T&E Item 1
March 30, 2015
Worksession 2
MEMORANDUM
March 26, 2015
TO:
FROM:
Transportation, Infrastructure,
Ene~nvironment
Committee
Josh Hamlin, Legislative Attorner.
rJ _
Non-Essential
SUBJECT:
Worksession
2: Bill 52-14, Pesticides - Notice Requirements
Pesticides - Prohibitions
Expected Attendees
Panel 1:
Dr. Dennis vanEngelsdorp, Assistant Professor, Entomology
University of Maryland
Dr. Mark Carroll, Associate Professor, Plant Science and Landscape Architecture
University of Maryland
Panel 2:
Jody Fetzer, Green Management Coordinator
Kevin May, Park Manager I, Cabin John Area
M-NCPPC - Montgomery Parks
Chip Osborne, President
Osborne Organics, LLC
Ryan Bjorn, Director, Grounds and Environmental Management
Maryland Soccerplex
Panel 3:
Eric Wenger, President
Complete Lawn Care, Inc. and
Complete Plant Care, Inc.
Zack Kline, AOLCP, LICM, Owner
A.I.R. Lawn Care
Paul Wolfe, II, Owner
Integrated Plant Care
Sean Surla, Principal
Surla Landscape Design
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill 52-14, Pesticides - Notice Requirements Non-Essential Pesticides - Prohibitions,
sponsored by then COWlcil Vice President Leventhal and COWlcilmembers EIrich, Riemer, Floreen,
and Navarro was introduced on October 28. Public hearing on the Bill began on January 15, and
was continued on February 12. A Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E)
Committee worksession was held on March 16. An additional T &E Committee worksession will
be scheduled at a later date.
Bill 52-14 would:
(1)
require posting of notice for certain lawn applications of pesticide;
(2)
prohibit the use of certain pesticides on lawns;
(3)
prohibit the use of certain pesticides on certain COWlty-owned property;
(4)
require the COWlty to adopt an integrated pest management program for certain
COWlty-owned property; and
(5)
generally amend COWlty law regarding pesticides.
Council Vice President Leventhal has explained the purpose of this Bill in his October 22,
2014 memorandum to COWlcilmembers (See
©
14-17).
I
Background
Shared Regulation
ofPesticides
The regulation of pesticides is the shared responsibility of federal, state, and local
governments.
This shared approach, known as "environmental federalism," is consistently
applied among several federal environmental protection laws,2 and has evolved largely over the
last 50 years.
At the national level, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") is
the primary vehicle for pesticide regulation. FIFRA was enacted in 1947, and has evolved from
being primarily a labeling statute to become a somewhat more broad regulation. In 1972,
administration of FIFRA was transferred to the newly created Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA"), which is responsible for classifying pesticides based on a review of the scientific
evidence of their safety and impact on the health of individuals and the environment. FIFRA also
requires EPA to maintain a registry of all but "minimum risk" pesticides.
3
In
addition to the
For additional background on this Committee's recent consideration of pesticides and pesticide use in Montgomery
County, see the packet for the September 9, 2013 discussion at:
http://www6.montgomerycountvmd.goy/contentlcouncil/pdf/agenda/cm/20 l3/l
30909/20
130909 TE3.pdf. Video of
the discussion is available, beginning at 22: 10, at:
http://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?yiew id=6&clip id=5704.
2
The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic
Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990 all
provide for state and local regulatory roles.
3
Minimum risk pesticides are a special class of pesticides that are not subject to federal registration requirements
because their ingredients, both active and inert, are
demonstrably
safe for the intended use. Information about
EPA's treatment of minimum risk pesticides can be found at:
1:!.m:I:!
/www.epa.goY/oppbppdllbiopesticides/regtools/25b/25b-faq.htm
1
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
classification and registry of pesticides, FIFRA provides a unifonn national standard for labeling
pesticides. FIFRA does not comprehensively regulate pesticides, however, and does not include
public notice or pennit requirements for the use of pesticides.
Under FIFRA, the states are the primary enforcers ofpesticide use regulations, and FIFRA
expressly authorizes states to enact their own regulatory measures concerning the sale or use of
any federally registered pesticides in the state, provided the state regulation is at least as restrictive
as FIFRA itself. In Maryland, pesticides are regulated by the Maryland Department ofAgriculture,
through the enforcement of Subtitles I and 2 of Title 5 ofthe Agriculture Article of the Maryland
Code.
4
Maryland law and regulations generally create a pesticide registration and labeling regime
at the state level, and a licensing program for the application of certain pesticides. Title 5 does not
include any express preemption language, and does not appear to generally regulate pesticides so
comprehensively that preemption can be implied. As a general matter, therefore, the County may
regulate pesticides, at least as restrictive as, and consistent with, federal and State law.
The authority of local governments to regulate pesticides was the subject of significant
litigation in the 1980s, with a County law struck down as preempted by FIFRA. In
Maryland Pest
Control Assn.
v.
Montgomery County, Maryland,
646 F. Supp. 109 (D. Md. 1986), the U.S. District
Court held that FIFRA preempted the County's local law imposing pesticide posting and notice
requirements. The Court held that if Congress had wanted to include local governments in the
regulation of pesticides, it would have expressly done so. However, in
Wisconsin Public
Intervenor
v.
Mortier,
III S. Ct. 2476 (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court held, contrary to the
Maryland Pest Control Assn.
decision, that a unit of local government has the power, under
FIFRA, to regulate pesticides within its own jurisdiction, provided that the local regulation is at
least as restrictive as, and consistent with, FIFRA and any applicable state law. Since
Mortier
was
decided, many states have expressly preempted local jurisdictions from regulating pesticides, but
Maryland is one of seven states which do not preempt local regulation ofpesticides.
5
The County
currently imposes certain notice, storage, handling, and consumer infonnation requirements in
Chapter 33B of the County Code.
Laws in Other Jurisdictions
Due to the fact that the vast majority of states have preempted local jurisdictions from
regulating pesticides, there are only two examples of local jurisdictions that have banned pesticide
use on public and private property6: Takoma Park, Maryland
7,
and Ogunquit, Maine. s Several
local jurisdictions have enacted legislation or adopted administrative policies related to pesticide
reduction on public property, integrated pest management (IPM), and pesticide free parks.
9
Locally in addition to Takoma Park, the District of Columbia enacted the Pesticide Education and
Subtitle 1 is entitled the "Maryland Pesticide Registration and Labeling Law." Subtitle 2 is the "Pesticide
Applicator's Law."
5
http://www.
beyo ndpesticides. orgllawn/activistldocuments/State Preemption .pdf
6
http://www.teJegraph.co.uklnews/worldnews/10959057/End-of-the-perfect-American-Iawn-Campaigners-call-for­
pestic ide-ban .htm 1
7
http://www.
takomaparkmd.gov/safegrow
8
http://ogunquitconservation.orglogunquitconservation.orgiPesticideOrdinanceOverview.htm!
9
http://www.beyondpesticides.orgilawn/activistl
4
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Control Amendment Act Of 2012
10
which restricts the application of certain pesticides near
waterways and at schools, day care centers and on District property, and imposes certain reporting
and data collection requirements. Most recently, Richmond, California, which has had an IPM
ordinance since 2012, passed a resolution to implement a "twelve month long ban on the use of all
toxic pesticides, including those containing glyphosate, on all weed abatement activities
conducted, contracted, or managed by the city ...
,,11
Perhaps the most comprehensive pesticide restriction law in North America took effect in
the Canadian province of Ontario in 2009.
12
The Ontario law contains several classifications of
pesticides, and generally bans the cosmetic use of over 100 pesticides.
13
Six other provinces have
followed Ontario in restricting cosmetic use of pesticides.
14
British Columbia, however,
considered, but did not implement a provincial ban on cosmetic pesticides.
15
Pending legislation in the Maryland General Assembly
The Maryland General Assembly is currently considering two bills related to pesticides
which have objectives similar to Bill 52-14. The bills would: (1) impose labeling requirements
and future sale and use restrictions on neonicotinoid pesticides; and (2) prohibit, except in
emergencies, the application of lawn care pesticides to certain areas used by children under the
age of 18 years.
House Bil1605,
16
cross-filed with Senate Bill 163, would establish a labeling requirement
for any seed, plant material, nursery stock, annual plant, bedding plant, or other plant that has been
treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide
17
and would establish restrictions, effective January 1, 2016,
on the sale and use of neonicotinoid pesticides. The future restrictions would: (1) limit the use of
neonicotinoid pesticides to applicators certified by the Maryland Department of Agriculture
(MDA) , and farmers using the pesticide for agricultural purposes; and (2) require a seller of
neonicotinoid pesticides to be permitted by MDA to sell restricted-use pesticides.
House Bill 995
18
would generally prohibit the application of certain pesticides on the
grounds of certain child care centers, schools, and recreation centers and on certain other
The signed Act is at: http://lims.dccollncil.us/DownJoad/26399/B 19-0643-SignedAct.pdf. The Committee report
is at: http://Iims.dccoullcil.us/Downloadl2594/B 19-0643-COMMlTTEEREPORT.pdf
II
Discussion of the resolution begins at page 99 of the pdf of the agenda packet found at:
http://sireweb.ci.richmond.ca.us/sirepub/cache/2/mz3mlyjgzymhc5rcpumal\\'re/42617103092015105517360.PDF
12
.tmP.:11www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/heaIth/science/pesticideslhighlights-of-ontarios-cosmetic-pesticide-banl
13
https:l/www.ontario.calenvironment-and-energy/pesticides-home-Iawns-and-gardens
14
http://news.gov.mb.calnews/index.html?item;30526
15
The Report of the British Columbia Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides, which was "convinced that
further restrictions on the use and sale of pesticides in British Columbia are necessary" but was "unable to reach a
consensus on the need for a provincial ban on pesticide use for cosmetic purposes" is at:
https://www.leg.bc.ca/cmtl39thparl/session-4/cp/reportsIPDF/Rpt-CP-39-4-Report-20 12-MAY -17 ,pdf
16
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmgalfnnMain.aspx?id=hb0605&stab=O I &pid=bill page&tab=subject3&ys=20 15RS
17
The required label would read:
"WARNING: Bees are essential to many agricultural crops. This product has been treated with
neonicotinoid pesticides, found to be a major contributor to bee deaths and the depletion of the bee
population."
