination response, stated in the Ground Water
Protection Principles in Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the
1990's. are to limit the risk of adverse effects to human health first and then to restore
currently used and reasonably expected drinking water supplies and ground water
closely hydrologically connected to surface waters, whenever such restorations are
practicable and attainable. The Agency's Principles state that given the costs and
technical limitations associated with ground water cleanup, the environmental and public
health benefit of each dollar spent should be maximized. In making remediation
decisions, a realistic approach to restoration should be taken based on actual and
reasonably expected uses of the resource as well as social and economic values.
This component describes how the State will respond to contamination to ensure
that reference points (MCLs, HAs, or State quality standards) will not be reached, and
actions the State will take in the event that the reference points are reached and/or
exceeded. Response measures should be based on the State's ground water philosophy
and Components 5 and 6 of this guidance. Further, this component is closely tied to
Component 7 concerning prevention standards that specifies that an SMP must
describe actions that the State will take initially in the absence of actual detection and
those it will implement if the plan appears to be failing to protect ground water. SMPs
should describe how the appropriate State agencies will be brought into remedial actions.
Page 3-16
-------
Chapter 3
Details about how those agencies carry out remedial decision-making is not necessary.
It should be noted that EPA's philosophy is that contamination reaching the reference
point is considered failure of the State Management Plan goal.
Response actions, such as increasing implementation of best management
practices, and use restrictions or prohibitions, are the focus of this component, rather
than remediation activities. Since FIFRA provides limited means for responding to
contamination, however, States should increase efforts to coordinate enforcement and
other response activities under a number of other federal/State authorities. In addition,
as in Component 7, States should coordinate response measures with measures under
existing EPA programs, such as Nonpoint Source, Coastal Zone Management, Wellhead
Protection, and Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs. Appendix B:
Assessment. Prevention. Monitoring, and Response Components of State Management
Plans presents a framework for assessing and responding to ground water contamination
by pesticides as well as response alternatives.
Generic Plan Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generic and a Pesticide State Management Plan must:
• Describe the actions the State will take if a pesticide has exceeded
or is expected to exceed reference points in ground water. When a
pesticide level in ground water approaches, reaches, or exceeds an
MCL or other reference point as a result of normal agricultural use,
an aggressive stance should be taken, including the possibility of
prohibiting further use of the pesticide in the affected areas.
Detections below reference points should also trigger actions to
prevent contamination with the potential to pose risks to human
health and the environment (See Component 7.) The State's
response section of its SMP may overlap with its prevention section.
However, it must at a minimum pick up where the prevention section
left off.
• Describe the steps that will be taken, and who will be responsible
for: (1) identifying, if possible, the source of contamination,
(2) ascertaining whether contamination resulted from normal use in
accordance with label directions and other requirements, or from
misuse or accident, and (3) determining whether the detection was
found in a vulnerable or non-vulnerable area, which may be critical
in establishing how the State assesses leaching potential
(Component 5). In cases of misuse, enforcement actions should be
pursued.
• Describe the State's response policy regarding contaminated ground
water that is used as a source of drinking water. The SMP must
Page 3-17
-------
Chapter 3
discuss generally what steps will be taken to protect public health.
The State may need to provide or fund interim sources of drinking
water if necessary. If the contamination constitutes a violation of the
SDWA regulations3 for which the Public Water System is
responsible, these detections should be referred for enforcement
action under authority of SDWA. The State will also need to
determine actions for responding to contamination in private wells,
including notifying well owners.
The requirements listed above should be presented in the form of a
general corrective response scheme, including timeframe(s) and
identification of the agencies responsible for various activities,
thereby illustrating the State's capacity for timely, coordinated
response to contamination.
Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
In addition to the Generic Plan Criteria listed above, a Pesticide Plan must:
Indicate the levels (at the MCL or other reference point, or above
these standards) at which the State intends to take or require
remedial action to reduce contamination of currently used or
reasonably expected sources of drinking water. The SMP must also
indicate what specific steps the State will take, and the timeframe in
which it will act, to initiate measures commensurate with
contamination levels to reduce the possibility of further contamination
toward significant health or environmental concern (i.e., levels at the
reference point).
Component 9: Enforcement Mechanisms
Regulatory approaches are often required to ensure compliance with protective
measures and control of ground water contamination sources. Compliance monitoring
and enforcement of pesticide regulations are best conducted at the State and local level.
Therefore, delegation of these authorities to the appropriate State officials is essential.