18
http://mgaleg.mary land.gov!webmgalfrmMain.aspx?id=hb0995&stab=O I &pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=20 15RS
10
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
recreational fields. The prohibition would apply to pesticides registered by the EPA and labeled
pursuant to the FIFRA for use in lawn, garden, or ornamental sites and areas. A person would be
able to apply for an emergency exemption from the prohibition when necessary to eliminate an
immediate threat to human health. House Bills 605 and 995 were heard in the House Environment
and Transportation Committee on March 13.
l9
Bill 52-14
Bill 52-14 includes provisions related to the application of pesticides on County-owned
and private property, and requires the County to adopt an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan.
IPM is a method of pest control which minimizes the use of chemical pesticides by focusing on
pest identification, monitoring and assessing pest numbers and damage, and using a combination
of biological, cultural, physical/mechanical and, when necessary, chemical management tools.
2o
Bill 52-14 will:
1) Require the posting of notice when a property owner applies a pesticide to an area of lawn
more than 100 square feet, consistent with the notice requirements for when a landscaping
business treats a lawn with a pesticide;
2) Require the Executive to designate a list of "non-essential" pesticides including:
• all pesticides classified as "Carcinogenic to Humans" or "Likely to Be Carcinogenic to
Humans" by the U.S. EPA;
• all pesticides classified by the U.S. EPA as "Restricted Use Products;"
• all pesticides classified as "Class 9" pesticides by the Ontario, Canada, Ministry of the
Environment;
• all pesticides classified as "Category I Endocrine Disruptors" by the European
Commission; and
• any other pesticides which the Executive determines are not critical to pest
management in the County.
3) Generally prohibit the application of non-essential pesticides to lawns, with exceptions for
noxious weed and invasive species control, agriculture and gardens, and golf courses;
4) Require the Executive to conduct a public outreach and education campaign before and
during the implementation of the Bill;
5) Generally prohibit the application ofnon-essential and neonicotinoid pesticides to County­
owned property; and
6) Require the County to adopt an Integrated Pest Management program.
Bill 52-14 has an expiration date of January 1,2019.
Video of the Committee session can be viewed at: http://mgahollse.maryland.gov/house/pJay/56b57e29-21dd­
4c73-b294-e4009837bI78I?catalogl03e48Ic7-8a42-4438-a7da-93ff74bdaa4c (the hearing ofHB995 begins at 28: 12
and is immediately followed by HB605 beginning at 1:44:58).
20
http://www.epa.gov/oppOOOOl/factsheetslipm.htm
19
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Public
Hearings and Correspondence
The Committee held public hearings on the Bill on January 15 and February 12, with 38
people testifying in January, and 30 speaking in February.
In
addition to the public hearing
testimony, the Bill has been, and continues to be, the subject of a huge amount of written
correspondence. The testimony and correspondence have coalesced around several recurring
themes, which frame major issues for the Committee to examine as it considers the Bill. These
themes include: (1) existing regulation of pesticides, particularly at the State and federal level is,
or is not, sufficient; (2) chemical pesticides pose, or do not pose, serious threats to human health;
(3) pesticides threaten, or do not threaten, the health of pollinators and the Chesapeake Bay
watershed; and (4) it is, or is not, possible or feasible to maintain lawns and playing fields without
the use of chemical pesticides.
March
16
Worksession
The T&E Committee held a worksession on Bill 52-14 on March 16. At that worksession,
the Committee heard from regulators working at the County, State, and federal levels of
govemment.
21
Representatives of the County's Department of Environmental Protection, the
Maryland Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency described
the roles of their respective agencies in the regulation ofpesticides in the County. A second panel
at the March 16 worksession consisted of physicians with expertise in environmental health and
toxicology, and an environmental chemist specializing in environmental and human risk
assessment, with a focus on pesticides. The physicians, Dr. Jerome Paulson and Dr. Lome
Garrettson, informed the Committee of their views of the human health risks, particularly to
children, of exposure to chemical pesticides. The chemist, Dr. Stuart Cohen, asserted that the
testing protocols used by the EPA are sufficient to determine that registered pesticides are
generally safe when used as directed.
Agenda for This Worksession
This worksession is structured to allow the Committee to engage in dialogue with experts
in environmental impacts ofpesticides and turf management, as well as public- and private-sector
landscaping professionals. The first panel consists of two faculty members at the University of
Maryland, a Professor of Entomology and a Professor of Plant Science and Landscape
Architecture, who will speak about pesticides and pollinator health and attenuation of pesticides
applied to turf, respectively. The second panel includes representatives of the County Parks
Department and the Director of Grounds and Environmental Management at the Maryland
Soccerplex, who will describe their current turf management practices, and Chip Osborne, an
expert in natural turf management, who will describe how turf can be maintained without the use
of chemical pesticides. The third panel is composed of landscaping professionals working in the
County, using both traditional and chemical pesticide-free methods, who will inform the
Committee of their practices and results.
21
The packet for the March 16 worksession is at:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIUResources/Files/agendalcm!20
15/150316/20
1503 16 TE I.pdf
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Panel!: Environmental
Issues
The Committee will first hear from Dr. Dennis vanEngelsdorp, a Professor of Entomology
at the University ofMaryland and recognized expert in pollinator health.22 Dr. vanEngelsdorp will
discuss the impact of pesticides on pollinator health, and can provide the Committee with the
current state of the science related to links between neonicotinoid pesticides and bee deaths. Also
on Panel I is Dr. Mark Carroll, Professor of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture at the
University of Maryland. Dr. Carroll has been a lead researcher on a project to study the use of
natural fertilization, weed, insect, and disease control at Glenstone in Potomac.23 As of the time
this packet is going
to
print, staffhas been unable to secure a speaker to address issues ofpesticides
in the local watershed. Because of the significance of this issue, background information is
included in this packet. If no speaker is identified for this worksession, a speaker will be arranged
for a future worksession on the Bill if desired by the Committee.
Pollinator Health
In his memorandum that accompanied the Bill, Council President Leventhal cited a
link
between the use of neonicotinoid pesticides and the collapse of honey bee colonies.
Neonicotinoids (or "neonics") are systemic insecticides that are taken up by a plant through either
its roots or leaves and move through the plant like water and nutrients. Neonics are particularly
useful for the control of piercing and sucking insects.
In
recent years, neonic insecticides have
become increasingly important for use in agriculture and home landscapes. Because neonics move
systemically within the plant, direct pesticide exposure to both the applicator and the environment
is reduced. This fact is often cited as an advantage of using neonics, but it also may present a
problem for honey bees and other pollinators: because a neonic spreads within the entire plant, it
can also be found in the nectar and pollen of the flowers, exposing pollinators to potential toxins.
EPA seems to recognize the potential hazards posed by neonics to bees,24 and in 2013
began requiring a new label on certain neonic pesticides (see ©26-34). In response to a report
from the European Food Safety Authority,25 the European Commission adopted a regulation to
restrict the use ofthree pesticides belonging to the neonicotinoid family (clothianidin, imidacloprid
and thiametoxam) for a period of2 years, beginning December 1,2013. 26
In
the United States,
Oregon temporarily banned the neonic pesticide dinotefuran,27 and some U.S. cities, including
Seattle,28 have prohibited the use of neonics on public property.
In May 2014, Dr. vanEngelsdorp testified before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
discussing the importance of bees and bee health in the production of honey, food and seed in Canada.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/contentisen/committee/412C)/o5CAGFO/51409-E.HTM
23
http://www
.safelawns.orglblog/20 11 105/glenstone-to-sponsor-major-organic-lawn-research-projectl
24
http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection
25http://www.efsa.europa.eulen/topics/topiclbeehealth.htm?wtrl=O I
26
http://ec.europa.eulfood/archive/animallliveanimals/bees/neonicotinoidsen.htm
27
http://www.oregonJive.com/environment/index.ssfi.2013/06/stateagencytemporarilybans.html
28
http://counci
I.seattle.gov
120
14109/251
counci I-bans-neonicotinoid -pestic ides-on-c
ity-
land-
21
22
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Health
A study of pesticides in rivers and streams by the United States Geological Survey
("USGS") was referenced by Council President Leventhal. The study found that 90% of urban
area waterways now have pesticide levels high enough to harm aquatic life (©35-36). Robert
Gilliom, one of the authors of the USGS study, has submitted correspondence and an annotated
powerpoint presentation which presents excerpts and summarizes the findings of that study and
four other related publications (©37-54).
The presence and impact of pesticides in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is examined in a
2009 white paper published by the Pesticides and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Project (©55­
95). The white paper recognized that "the most commonly detected pesticides were herbicides
used on com, soybean and small grain crops in agricultural regions," but noted that "pesticides
were also detected in streams and groundwater in lower concentrations." While acknowledging
the data gaps make the assessment of risks of pesticides in aquatic life difficult, the paper
concluded that water-borne pesticides do pose health risks to aquatic life, wildlife and humans.
Panel 2: Large Scale Turf Management Practices
Panel
2
includes turf management and landscaping practitioners from the County Parks
Department and the Maryland Soccerplex, as well as Chip Osborne, a national expert on organic
turf
care. This panel can describe the unique challenges to larger scale
turf
management and the
maintenance of high standard natural turf playing fields. The Parks Department and Soccerplex
representatives can speak to the use of integrated pest management and chemical pesticide use at
their respective facilities.
Mr.
Osborne will discuss methods of turf care that do not use chemical
pesticides in both the general parkland and playing field contexts, and describe the results that ­
these methods deliver. See ©107-133.
Panel 3:
County Landscaping Professionals
Private sector landscaping professionals working in the County will address the Committee
on Panel
3.
Eric Wenger of Complete Lawn Care, Inc., and Paul Wolfe of Integrated Plant Care.
will discuss their practices using integrated pest management, including, when deemed necessary,
the use ofchemical pesticides. Zack Kline ofA.I.R. Lawn Care and Sean Surla ofSurla Landscape
Design will discuss their work in lawn and plant care without the use of chemical pesticides. See
©134-172.
This packet contains:
Bill 52-14
Legislative Request Report
Council Vice President Leventhal Memo
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
EPA correspondence re: labeling of certain neonicotinoids
Robert Gilliom, USGS, letter and powerpoint presentation
White Paper - Pesticides and the Maryland Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
Circle #
1
13
14
18
26
35
55
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Panelist materials:
Dennis vanEngelsdorp-briefC.V.; Restatement of the Natural Science
Concerning Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Insect Pollinators
96
Department of Parks
107
Chip Osborne - Public Hearing Statement, January 15,2015
130
Eric Wenger - Selections from "Organic Lawn Care" presentation
134
Paul Wolfe - Resume, comments, labels, IPM document
150
Zack Kline Letter, business information
158
F:\LA
W\B
ILLS\1452 Pesticides\T&E Memo 033015. Docx
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
52-14
Concerning: Pesticides
Notice
Requirements
Non-essential
Pesticides - Prohibitions
Revised: October 22, 2014
_________________
Introduced:
October 28,2014
Expires:
April 28, 2016
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: --'-___________
Eff~ve:
_______
~~-----
Sunset Date: January 1, 2019
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. ____
D~ftNo.-=9
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council Vice President Leventhal and Councilmembers EIrich, Riemer, Floreen, and Navarro
AN
ACT to:
require posting of notice for certain lawn applications of pesticide;
prohibit the use of certain pesticides on lawns;
prohibit the use of certain pesticides on certain County-owned property
require the County to adopt an integrated pest management program for certain County­
owned property; and
(5) generally amend County law regarding pesticides.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 33B, Pesticides
Sections 33B-I, 33B-2, 33B-3, 33B-4, 33B-5, 33B-6, and 33B-7
By adding
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 33B, Pesticides
Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5
Sections 33B-8, 33B-9, 33B-1O, 33B-ll, 33B-12, and 33B-13
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
(I)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unqffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
1
Sec.
1.
Sections
33B-l, 33B-2, 33B4, 33B-5, 33B-6
and
33B-7
are
2
3
4
5
6
amended, and Sections
33B-8, 33B-9, 33B-I0, 33B-ll, 33B-12,
and
33B-13
are
added as follows:
ARTICLE 1. General Provisions
33B-1.
Definitions.
In this [chapter] Chapter:
Agriculture
means the business, science, 'and
art
of cultivating and managing
the soil, composting, growing, harvesting, and selling sod, crops and livestock,
and the products of forestry, horticulture and hydroponics; breeding, raising, or
managing livestock, including horses, poultry, fish, game and fur-bearing
animals, dairying, beekeeping and similar activities, and equestrian events and
activities.
Custom applicator
means a person engaged
pesticides.
Department
means the Department of Environmental Protection.
Director
means Director of the Department of Environmental Protection[,] or
the Director's designee.
Integrated pest management
means
~
process for managing pests that:
ill
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
the business of applying
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ill
ill
uses monitoring to determine pest injury levels;
combines biological, cultural, mechanical, physical. and chemical
tools and other management practices to control pests in
cost
effective,
and environmentally
sound
~
safe,
that
22
manner
23
contributes to the protection ofpublic health and sustainability;
24
25
26
ill
uses knowledge about pests, such as infestations, thresholds, life
histories, environmental requirements, and natural control of
pests; and
f:'Uawlbills\1452 pesticideslbill 9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-14
27
ill
uses non-chemical pest-control methods and the careful use of
least-toxic chemical methods when non-chemical methods have
been exhausted or are not feasible.
28
29
30
Larvicide
means
~
pesticide designed to kill larval pests.
Lawn
means an area of land, except agricultural land, that is:
31
32
33
34
35
(1)
[Mostly] mostly covered by grass, other similar herbaceous
plants, shrubs, or trees; and
(2)
[Kept] kept
trim
by mowing or cutting.
~
Lawn
includes an athletic playing field other than
not include
~
garden.
Neonicotinoid
means
nicotine.
~
golf course.
Lawn
does
36
37
class of neuro-active pesticides chemically related to
38
39
40
Neonicotinoid includes acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran,
imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam.
Non-essential pesticide
means
pesticide under Section 33B-4.
Pest
means an insect, snail, slug, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, or other
form of plant or animal life or microorganism (except a microorganism on or
in a living human or animal) that is normally considered to be a pest or defmed
as a pest by applicable state regulations.
Pesticide
means a substance or mixture of substances intended or used to:
~
pesticide designated as
~
non-essential
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
(1)
(2)
(3)
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest;
be used as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant; or
be used as a spray adjuvant, such as a wetting agent or adhesive.
49
50
51
However,
pesticide
does not include an antimicrobial agent, such as a
disinfectant, sanitizer, or deodorizer, used for cleaning that is not considered a
pesticide under any federal or state law or regulation.
52
f:\Iawlbills\1452 pesticides\bill9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
52-14
53
54
Private lawn application
means the application of
~
pesticide to
~
lawn on
property owned
Qy
or leased to the person applying the pesticide.
Private
lawn application
does not include:
55
56
57
58
ill
ill
ill
applying
~
pesticide for the purpose of engaging in agriculture;,
applying
~
pesticide around or near the foundation of
~
building
for purpose of indoor pest control;
applying
~
pesticide
to
~
golf course or
turf
farm.
59
60
Vector
means an animal, insect, or microorganism that carries and transmits an
infectious pathogen into another organism.
[33B-4.] 33B-2. Signs with retail purchase of pesticide.
A person who sells at retail a pesticide or material that contains a pesticide
must make available to a person who buys the pesticide or material that contains a
pesticide:
(a)
[Notice] notice signs and supporting information that are approved by
the [department] Department; and
(b)
[The] the product label or other information that the federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) [, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.,]
requires for sale ofthe pesticide.
The Department must enforce this Section and must annually inspect each
person who sells at retail
~
pesticide or material that contains
~
pesticide.
[33B-S] 33B-3. Storage and handling of pesticides.
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
*
[33B-6] 33B-4. Regulations.
(a)
*
*
The [County] Executive must adopt regulations to carry out this Chapter
under method (2).
f:llaw\bills\
1452 pesticides\bill 9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
78
79
80
(b)
The Executive must include in the regulations adopted under this
[section1 Section the minimum size or quantity of pesticide subject to
[section 33B-4] Section 33B-2.
81
ill
The Executive must include in the regulations adopted under this
Section !! list of non-essential pesticides.
pesticides must include:
The list of non-essential
82
83
84
85
86
ill
all pesticides classified as "Carcinogenic to Humans" or "Likely
to Be Carcinogenic to Humans"
.Qy
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency;
87
88
89
ill
all pesticides classified
.Qy
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency as!! "Restricted Use Product";
ill
ill
ill
@
all pesticides classified as !! "Class 9" pesticide
Qy
the Ontario.
Canada, Ministry ofthe Environment;
all pesticides classified as !! "Category
1
Endocrine Disruptor"
.Qy
the European Commission; and
any other pesticides which the Executive determines are not
critical to pest management in the County.
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
The Executive must include in the regulations adopted under this
Section !! list of invasive species that may be detrimental to the
environment
in
the County.
ill
The Executive must review and update the lists of non-essential
pesticides and invasive species designated under subsections (£) and
@
Qy
July
1
of each year.
[33B-7] 33B-5. Penalty for violating chapter.
(
a)
Any violation ofthis Chapter is a class C violation.
Each day a violation continues is a separate offense.
ARTICLE 2. Notice Requirements.
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bil\9.doc
(b)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
105
106
[33B-2] 33B-6. Notice about pesticides to customer.
(a)
In this [section] Section:
(1)
Customer means a person who makes a contract with a custom
applicator to have the custom applicator apply a pesticide to a
lawn..
(2)
New customer includes a customer who renews a contract with a
custom applicator.
(b)
A custom applicator must give to a new customer:
(1)
[Before] before application, a list of:
[a.] (A)
used;
[b.].Qll
[The] the generic name of each pesticide that might
[The] the trade name of each pesticide that might be
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
be used; and
[c.](Q
[Specific] specific customer safety precautions for
118
119
each pesticide that might be used; and
(2)
[After] after application, a list of:
[a.](&)
and
[b.](ID
[The] the generic name of each pesticide actually
[The] the trade name of each pesticide actually used;
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
used; and
(3)
[A]
~
written notice
about pesticides prepared by the [department]
Department under subsection (c) [ofthis section].
(c)
The [department] Department must prepare, keep current, and provide
to a custom applicator a written notice about pesticides for the custom
applicator to give to a customer under subsection (b) [of this section].
(d)
The notice prepared by the [department] Department under subsection
(c) [ofthis section] must include:
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
132
133
(1)
[Government] government agency phone numbers to call to:
[a.](A)
[Make] make a consumer complaint;
[Receive]
receIve
technical
infonnation
on
134
135
136
[b.]@
pesticides; and
[c.]
(Q
[Get] get assistance
In
the case of a medical
137
138
139
140
141
emergency;
(2)
[A]
~
list of general safety precautions a customer should take
when a lawn is treated with a pesticide;
(3)
[A]
~
statement that a custom applicator must:
[a.]eA)
[Be]
be
licensed by the Maryland Department of
142
143
144
145
146
Agriculture; and
[b.]@
(4)
[A]
~
[Follow] follow safety precautions; and
statement that the customer has the right to require the
custom applicator to notify the customer before each treatment of
the lawn ofthe customer with a pesticide.
[33B-3] 33B-7. Posting signs after application
by
custom applicator.
147
148
149
150
151
(a)
Immediately after a custom applicator treats a lawn with a pesticide, the
custom applicator must [post a sign on the lawn] place markers within
or along the perimeter of the area where pesticides will be applied.
(b)
A [sign posted] marker required under this [section] Section must:
(1)
[Be] be clearly visible [from the principal place of access to] to
persons immediately outside the perimeter ofthe property;
(2)
[Be] be a size, fonn, and color approved by the [department]
Department;
(3)
[Be] be made of material approved by the [department].