Emphasis should be placed on coordinating State enforcement authorities, enforcement
activities of delegated programs under FIFRA, SDWA, RCRA, and CERCLA, and
enforcement activities under programs administered by EPA to identify parties responsible
for ground water contamination as a result of the misuse of pesticides, including illegal
disposal or leaks and spills (See Component 3).
3 A violation under the SDWA relates to the average contaminant concentration
over four consecutive quarters or to a single sample that is greater than 4 times the
MCL
Page 3-18
-------
Chapter 3
Generic Plan Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generic and a Pesticide State Management Plan must:
• Describe the State's enforcement capabilities, authorities, and
compliance activities (i.e., inspections, technical support, penalty
provision, etc.). (If such authorities are described in Component 3
on Legal Authority that discussion can be cross referenced in this
Component and need not be repeated.) The SMP should also
identify the State agency with each enforcement authority.
Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
In addition to the Generic Plan Criteria listed above, a Pesticide Plan must:
• Discuss the State's enforcement authorities and capabilities to
monitor compliance with the specific measures included in the SMP,
both those intended to protect ground water from contamination and
response actions where contamination has already occurred.
Enforcement authority must be identified by the State, and the roles
and responsibilities of each State agency must be defined. If not
already discussed in reference to "coordination mechanisms," the
SMP will specify how coordination of enforcement capabilities within
agencies will work to prevent and respond to contamination.
Component 10: Public Awareness and Participation
Most government activities are subject to citizen involvement and review. The State
must demonstrate that the public is involved in the process of SMP development and will
be informed of significant SMP implementation activities.
Generic Plan Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generic and a Pesticide State Management Plan must:
• Address the public role regarding development of both Generic and
Pesticide SMPs and decision-making in implementing the SMPs.
The SMP must identify or describe existing legal requirements within
the State that would ensure public participation in the process (i.e.,
an Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice and comment, etc.).
If no such legal requirements exist within the State, the SMP must
describe any other public participation process the State intends to
use in the development of the SMP.
Page 3-19
-------
Chapter 3
• Indicate how, when, and by whom the public will be informed of
detections in ground water that are considered significant. At a
minimum, States must notify the well owner of any detections in
ground water. Also, if detections are above the reference point, the
State should ensure that all users are notified.
Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
In addition to the Generic Plan Criteria listed above, a Pesticide Plan must:
• Include the level of detection in ground water that is considered by
the State to be of such significance that the State will inform the
public.
• Include a description of the process and means of communication
by which the public will be made aware of important regulatory
actions taken under the SMP.
Component 11: Information Dissemination
The user is responsible for directly controlling the use of pesticides in the field.
Therefore, measures prescribed in a SMP must be communicated to pesticide users as
well as appropriate industry groups and regulatory officials (See Component 7).
Generic Plan Adequacy Criteria
Both a Generip and a Pesticide State Management Plan must:
• Describe how information regarding prevention measures (e.g., use
limitations and precautions) will be relayed to the appropriate
audiences. The SMP must describe how the State will update
information provided to pesticide users as SMP requirements change
due to changing circumstances.
• Describe how pesticide users will be trained or educated in
complying with requirements of applying a pesticide where use is
governed by an SMP. This description should include identities of
the principal groups or agencies to provide training (e.g., USDA
Extension Service) and their qualifications, types of information to be
included in the training, and timeframes for revising and presenting
new training as SMP requirements change. Any entities (e.g.,
pesticide dealers, manufacturers, special interest groups) whose
assistance in the training and education is anticipated should be
identified and their anticipated roles should also be described.
Page 3-20
-------
Chapter 3
Pesticide SMP Adequacy Criteria
In addition to the Generic Plan Criteria listed above, a Pesticide SMP must:
• Identify the targeted audiences and discuss how information will be
relayed. For example, if the State determines that the only use of the
pesticide in sensitive areas occurred on a particular crop, the SMP
should indicate how the contamination prevention measures would
be relayed to persons involved in the production of that specific
crop. The State may possess and choose to use records of
commodity production within the State to identify the appropriate
people and mail information to them, or the State may have arranged
with the pesticide manufacturer to provide the information with their
product.
• Explain why the information dissemination approach is appropriate
for the type of contamination prevention actions being employed,
and the education and/or awareness of the targeted audience is
required. For example, under a strictly educational approach,
making information available at various locations may be adequate.
If use limitations are being implemented, however, the State would
likely need to have a mechanism that better ensures direct receipt by
the pesticide users of the necessary information.
• Describe how information will be updated as requirements change.