Department; [and]
152
153
154
155
156
157
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticideslbill9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
(4)
[Have] have wording with content and dimensions approved by
the [department] Department[.].;. and
ill
ill
be in place on the day that the pesticide is applied.
33B-8. Postine; signs after
application
!!I
property owner.2! tenant.
A person who performs
~
private lawn application treating an area
more than 100 square feet must place markers within or along the
perimeter of the area where pesticides will be applied.
165
166
167
(hl
A marker required under this Section must:
ill
ill
ill
ill
ill
be clearly visible to persons immediately outside the perimeter of
the property;
be
~
size, form, and color approved
Qy
the Department;
be made of material approved
Qy
the Department; and
have wording with content and dimensions approved
Qy
the
Department; and
be in place on the day that the pesticide is applied.
ARTICLE 3. Application restrictions.
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
33B-9. Prohibited application.
A person must not @Ply
S!
non-essential pesticide to
S!
lawn.
33B-IO. Exceptions and Exemptions.
175
176
177
178
ill
A person may
purposes:
rum1Y
~
non-esssential pesticide for the following
179
180
181
182
ill
ill
ill
ill
for the control of weeds as defmed in Chapter 58, Weeds;
for the control of invasive species listed in
S!
regulation adopted
under Subsection 33B-4(d);
for pest control while engaged in Clgriculture; and
for the maintenance of
S!
golf course.
183
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bilI9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-14
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
®
A person may
mmJ.y
to the Director for an exemption from the
prohibition of Section 33B-9 for
~
non-essential pesticide. The Director
may grant an exemption to
rumlY
~
non-essential pesticide on property
where application is prohibited under Section 33B-9 if the applicant
shows that:
ill
ill
ill
effective alternatives are unavailable;
granting an exemption will not violate State or federal law; and
use of the non-essential pesticide is necessary to protect human
health or prevent significant economic damage.
ill
A person may
mmJ.y
to the Director for an emergency exemption from
the prohibition in Section 33B-9 if
~
pest outbreak poses an imminent
threat to public health or if significant economic damage would result
from the inability to use
~
pesticide prohibited!2y Section 33B-9. The
Director may impose specific conditions for the granting of emergency
exemptions.
33B-l1. Outreach and Education Campaign.
The Executive must implement
~
public outreach and education campaign
before and during implementation of the provisions of this Article. This campaign
should include:
fu)
informational mailers to County households;
distribution of infonnation through County internet and web-based
resources;
®
ill
@
radio and television public service announcements;
news releases and news events;
information translated into
Spanish, French, Chinese, Korean,
W
Vietnamese, and other languages, as needed;
f:\Iawlbills\14S2 pesticides\bill9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-14
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
ill
(g)
extensive use of County Cable Montgomery and other Public,
Educational, and Government channels funded
Qy
the County; and
posters and brochures made available at County events, on Ride-On
buses and through Regional Service Centers, libraries, recreation
facilities, senior centers, public schools, Montgomery College, health
care providers, hospitals, clinics, and other venues.
ARTICLE 4. County Property
33B-12. Prohibition on County-owned property.
ill
Prohibition.
Except as provided in subsection
.ch1
~
person must not
mm1Y
to any property owned
Qy
the County:
ill
ill
(Q)
~
non-essential
~
pesticide; or
nionicotinoid.
Exceptions.
ill
A person may use any larvicide or rodenticide on property owned
Qy
the County as
~
public health measure to reduce the spread of
disease vectors under recommendations and guidance provided
Qy
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, or the State Department
of Agriculture.
Any
rodenticide used must be
in
!!
tamper-proof
product, unless the rodenticide is designed and registered for
specific environment inaccessible to humans and pets.
~
ill
ill
A person may use
~
non-essential pesticide or neonicotinoid for
the purposes set forth in Subsection 33B-IO(a).
A person may use
~
non-essential pesticide or neonicotinoid on
property owned
Qy
the County if the Director determines, after
consulting the Directors of General Services and Health and
Human Services, that the use of pesticide is necessary to protect
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\biIl9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-:14
237
238
239
human health or prevent imminent and significant economic
damage, and that no reasonable alternative is available.
If
~
pesticide is used under this paragraph, the Director must,
within
30 days after using the pesticide, report to the Council on the
reasons for the use ofthe pesticide.
33B-13. Integrated pest manae;ement.
240
241
242
243
ill
Adoption
gf
program.
The Department must adopt,
!2y
~
method
ill
244
245
246
247
248
regulation, an integrated pest management program for property owned
!2y
the County.
Requirements.
Any program adopted under subsection
ill
must require:
(Q)
249
250
251
252
253
ill
ill
ill
ill
monitoring the
turf
or landscape;
accurate record-keeping documenting any potential pest problem;
evaluating the site for any injury caused
Qy
determining the appropriate treatment;
using
~
~
pest and
treatment that is the least damaging to the general
environment and best preserves the natural ecosystem;
ill
using
~
treatment that
will
be the most likely to produce long­
254
255
256
257
258
term reductions in pest control requirements and is operationally
feasible and cost effective in the short and long term;
®
.cD
using
~
treatment that minimizes negative impacts to non-target
organISms;
using
~
treatment that is the least disruptive ofnatural controls;
using
~
treatment that is the least hazardous to human health; and
exhausting the list of all non-chemical and organic treatments
available for the targeted pest before using any synthetic
chemical treatments.
259
260
261
262
tID
(2)
®
f:\lawlbills\1452 pesticides\biU9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
52-14
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
(£}
The Department must provide training in integrated pest management
for each employee who is responsible for pest management.
Sec. 2. Initial Lists of Non-Essential Pesticides and Invasive Species.
The
Executive must submit the lists of non-essential pesticides and invasive species
required by Subsections 33B-4(c) and (d) to the Council for approval by October 1,
2015.
Sec. 3. Effective Date.
The prohibitions on use of non-essential pesticides
contained in Section 33B-9 and the prohibitions on use of non-essential pesticides
and neonicotinoids contained in Section 33B-12 take effect on January 1,2016.
Sec. 4. Expiration.
This Act and any regulation adopted under
it
expires on
January 1,2019.
Approved:
274
275
George Leventhal, President, County Council
Date
276
Approved:
277
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
278
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
279
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
f:\Iaw\bills\14S2 pesticides\bill 9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 52-14
Pesticides
-
Notice Requirements Non-Essential Pesticides
-
Prohibitions
DESCRIPTION:
This Bill would require posting of notice for certain lawn
applications of pesticide, prohibit the use of certain pesticides on
lawns, prohibit the use of certain pesticides on certain County-owned
property and require the County to adopt an integrated pest
management program for certain County-owned property.
Long term use of and exposure to certain chemical pesticides has
been linked to several health problems, including birth defects,
cancer, neurological problems, immune system problems, and male
infertility.
To protect the health of families, especially children, from the
unnecessary risks associated with the use of certain pesticides that
have been linked to a wide-range of diseases.
Department of Environmental Protection
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Josh Hamlin, Legislative Attorney
To be researched.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Class C violation
f:\Iaw\bills\1452 pesticides\lrr.doc
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
GEORGE LEVENTHAL
COU
NCI
LM EM 8 ER
AT-LARGE
MEMORANDUM
October
22, 2014
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Councilmembers
George Leventhal, Council Vice President
Pesticide Legislation
~~
This coming Tuesday, October
28, I
will be introducing legislation aimed at protecting the health
of families - and especially children - from the unnecessary risks associated with the use of
certain cosmetic pesticides that have been linked to a wide-range of diseases, and which provide
no health benefits.
As you know, for the better part of the last year,
I
have been working towards introducing
legislation on this matter. Since the September 2013 meeting of the T&E committee,
I
have met
with countless stakeholders, on both sides ofthe issue, to learn more about how pesticides are
being applied in the county, what other governments are doing to ensure that the public's health is
being protected, and what the latest research
teUs
us about their risks. The legislation that
I
am
introducing on Tuesday incorporates feedback
I
received from proponents and opponents on the
previous draft of the bill, which
J
shared with your offices back in May. The result is a bill that
balances the rights of homeowners to maintain a beautiful lawn with the rights of residents who
prefer to not be exposed to chemicals that have known health effects;
I
view this bill asa starting
point in our discussion which can be tweaked along the way.
I
want to preface my concerns by affirming the value of pesticides when they are used to protect
public health, the environment, our food or our water supply, but when pesticides are used solely
to improve the appearance of landscapes, they can cause more harm than good.
In
my vie\....,
cosmetic pesticides present a substantial threat to the health oftoday's children. The American
Academy of Pediatrics states that children face the greatest risk from the chemicals they contain,
and that epidemiologic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to
pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems such as
ADHD.I Certain toxic chemicals can cause permanent brain dan1age in children even at low
levels of exposure that would have little to no adverse effect in an adult.
2
A child doesn't even
Pediatrics.
Pesticide
Exposure
in Children,
Volume
130. No.6. 1757 - 1763,
December,
2012
Dr. Phillippe Grandjean, MD. Dr. Phillip Landrigan, MD.
The Lance! Neurology.
Neurobehavioral Effects of
FLOOR, ROCKVI LLE, MARYLAND
J
2
STErre~el~I"(}$~t~~~~x\s~I2'~'~VfJJ,·J~su~ 3~~8-Jrl~N~~:?£J~NUE,
6TH
t~
PRINTED
20850
240n77-7B 1 I
OR
240n77-7900.
TTY
240n77-79
14.
FAX
240n77-7989
WWW.MONTGOMERYCOUNTYMD.GOY/COUNCIL
ON
RECYCl.ED
PAPER
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
have to be directly exposed to a pesticide to suffer negative health outcomes. During pregnancy,
chemicals in women can cross the placenta and result in higher fetal exposure than the mother has
been exposed to. Prenatal exposure to certain chemicals has been documented to increase the risk
of cancer in childhood.
3
Virtually every pregnant woman in the United States is exposed to
multiple chemicals during
a
sensitive period of fetal development that have been linked to
4
adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes.
Adults are also at risk of developing serious health problems due to pesticide exposure,
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health have linked pesticide use to a wide range of
diseases and conditions. Exposure to certain pesticides has been linked to Parkinson's disease,
diabetes, leukemia, lymphoma, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, dementia, reproductive dysfunction,
s
Alzheimer's disease, and variety of cancers including breast, colon, prostate and lung cancer.
In addition to the adverse health effects to humans, pesticides can also affect animals, both pets
and wildlife, and our waterways. A recent study by the United States Geological Survey has
found that
90%
of urban area waterways now have pesticide levels high enough to harm aquatic
6
life, and moreover, the USGS said the harm to aquatic life was likely understated
in
their report.
Terrestrial wildlife is also being harmed by the use of certain pesticides, The most concerning
example involves honeybees, which pollinate nearly one-third of the food we eat, and a particular
class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoids have been repeatedly and strongly linked
with the collapse of honey bee colonies. 1n just the last year, Maryland lost nearly 50 percent of
its honeybee population, an increase over previous years, which averaged about a one-third loss
,
7
annually.
Before
I
describe what this bill does, let me describe what this bill does not do. This
bill
does not
ban the use of all pesticides; it wou Id, however, restrict the use of certain toxic chern icals that are
most dangerous to human health. This bi
1I
does not prohibit the use of any pesticide for gardens.
And this bi
II
wou Id not prohibit the use of any pesticide for agricultural use. What this
bill
does
do is seek to limit children's exposure to harmful pesticides in places where children are most
likely to be exposed to them. That being said, the major provisions of the bill are:
I)
Require the posting of notice when
a
property owner applies a pesticide to an area of
lawn more than 100 square feet, consistent with the notice requirements for when a
landscaping business treats a lawn with a pesticides;
2)
Require the Executive to designate a list of "non-essential" pesticides inCluding:
• all pesticides classified as "Carcinogenic to
Humans" or "Likely
to
Be
Carcinogenic to Humans" by the U.S. EPA;
• all pesticides classified by the U.S. EPA as "Restricted Use Products;"
:;
American College o/Obstelricians
&
Gynecologists.
Committee Opinion No. 575. American College ofObsletricians
and Gynecologists. 931-5. OClober 2013
4
Environmel1lal Health Perspectives,
Environmental Chemicals in Pregnant Women in the United Stales: NHANES
2003-2004. Tracey
J.
WoodrufT, Ami R. Zota. JackieM. Schwanz, Volume 119, No.6, 878-885. June 2011
, Jan Ehrman.
NIH Record.
Pesticide Use Linked to Lupus. Rheumatoid Arthrilis.
http://nihrecord,nih.gov/ncwslellersl2011/03 18 2011/sl0l"v4.htm (accessed August 3, 2014)
6
U.S.
Geological
Survey.
An
Overview Comparing Results from Two Decades of Monitoring for Pesticides in the
Na(ion's Streams and Rivers, 1992-2001 and 2002-2011, Wesley W. Stone, Robert 1. Gilliom, Jeffrey D. Martin,
htli2:lIpubs.usgs.gov/~ir/20
1415154/pdf/sir20 14-51 54.pdf (accessed October 20.2014)
7
Tim Wheeler, Mysterious bee die-off continues, extends beyond winfer,
Baltimore
Sun,
http://artic1es.baltimoresun,com/2014-05-15/fearureslhal-mysteriQus-bee-dieoff'-continues-ncarlv-half-maJ)'land-hives­
105t-20 140515 I bee-informec!-[!artnership-honey-bee-beekecpers (accessed October 20, 2014)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
• . all pesticides classified as "Class 9" pesticides by the Ontario, Canada, Ministry
of the Environment; and
• all pesticides classified as "Category I Endocrine Disruptors" by the European
Commission
Generally prohibit the app lication of non-essential pesticides to lawns, with exceptions
for noxious weed and invasive species control, agriculture and gardens, and golf courses;
Require the Executive to conduct a public outreach and education campaign before and
during the implementation of the Bill;
Generally prohibit the application of a non-essential or neonicotinoid pesticide to
County-owned property; and
Require the County to adopt an Integrated Pest Management program.
Sunset the act and any regulation adopted under it on January 1,2019
The pesticide industry will respond to this legislation by saying "the science isn't there" and that
"alt pesticides are extensively tested and approved as safe by the EPA," but while both statements
sound believable, they belie the truth. In response to the charge that the science isn't there to
legislate, the absence of incontrovertible evidence does not justify inaction. As evidenced by this
memo, the number of studies from respected institutions of science linking pesticides to a variety
of cancers, neurodevelopmental disorders and diseases is abundant and persuasive. Furthermore,
due to the inestimable number of chemical combinations possible from the thousands of products
on the market and the complex interactions with the human body, the research that opponents to
this legislation will demand will never be possible within the ethical confines of research. The
real danger lies not in being exposed to one chemical, but a mixture of chemicals. The EPA risk
assessment fails to look at the synergistic effects of multiple chemicals, even though studies show
that exposure to mUltiple chemicals that act on the same adverse outcome can have a greater
effect than exposure to an individual chemical. s
And to the charge that a pesticide must be safe if
it
has been approved by the EPA, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that many pesticides are currently being
approved for consumer use by the EPA without receipt and review of data that the manufacturer
9
is required to provide on the safety of the chemicals. Alarmingly, in some cases the manufacturer
was given two years to submit studies on the effects of a pesticide, and ten years later no studies
had been received or reviewed by the EPA.
IO
What's more, the EPA itself publishes an entire
manual -
Rl!cognition and Management ofPesticide Poisonings
-
for healthcare professionals that
acknowledges the toxic nature and effects of many pesticides. As an e.ducated populace, we like
to think that we have a high bar for pesticide safety in this country, but sadly, when a pesticide
has been approved by the EPA, it connotes little about its safety.
Lawn care does not have to be poisonous to people, pets, wildlife, or our waterways. [t is simply
false to say that you can't have a Iush, green lawn - free of weeds - without the use of toxic
pesticides. Through proper management of the soil, along with the use of natural, organic
alternatives to synthetic pesticides, a high quality landscape can be achieved. And under my
Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used
by
the U.S. EPA. Science and
Decisions: Advancing Risk AssessmenL Washington. DC: National Academies Press: 2008
9
United Stales Government Accountability Office.
Pesticides EPA Should Take Steps to Improve its Oversight of
Conditional Registrations, hnp:llwww.gao.gov/assets/660/656825.pdf(accessed October
20, 2014)
10
United Stales Gm>ernmenf Accountability Office,
Pesticides - EPA Should Take Steps to Improve its Oversight of
Conditional Registrations, hnn://www.gao.gov/assctsl660/656825.pdf (acccssed October
20, 2014)
8
National Research Council.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
legislation, residents will still be free to hire any lawn care professional to treat their lawn or to
manage their own lawn care.
Much like the public debate that occurred in the 1950's before cigarettes were found to be cancer­
causing, I believe we are approaching a similar turning point in the discourse on pesticides as the
public is made more aware of the known health effects. In a poll taken earlier this year, more than
three-quarters of Marylanders expressed concern about the risk that pesticides pose to them or
their families, and when respondents learned of the adverse health effects that pesticides are
linked to, 90% of Marylanders expressed concern,lI
America lags behind by the rest of the developed world in recognizing the serious risks that
certain pesticides pose to health and life. The GAO's report confirms that the regulatory approach
taken by the EPA is broken and failing the public. In the face of mounting scientific evidence,
and in the absence of action on the federal level, I find it impossible not to act now to protect the
health of our children. [n Montgomery County, we regularly take a precautionary approach to
public health and environmental issues, such as with the forthcoming legislation on e-cigarettes
and the Council's action on Ten Mile Creek. OUf approach to pesticides should be
110
different.
I have attached all of the studies that I have cited in this memo for your reference, but I hope you
will take time to review research beyond what I have provided. If, after reviewing the research,
you feel compelled to act as I do, I would welcome your co-sponsorship on this bilL
This issue is among the most technically complex which the Council has ever faced. Therefore, it
is critical that we approach this in a thoughtful manner and that we consult with a variety of
experts who are knowledgeable in the field so we can make a well-informed decision regarding
this important public health issue.
11
OpinionWorks,
Maryland
Voter
Survey
on
Pesticides
http://www.mdpcstnet.org/\\,p­
contentJupI oadsl20 14 /02/peslicide-Pol1-MemQ-2-1 O-14.pdr (Accessed on
October
20. 2014)
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVIU.E, MARYLAND
MEMORANDUM
Jat1uary
26, 20
J
5
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
George Leventhal, President, County Council
Jennifer
A.
Hughe
Joseph F. Beach,
i
FEIS
for
Bill 52-14,
Pesticides -Notice Requirements -Non-Essential Pesticides
Prohibitions
Please find attached the
fiscal
and economic impact statements for the above­
referenced
legis.lation.
JAH:fz
cc: Bonnie Kirkland, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Ofiices oftlle County Executive
JoyNurmi, Special Assistant to the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public Information
Offke
Fariba Kassiri, Acting Director, Department of Environmental Protection
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Department of Finance
David .Platt, Department ofFinance
Matt
Schaeffer,
Office of Management and Budget
Alex Espinosa, Office ofManagement and Budget
Felicia Zhang, Office of Management and Budget
Naeem Mia., Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Bill 52-14: Pesticides - Nptice Requirement$ - Non-Essential Pesticides - Prohibitions
1. Legislative SummarY..
The bill would update county law
with
regard to pesticides application in
th(!
following
manner:
(1)
require posting of notice for certain
lawn
applications ofpesticide;
(2)
prohibit the
use
of
~ertain
pesticides on
lawns;
(3)
prohibit the use of certain pesticides on certain County-owned property;
(4)
require the County to adopt an integrated
pest
management program for certain County­
owned property; .
(S)
generally amend
OJunty
law regarding pesticides; and
(6) require the creation of a media campaign to inform residents and businesses ofthe change
in county law related to non-essential pesticides.
2.