Such discussion should include the form these updates will take and
the distribution methods. The SMP should also discuss any existing
mechanisms (i.e., Memoranda of Understanding, cooperative
agreements, etc.) between the State and other entities that will be
involved in this effort if they are not addressed as part of Componer
2: Roles and Responsibilities of State Agencies.
Component 12: Records and Reporting
Documentation of a State's program not only provides a source of data to share
with EPA and other involved federal and State agencies, but also provides a basis v-,tn
which to assess the implementation and effectiveness of a State's prevention and
response measures. The SMP discussion of records and reporting should identify both
management measures relating to the State's progress in implementing the SMP and
environmental indicators of the effectiveness of the program. States report on the
development of Generic SMPs under the FIFRA ground water grant program. Therefore,
SMP Biennial Reports are not required for Generic SMPs.
Page 3-21
-------
Chapter 3
Pesticide State Management Plan Adequacy Criteria
• Include a commitment by the State to maintain all records relating to
SMP implementation for a period of at least four years. The
information maintained must include, but is not limited to, records on
any monitoring or sampling conducted, results of analyses, issuance
of permits, types and numbers of enforcement actions taken,
records of any site-specific regulatory actions, and administrative
actions. The State must commit to make available to EPA, upon
request, any and all records related to the development or
implementation of the SMP.
• Commit to developing and submitting to the appropriate Regional
Office an SMP Biennial Report every second year. The Biennial
Report will provide a basis for measuring the State's progress
toward protection of ground water resources from pesticide
contamination. More specifically, this report will (1) provide an
assessment of the status of implementation efforts, (2) provide an
assessment of the environmental effectiveness and the level of
ground water protection provided by an implemented SMP, and (3)
provide information to be used to help ensure national consistency
of protection. EPA will also use the information provided in each
State's report in the Agency's own budget process, to indicate
national or regional trends. The report must be concurred on by
State Administrators from the key State agencies that play a role in
implementing the SMP.
Additional reporting may be requested on programmatic activities
and how States are using grants for State Management Plans as
part of normal programmatic evaluations (e.g., FIFRA cooperative
agreement in the case of a Pesticide Office lead; CWA Section 106
Grant in the case of a Ground Water Office lead).
The SMP Biennial Report will need to consist of two components:
a programmatic evaluation and an environmental evaluation. The
programmatic component will describe whether and how a State is
implementing all the components of the SMP. This component of
the report will consist of the following:
Demonstration that all 12 components are fully operational to
protect ground water and a discussion of the
accomplishments and progress for each of the 12
components of an SMP;
Page 3-22
-------
Chapter 3
Identification of any special issues (e.g., change in resources
to implement the SMP, change in legal authority) within the
State regarding the SMP;
Description of projected available resources for the next two
years, with a comparison to the resources necessary to carry
out the Plan;
Description of any proposed modifications or updates to the
SMP. (These can also be submitted at other times as well.);
Data on the number of inspections performed to determine
compliance with provisions of the SMP, completed
enforcement actions related to noncompliance, and a
summary of findings; and
Description of response actions taken for detections of the
specific pesticide.
The environmental component of the Report will be used to
determine if SMPs are successfully protecting ground water from
pesticide contamination. EPA recognizes that direct measurement
of environmental benefit may not be obtainable over the first few
years of SMP implementation. Over time, and through evaluation of
ground water monitoring results, pesticide usage, and perhaps
additional or other environmental indicators, however, EPA expects
to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of Pesticide SMPs. The
environmental component of the Biennial Report consists of the
following:
Results and analyses from ground water sampling and
monitoring as well as a summary of significant finds which
would prompt a State to increase its degree of oversight of
use of the pesticide or modify its SMP.
An assessment of pesticide usage and whether use of the
specific pesticide has increased, decreased, or remained
essentially the same over the past two years.
Report to the appropriate EPA Regional Office as indicated below.
EPA encourages States to ensure that all State agencies with duties
and responsibilities pertaining to the SMP be party to all reports
submitted to EPA.
Page 3-23
-------
Chapter 3
Information to Report as it is Obtained: The SMP must
indicate the State's commitment to report any significant
findings to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. The State
need not report a detection of a pesticide in a monitoring
sample until its subsequent investigation is completed and a
determination of significance is made. Significant finds would
include, but are not limited to, those that prompt a State to
increase its degree of oversight of use of the pesticide, or
modify its SMP.
• EPA strongly encourages States to submit a final or interim report of
their monitoring data to EPA Headquarters' Pesticides in Ground
Water Data Base during their Biennial Evaluation or at any other time.
Note: For more information about the process for States submitting and Regions
reviewing Biennial Reports, see Chapter 5 of Appendix A.