An
estimate
of
changes
in
County revenues and expenditures regardless orwbether
the revenues or expeitditures are assumed in the recommended or 'approved budget.
Includes source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used..
County revenues are not expected to
be
impacted by Bill 52-14. The Maryland-National
Capital Park and Planhing Conunission (M':NCPPC)
did
report that there is a potential
for lost revenues if putying fields are not able to be adequately maintained - this revenue
has traditionally
com~
in
in
the fonn offield rental from athletic lea.gues.
County departments and agencies performed a fiscal impact analysis of
the
major
provisions and conclup.e the following:
o Section 33B-4 requires the county to develop a list ofnon.-essential pesticides and
invasive species which would
be
detrimental
to
the environment
'The
Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) does not envision a fiscal impact as a result of these
tasks given that many jurisdictions have taken the smular action with regards to nort­
essential pesticides and significant documentation exists related to successful
implementation of
this
type
ofprohibition. If classification becomes difficult, a
consultant may need to
be
broUght in to assist with this task.
o Section 33B-13 requires the County Executive to create an Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) program. The Department of General Services (DOS) reported
no fiscal impact and is currently operating under an
rPM
and the Executive branch
would utiliz.e this plan across county departments under Bill 52-14.
o Enforcement of Bill 52-14 is· not clarified
in
great
detail within the legislation.
Similar to other prohibition legislation, executive
staff
recommends a complaint­
driven enforcement model to control costs of implementation. It is likely that
complaint-driven enforcement would have a minimal fiscal impact on county
departments
whil~
estimates for a proactive enforcement effort include a dedicated
inspector with esti,mated personnel costs of $75,000 and vehicle costs of
approximately
$4~.OOO
for a total of$115,OOO
per
inspector.
o Bill 52-14 would .lso require county departments and agencies to convert to
approved landscaping practices outside of the list of banned non-essential pesticides
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
in the cases wherein prohibited pesticides are being used.
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)rcportedithat it
is
likely that pesticides
prohibited under Bill 52-14 are being used currently and that a conversion cost
estimate would
be
available after an agreed
list
of prohibited pesticides is
estab1i~hed.
Based on estimates ef conversien cests
fot
M-NCPPC fields, the costs of
maintaining similar fields within MCPS are expected
to'
be significant.
Mentgemery College reported no fiscal impacts as a result ef Bill 52-14.
To maintain
the
quality
of fields
at
the
current level, M-NCPPC
reported
the
fellowing conversien cests associated with the meve
to
allewable tteatn1ent metheds
on fields:
Athletic Fields:
• 40 athletic fields can be erganically treated at the follewing cost:
$648,048
in
supplies and labor oosts;
$327,062
to
provide a top dressing;
S100,000 for the purchase eftwo aeraters;
for a tetal first year cest of$I,075,110.
Additional costs in subsequent years
also
include:,.
Sod replacement
every
tvwo
years
at
a
cest ef
$20;~O
per field or
$817,()OO
and
additional
grading
every feur years at a totalofSlq,OOO per field or $400.000.
• Five Bermuda playing fields cannet
be
erganically.treated and weuld need to.
be
replaced with treatable sed fer $102,200 per field
q:r
a total cost of$51 1.000.
• Optional
replacement costs fer a synthetic turf
epti~)fl
are $1,400,000
per
field
with
$3,700 in anIlUal maintenance er a total capital cest ef$56,OOO,000
and a
$148,000 annual inaintenance cest for
all
ferty
fields.
.
Regional Fields:
• 35
regional fields will need irrigatien
in..~talled
to
m.aintain organic maintenance
standards
at
the following cost:
$3,500,000 in capital costs for system installatiens;
$231,000 in annual water costs;
$350,000 in annual maintenaIlce costs;
for a first year cost ef$4,081,OOO.
Local Fields:
• 300 lecal fields would require manual or mechani:cal weed eliminatien at a total
annual
cest ofS229,860.
In total, implementatien costs to bring
M~NGPPC
fields into cempliance (absent a
total cenversien to
synthetic
turf)
would be:
Total first year costs
to'
M-NCPPC would
be
$5,896.970.
Recurring annual costs for M-NCPPC would
be
$810~860.
Sod Replacement costs every two years weuld be $817,600,
Additienal grading costs every four years fer M",NCPPC would
be
$400,000.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
Total conversien cests
to'
allewable landscaping practices
{.of
the county weuld include an
undetennined amount fer MCPS to replace current pesticiq.es in inventory and a six year
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
total of $12,804,070
f~r
M-NCPPC
as
a part of converting maintena..q.ce practices on
cwrent fields
to
a11ow~ble
practices under
Bm 52-14.
M-NCPPC's six-year estimate of $12,804,070 in conversion costs consists of:
$5,896,970 in first
ye4r
costs
$4,054,300
in
subseqq.ent annual expenses [$810,860 X 5 years]
$2,452,800
in
sod repiacement costs on athletic fields [$817,600
X 3
applications]
$400,000 in additiollai grading costs
If
it
is detetrnined that:
a
proactive enforcement effort
is
needed to enforce the bill, a
dedicated inspector would be required at a personnel cost of $75,000 and a vehicle cost
would ofS40,OOO. fora total ofS115,000 for the first year and a six year total of
$490,000. The County Executive recommends a complaint-driven enforcement program.
Bill
52-14
also
requir~s
the County Executive
to
establish
an
awareness
campaign
related
to the prohibitions noted in
the
bill. Costs related to
the
media campaign will
depend on
the scope and size ofthe media campaign. The County Executive recommends an
education and outreach program of mini(nal cost to the county.
.
4.
An
actuarial analysis through the entire amortizati6n period f6r each bill that w6uld
affect retiree pe.nsioJl or group insurance costs.
Not
AppHcable.
5. An estimate 6f expenditures related to County's inf6rmation technology
(IT)
systems, including Enterprise Resourl1c Planning
(EltP)
systems.
Not Applicable.
6. Later actions that
rutty
affect
future r€!venliC
andexpenditllres
if
the bill
authorizes
future spending.
.
Not Applicable.
7. An estimate of the sq..ff time needed to implement the bill.
The impact of implementation of Bill 52-14 on staff time will
depend
o.n the
extentofthe
enforcement
required
for
the
provisions in the bill. Inspections
on lawns.
commercial
sales establishments
tor
signage. and ot:her general enforcement actions will have an
impact on various coopty departments sinularto other cOtintywideban legislation.
If Bill
52·14 requires·an enforcement inspector,
approximate
personnel costs ofan
inspector would
be
$1p,OOO and a vehicle would
be
$40,000 for a total ofSl15,000 per
inspector.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
If enforcement ofBiU 52-14 is complaint-driven, there woUld be an impact to current
inspection operations
by
increasing
the
extent of
some
exiSting inspection protocols but
would
result
in minimal fiscal impact to
the county.
.
8. An explanation of bow the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other
duties.
Depending on the enforcement model of
Bill
52-14. the
bill
would impactthe total
number ofinspection hours required.
An
inspector carrying out an inspection
in
a retailer
for health code and other violations, for example, could
be
required to add on additional
inspections for checks ofsignage
and
other sales requirements of pesticides to
their
Donnal inspection process.
9.
An
estimate
of costs
when
an
additional
appropriation
'is
needed.
There
are
three potential areas ofcost related
to
Bill 52-14:
1)
Conversion
costs
related to repiacingoid pesticides
Or
converting contracts
to
include
compliant
P$Csticifle
application- County departments repo.fted no fiscal impacts
considering
DOS
already operates an
lPM.
MCPS
teport~d
that there would be costs
associated
Vi-ith
converting to approved pesticides from peSticides currently in use and
iliat the extent of these conversion costs will not be known until a ftnallist of banned
pesticides has
been
established
by
DEP.,
M~NCPPC
estimates their conversion costs
to
allowable landscaping practices (excluding
a conversion to artificial
turf)
to
be
$12,804,070 over the next six years. See item 3 for
additional information on M-NCPPC'sestimated converSion costs.
2) Costs associated
~itha
media
campaign-Bill
52~
14
reqUires
that the County
Executive
establish a media
Canipaign
to
publicize;
the ban on certain' non-essential pesticides.
Costs related to this media campaign w:i1lvary depending On the scope and size of the
campaign; and
3)
Costs associated with enforcement of Bill 52-14-lf dedicated enforcement personnel
are needed
to
enforce the provisions ofBill 52-14, approximate personnel costs of an
inspector would be $75,000 and a vehicle would be $40,000 fot a total of$115,OOO per
inspector.
10. A description of
any
variable
that
could
affect
revenue :and cost estimates.
See Item 9 above.
11. Ranges of revenue or
e~enditnre$
;
th~t
are uncertain Jr dij"ficulttQ project.
:
.
M-NCPPC reports
that
loss ofrevenue
is
likely to oecur
if
the spraying of certain non­
essential pesticides prohibited
in
Bill 52: 14 is eliminated
a,s
a part of the current playing
field maintenance program. M-NCPPC"reports
that
other jurisdictions have seen a
loss
of
revenue from athletic tournaments leagues choose to take outside ofthe county.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
12.
If
a
bill
is
likely
to
h~e
no fiscal impact,
why
that
is the
case.
Not
Applicable.
13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Both
M.:.NCPPG and tlte Department of Recreation (REG) are also
concerned about how this prohibition
will
impact recreational and
sport
fields
throughout the county; 'There are multiple jurisdictional studies suggesting a
prohibition of this
type
on sport
fields
leads to degradation of the playing field
and
may lead
to
injury.
14. The following contrlJ)uted to and concurred with
this
analysis:
Stan Edwards, Department ofEnvironmentaI Protection
James Song. Montgomery County Public Schools
David Vismara, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Beryl
Feinberg,
Department ofGeneral Services
Matt Schaeffer. Office
of Management
and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impad Statement
Bill 52-14, Pesticid.es . .;. Notice Reqnirement., •
Non-E~nftal
Prohibitions
Ba~around:
This legislation would require the posting ofa notice when a property owner applies a
pesticide to an area of lawn more than 100 square feet. Bill 52-14 requires the County
Executive to designate a list of 'ri:on-essential" pesticides that include the following:
4
• All
pesticides classified
as
"Carcinogenic
to
Humans"
Or
"Likely
to Be
Carcinogenic to
Hwnans"
by
the
United
States
Enviromnental
Protection
Agency
(USEPA);
• All pesticides classified
by
USEPA as "Restricted Use
froducts~';
• All pesticides cla.<;sified
as
"Class 9"
by
the Ministry ofthe
Environment
and
Climate Change, Government ofOntario. Canada
• AU
pesticides classified as "Category 1 Endocrine
DisrupterS"
by
the European
Commission; and
• Other pesticides which the County Executive
detennin€iS
are not critical to pest
management in
the
County.
.
The Bill would prohibit the application ofnon..essential pesticides to lawns, with
exceptions for noxious weed and
invasive
species control, agriculture and gardens, and
golf
courses.
The Bill would also require' the
County
Executive to conduct a public
outreach and education
campaign
during the implementation ofBill 52-14, and would
prohibit the application ofnon-essential and neonicotinoid pesticides to County-owned
property.
1. The
sources
of
information, assumptions, and
methodolbgies
used.
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
SafeLawns.org
Diffen.org
The Fertilizer
Institute
(TFI)
Grd.%Toots
Environmental
Education
2. A description of any variable that
could
affect the economic impact estimates.
The variable
that
could
affect the economic impact estimates is
the
cost differential
between organic pesticides and chemical pesticides. However, according to
SafeLawns.org, the
COh1
differential is comparing apples to oranges since one product
provides a short-tenn solution while the other product aims to provide a long-tenn
solution. Organic products "function
by
building up life
in
the soil (soil biology) and
their payoff is long-tenn and lasting" while synthetic products, which are
instantaneous~
are applied frequently and
in
greater
amounts.
The~fore)
SafeLa\\'l1S.org indicates that the users of organiC products will spend less money on
la\\,l1 care
over
a
two-year period than
users
of
chemical or
synthetic pesticides.
Page 10f2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic
I~pact
Statement
Bill
Sl-14}Pesaci4~
- Notice Requirements
~
Non-Essential Prohibitions
According
10
Oiffen.otg, organic pesticides are much more expensive
than
synthetic
or chemical pesticides.because synthetic or chemical pesticides have more
concentrated levels ofnutrients
pcr weight
ofproduct than organic pesticides. The
user of organic pesticides needs several pounds of organic pesticide that would
p1'Qvide the
same
nutI:ibnt levels
as
synthetic
or
chemical pesticide.
That
differential
in the amounts would
result
in a higher cost oforganic pesticide.
Therefore. there
is a C(l)nflict between
the infonnation
provided
by
SafeLawns.organd
Difien.org regarding
~e
cost differential
between
organic and
synthetic/Chemical
pt.'Sticides. SafeLawns.org suggests there is
less
application of organic to
synthetic/chemical pe$,icide while according to Diffen.org, one needs a higher
quantity of organic pesticide to s,'Yllthetic/chemicalpesticide to achieve the same
nutrient
leveL
3. The Bill's
positive or[oegative
effect,
if
any on employment, spending, saving,
investment, in(omes,and property values in
the
County.
Because of the
difterences
ofopinions in terins of the amount of application of
organic versus synthetic/chemical pesticide as stated in paragraph #2,
it
is uncertain.
whether Bill 52-14 would have economic impact on employment, spending, saving,
investment, incomes, and property values
in
the County. Because ofthe specific
climate and soil type
endemic
to Montgomery
COlll1ty,
more consultation with the
expect."i and
research ate needed to detennine the economic effect on the County.
4.
.If
a Bill is
likely to
bave no
economie
impact, why is tbat the
case?
It is uncertain
if
Bill
5f~
14
has
an
economic impact.
5. The following contributed
to
or concurred
with
this analysis: David Platt and Rob
Hagedoo~
Finance, and Start Edwards, Department ofEnvironmental Protection.
Jos
lLFJ.
Beich:-Director
Department of Finance
Page 2of2
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
l;i\ITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTOK
D.C
20460
OFFICE OF
CHEl\IIC\L
SAFETY
,\NO POLU'TIO:>;
PREVE\
TlO:>;
JUL 22 2013
To: Registrants ofNitro guanidine Neonicotinoid Products
Subject: Registered Products Containing Imidacloprid, Dinotefuran, Clothianidin or
Thiamethoxam
Dear Registrant:
As you are aware, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been actively involved
in pollinator protection. Although research conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture has
not demonstrated that Colony Collapse Disorder, nor the broader declines in pollinator health, are
caused by pesticides, this research has indicated that pesticides in combination with other factors
(e.g., pests, pathogens, nutrition, bee management practices) may be associated with the declines.
The relative contribution of these factors, however, has not been identified. Based on potential
effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on honeybees and other pollinators as well as recent bee kill
incidents in Oregon and Canada, which may indicate that applicators are not aware of the potential
for harming bees when they use these products, EPA is concerned about potential adverse effects
on non-target arthropods, including pollinators. Consequently, EPA is initiating a project to
develop clearer language that will strengthen pollinator protective labeling on neonicotinoid
products by more effectively highlighting the risks to pollinators. The intent is to achieve clarity
and consistency as well as to highlight pollinator protective text to both commercial applicators
and general consumers. All registrants of products containing imidacloprid, thiamethoxam,
clothianidin and dinotefuran are being notified of this project.
EP A is developing new label language that will apply to all neonicotinoid products
registered for outdoor sites, regardless of formulation or intended user. The language being
developed will incorporate advice received through the Office of Pesticide Program's Federal
Advisory Committee (the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee). It is essential to this critical
effort that registrants adopt these label statements. It is our goal to have this language on as many
products as possible by the 2014 use season and we
will
consider an appropriate regulatory
response if registrants decline to adopt the new language. We expect to send you the label
statements in earlyAugust. To facilitate this implementation it would be helpful if you could
provide the following:
Production cycle for the subject products
Timeframe of next product label printing
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
This infonnation would be of most use to the Agency if provided within 7 business days from
receipt ofthis letter.
With this letter we are also infonning you that we are requiring the submission of product
perfonnance (efficacy)
data
While EPA has generally waived the requirement to submit product
performance data for non-public health pests, all registrants must ensure through testing that their
product is efficacious when used in accordance with label directions. As stated in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations section 158.400(e), test note 1, EPA reserves the right to require, on a
case-by-case basis, submission of product performance data for any pesticide product registered or
proposed for registration. At this time we are requesting that you submit product performance
(efficacy data) that describes the movement and concentration of active ingredients and major
degradates in plant structures, fluids and tissues over the period when efficacy is expected for
specified insect pests within 30 working days of the date of receipt of this letter. Based on the data
received, EPA may request additional product perfonnance (efficacy) data.
In addition to the efficacy data described above. we are also requesting that you submit a
synopsis of your company's pollinator stewardship planes) for both agricultural and non­
agricultural registrations. All of the information described above should be submitted to Meredith
Laws, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave.• NW (Mail Code 7505P), Washington, DC 20460. Courier deliveries may be made to
Meredith Laws, Office of Pesticide Programs, One Potomac Yard, 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, V A 22202.
Finally. as noted above, OPP is concerned about reports of adverse incidents involving
pollinators, particularly honeybees and bumblebees. As a registrant of pesticide products
registered under the Federal Insecticide, FWlgicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), you are
required to notify the EPA pursuant to FIFRA section 6(a)(2) of any
"additional factual
information regarding unreasonable adverse effects on the environment."
EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 159 identify the types of infonnation that
registrants must submit to the Agency pursuant to FIFRA section 6(a)(2). Those regulations
include a provision that requires registrants to submit information that
'"the registrant knows, or
reasonably should
know,
that ifthe
information should prove to be correct, EPA might regard the
information alone or in conjunction with other information about the pesticide as raising concerns
about the continued registration ofa pesticide or about the appropriate terms and conditions of
registration ofa
product~"
40 CFR 159.195(a), and a provision requiring that information be
submitted if
"the registrant has been informed by EPA that such additional in/ormation has the
potential to raise questions about the continued registration ofa product or about the appropriate
terms and conditions ofregistration ofa product."
40 C.F.R.
§
159.1 95(c). By this
letter~
opp
is
reminding you of your general obligations Wlder 40 CFR 159.195(a), and is informing you of
certain specific types ofinformation that it considers reportable under 40 CFR 159.195(c).
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
If,
after the date of this letter, your company, any subsidiary of the company, or any
consultant, attorney, or agent who acquired such information while acting as a consultant, attorney,
or agent for your company, receives any studies showing that any ofimidacloprid, thiamethoxam,
clothianidin or dinotefuran is more persistent or is found in greater amounts in any portion of a
plant than has previously been reported in a study submitted to the Agency (or is present in any
portion of a plant at all if no previous study has been submitted to the Agency), or learns of any
incidents or allegations of incidents involving harm or potential harm to pollinators resulting from
exposure to imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin or, dinotefuran, such information must
be
reported to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs as adverse effects information under section
6(a)(2) of FIFRA. The submission of such infonnation must meet the requirements of 40 CFR
§
159.156, and the information must be received by EPA no later than ten ( 10) days after you or
your subsidiary, consultant, attorney, or agent first receive the study or learn of
the
incident or
allegation. Information on bee kills must not be aggregated, regardless of the number of individual
pollinators involved in any incident.
If
you or your subsidiary, consultant, attorney, or agent currently have information in your
files that would be reportable to EPA under the previous paragraph and that has not yet been
provided to EPA, you must provide such information to EPA, following the requirements of 40
CFR
§
159.156, on the accelerated 10 day schedule. Any information currently in your possession
related to an incident previously reported to EPA need not be provided again in response to this
letter.
Please note that the requirements to report information to EPA pursuant to section 6(a)(2)
continue as long as the product is registered, and must be reported consistent with the terms of this
letter unless the Agency notifies you in writing of any modification to the terms of this letter. In
addition to submitting the information consistent 'with the requirements of 40 CFR § 159.156, I
request that you provide an additional copy of any 6(a)(2) information to Meredith Laws at the
address listed above.