Page 3-24
-------
Chapter 4
Chapter 4
Development of Support Documents
Program Offices within EPA, including the Office of Pesticide Programs, have
developed procedural and technical support documents, some of which will be included
as appendices to this Guidance Document. A summary of the content of these
documents follows. In addition, other offices within EPA are developing technical
information that will support the Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy and SMP efforts
(see Appendix B, Chapter 7 for additional information).
Office of Pesticide Programs Documents
The Office of Pesticide Programs has developed two support documents for this
Guidance that address: (1) review, approval, and evaluation of SMPs; and
(2) assessment, monitoring, prevention, and response measures.
• Appendix A - Review, Approval, and Evaluation: This is a
procedural document that outlines the process and timeframe for
EPA's review, approval/concurrence, and oversight of SMPs.
• Appendix B - Assessment, Prevention, Monitoring, and Response
Measures: This document provides the user with technical
considerations and alternative methods for assessment, prevention,
monitoring, and response actions. First, this document describes
various ground water protection practices and methods for
implementing prevention measures that States may adopt in the
development of their prevention component. The document also
describes a variety of ground water assessment methods and tools
and how assessment information can be obtained. For each of
several monitoring approaches, this document discusses the value
and limitations of each approach, the comparative costs, and under
what conditions the use of each approach might be most
appropriate. Finally, the document will provide an array of response
actions, including regulation, and remedial action. It will also provide
a discussion of under what circumstances each response action
might be most appropriate.
Office of Research and Development Documents
The Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD) in cooperation with the
Office of Pesticide Programs and Region III is developing a set of technical tools and
guidance entitled, "Prevention of Ground Water Contamination from Pesticides:
Information Systems for State Use." Products include documents that will:
Page 4-1
-------
Chapter 4
• Discuss effective monitoring strategies for pesticides in ground
water; and
• Develop an integrated system for modeling and geographic
information systems to aid in identifying areas sensitive to ground
water contamination.
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Documents
The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has issued or will issue the
following support documents:
• A Review of Methods for Assessing Aquifer Sensitivity and Ground
Water Vulnerability to Pesticide Contamination. 1993. EPA813-R-93-
002. A technical assistance document to assist State resource
managers in choosing among the many methods for assessing the
susceptibility of ground water to pesticide contamination. The
document describes the general categories of assessment methods,
provides examples of each, and discusses their characteristics and
limitations, including their suitability for different purposes and
hydrogeologic zones.
• Ground Water Resource Assessment. 1993. EPA 813-R-93-003. A
technical assistance document to assist State resource managers in
conducting ground water resource assessments. The document
discusses the key components of a ground water resource
assessment and approaches to assessing aquifer sensitivity and
ground water vulnerability,
• Ground Water Information Systems Roadmap. 1993 (Draft). The
document describes EPA's electronic data systems and hard copy
filing systems that contain ground water data. This report also
identifies the types of ground water data contained within the
systems and the extent to which they conform to EPA's Minimum Set
of Data Elements for Ground Water Quality.
• Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground Water
Quality. 1992. EPA 813/B-92-002. The guidance document
identifies and defines a minimum set of 21 ground water data
elements for ground water quality that are needed to share data
efficiently within the ground water community at all levels of
government. For each of the data elements, the document provides
information on the element's name, the element's definition, a
discussion on the element's definition, and examples of possible
data conventions for the element.
Page 4-2
-------
Chapter 4
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance.
1992. EPA 10O-R-93-001. The guidance document describes the six
CSGWPP Strategic Activities and the established adequacy criteria
for each activity. The document also discusses the development
process that States will follow to attain their Core CSGWPPs and
Fully-Integrating CSGWPPs. In addition, the CSGWPP Guidance
describes how the CSGWPP approach is linked to EPA and other
federal agency programs, including the SMP approach.
A Handbook for State Ground Water Managers. 1992. EPA813-B-
92-001. The handbook assists State ground water managers in
identifying existing EPA ground water-related grants that may
support the development and implementation of CSGWPPs. For
each grant program, the handbook provides information on the
program office, statutory authority, type of grant, objective of grant,
how the grant can be used to support the CSGWPP approach,
restriction on uses for supporting the CSGWPP approach, eligibility
requirements, financial assistance considerations, and program
funding levels.
A Review of Methods for Assessing Nonpoint Source Contaminated
Ground Water Discharge to Surface Water. 1991. EPA 570/9-91-
010. A summary of the technical literature describing seven general
assessment methods. The document includes a detailed annotated
bibliography describing over 120 technical papers.
Page 4-3
------- |