If
you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to call Lois Rossi at (703) 305­
5447 or Meredith Laws at (703) 308-7038.
;21Y
j
§ h
Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Director
Office of Pesticide Programs
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
W.~SHlNGTON.
[).c.
20460
AUG
15 2013
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
A,\,O POLUJnO:'l[ PREVE"nO:X
TO:
Registrants of Nitroguanidine Neonicotinoid Products
SUBJECT: Pollinator Protection Labeling for Nitroguanidine Neonicotinoid Products .
Dear Registrant:
You are receiving this letter because your company holds registrations for products containing
clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid or thiamethoxam that have use directions for outdoor foliar
application.
I.
Summary
This letter is a follow up to my July 22,2013 letter which indicated that the EPA was developing
label text intended to minimize exposure to bees and other pollinators from nitro guanidine
neonicotinoid pesticides. Additionally, the July 22,2013 letter requested the submission of
efficacy data and your company's pollinator stewardship plan. The letter also notified you to report
under section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) any
incidents involving pollinators on an accelerated 10-day schedule.
The EPA has completed its assessment of what new labeling terms are necessary on all products
registered for outdoor foliar use. As described below, the necessary label changes include a
"Pollinator Protection Box," as well as new pollinator language to be added to the Directions for
Use section of each label. These labeling terms will highlight the measures necessary to better
protect pollinators and also help achieve label clarity and consistency across this chemical class. It
is essential that these label statements are immediately implemented on the labeling of eligible
products. If you do not address the labeling changes described in this letter, EPA will take
appropriate action to ensure that these products are consistent with the requirements of FIFRA. If
these changes are made in the expedited fashion described in this letter, we anticipate labels with
the new language will be available for the 2014 use season.
II.
Products Addressed in this Letter
This letter applies to all products (FIFRA Section 3 and 24(c) Special Local Need registrations)
that have outdoor foliar use directions (except granulars) containing the active ingredients
clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid or tbiamethoxam regardless of formulation. concentration,
or intended user.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
III.
What You Need to Do
Submit a fast-track amendment to revise product labels incorporating the new labeling as described
below and in the attachments no later then September 30, 2013.
On EPA Form
8570~1,
Application for Pesticide Amendment, please indicate in the explanation
box that this is a fast-track amendment to incorporate the new pollinator protective labeling.
A. Label Changes
1. Pollinator Protection Box: Place the Pollinator Protection Box on the label
foHowing the Environmental Hazards section. Note: the Bee icon provided must
not be altered.
2. Directions for Use: Place the pollinator language under the "Directions for Use"
header directly following the misuse statement
("'It
is a violation of Federal Law to
use this product in a manner inconsistent with
its
labeling"). At this time these
statements are not intended to be placed under each crop or site.
3. In current labeling you must replace any reference to bees "actively visiting,"
"actively foraging," or "visiting" with "foraging." Do not delete or change any
other existing bee/pollinator statements.
EPA acknowledges that these labeling changes are generic in nature and that there may
be existing pollinator safety information on your current label that may not be fully
compatible with the generic statements attached to this letter. We also recognize that
there could be product-specific pollinator language that provides additional protection
and EPA does not intend that this language be removed. We will address all other
product-specific issues with individual companies during our review of the labels with
the goal of maintaining the objective of label consistency and enforceability.
Please note that the new text must follow the requirements for prominence, legibility
and font size specified in 40
C.P.R.
156.10.
B. Submission of an Eledronic Label
I. Registrants are requested to submit an electronic label (text .pdf) along with the
fasHrack amendment application. Guidance for electronic submission, including e­
labels, can be found on the EPA's website at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registering/submissionslindex.htm
2. The electronic label must be a text .pdf (not image) file and should be named using
the filename syntax in the guidance below:
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
[co#}-[prod#). [yyyymmdd). [anything else
].PDF
3. Please ensure that you have provided a highlighted copy of the draft
label showing all of the changes that you have made.
C. Address
The submissions are to be sent to the Document Processing Desk address listed below.
PersonaJJCourier Service Deliveries (e.g., FedEx)
The following address should be used for amendments that are hand-carried or sent by
courier service Monday through Friday, from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, excluding Federal
holidays.
Document Processing Desk
Office of Pesticide Programs (7505P)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room S-4900, One Potomac Yard
2777 South Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202-4501
ATTENTION: Pollinator Fast-Track Amendment
As a reminder,
if
it has not already been submitted, the EPA is awaiting the arrival of the requested
pollinator stewardship plans and the requested efficacy data. Please submit the stewardship plan
and efficacy data no later than September 3,2013 via email to laws.meredith@epa.gov. If EPA
does not receive this information by that date, the Agency will consider whether further action on
your products is appropriate.
If you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to call Lois Rossi at (703) 305-5447 or
Meredith Laws at (703) 308-7038.
Sincerely,
..
1
~
~_~(I{.Jr-
0-'--­
Steven Bradbury, PhD., Director
Office of Pesticide Programs
Attachments: Pollinator Protection Box
Directions for Use Statements
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
PROTECTION OF POLLINATORS
APPLICATION RESTRICTIONS
EXIST FOR THIS
PRODUCT BECAUSE OF RISK TO BEES AND OTHER INSECT POLLINATORS. FOLLOW
APPLICATION RESTRICTIONS FOUND IN THE DIREC,.IONS FOR USE TO PROTECT
POLLINATORS.
Look for the bee hazard icon
application site for specific use restrictions and instructions to protect bees and
other insect pollinators.
This product can kill bees and other insect pollinators.
Bees and other insect pollinators will forage on plants when they flower, shed pollen, or
produce nectar.
Bees and other insect pollinators can be exposed to this pesticide from:
o Direct contact during foliar applications, or contact with residues on plant surfaces after
foliar applications
o Ingestion of residues in nectar and pollen when the pesticide is applied as a seed treatment,
soil, tree injection, as well as foliar applications.
When Using This Product Take Steps To:
o Minimize exposure of this product to bees and other insect pollinators when they are
foraging on pollinator attractive plants around the application site.
o Minimize drift of this product on to beehives or to off-site pollinator attractive habitat. Drift
of this product onto beehives or off-site to pollinator attractive habitat can result in bee kills.
Information on protecting bees and other insect pollinators may be found at the Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship website at:
http://pesticidestewardship.org/PoliinatorProtection/Pages/default.aspx.
Pesticide incidents (for example, bee kills) should immediately
be
reported to the state/triballead agency. For
contact information for your state, go to: www.aapco.org/officials.html. Pesticide incidents should also be
reported to the National Pesticide Information Center at: www.npic.orst.edu or directly to EPA at:
beekill@epa.gov
~in
the Directions for Use for each
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
1. FOR CROPS UNDER CONTRACTED POLLINATION SERVICES
Do not apply this product while bees are foraging. Do not apply this
product until flowering is complete and all petals have fallen unless the
following condition has been met.
If an application must be made when managed bees are at the
treatment site, the beekeeper providing the pollination services must
be notified no less than 48-hours prior to the time of the planned
application so that the bees can be removed, covered or otherwise
protected prior to spraying.
2. FOR FOOD CROPS AND COMMERCIALLY GROWN ORNAMENTALS NOT
UNDER CONTRACT FOR POLLINATION SERVICES BUT ARE ATTRACTIVE TO
POLLINATORS
Do not apply this product while bees are foraging. Do not apply this
product until flowering is complete and all petals have fallen unless one of
the following conditions is met:
• The application is made to the target site after sunset
• The application is made to the target site when temperatures are
below 55"F
• The application is made in accordance with a government-initiated
public health response
• The application is made in accordance with an active state­
administered apiary registry program where beekeepers are notified
no less than 48-hours prior to the time of the planned application so
that the bees can be removed, covered or otherwise protected prior
to spraying
• The application is made due to an imminent threat of significant crop
loss, and a documented determination consistent with an IPM plan or
predetermined economic threshold is met. Every effort should be
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
made to notify beekeepers no less than 48-hours prior to the time of
the planned application so that the bees can be removed, covered or
otherwise protected prior to spraying.
3. Non-Agricultural Products:
~/
~
Do not apply [insert name of product] while bees are foraging. Do not
apply [insert name of product] to plants that are flowering. Only apply after
all flower petals have fallen off.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Josh Hamlin
Legislative Attorney
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Ave, 6
th
Floor
Rockville M D 20850
(240) 777-7892
Dear Mr. Hamlin,
Thank you for your recent inquiry and interest regarding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
findings about pesticides in urban streams and groundwater and any related topics that may
help your County Council understand the occurrence and potential significance of pesticides in
the water resources of urban environments. I understand from the material you sent me as
background for your Council's consideration of Bill 52-14 that the following specific reference
was made to a USGS publication:
"A recent study by the United States Geological Survey has found that 90% of urban area
waterways now have pesticide levels high enough to harm aquatic life, and moreover, the USGS
said the harm to aquatic life was likely understated in their report."
The citation to this report, which is also attached to the accompanying email is:
(1) An overview comparing results from two decades of monitoring for pesticides in the
Nation's streams and rivers, 1992-2001 and 2002-2011, by Wesley W. Stone, Robert J.
Gilliom, Jeffrey D. Martin: 2014, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5154
In our discussion, you also asked about any additional publications with findings that
may help expand on the information, and if we could point out and explain the findings most
relevant to your topic. There are four additional recent publications to which I refer you and
that are listed below with a brief annotation (all are attached):
(2) Pesticides in U.S. streams and rivers: occurrence and trends during 1992-2011, by
Wesley W. Stone, Robert
J.
Gilliom, Karen R. Ryberg, 2014, Environmental Science and
Technology (48) 11025-11030
March 9, 2015
This article is
a
condensed version of Reference
(1)
that covers mostly the same
information and is included because it is the version that was much more broadly
distributed
to
the public and states findings in
a
concise style.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(3) Contaminants in stream sediments from seven United States metropolitan areas: part
I:
distribution in relation to urbanization, by lisa
H.
Nowell, Patrick W. Moran, Robert
J.
Gilliom, Daniel
L.
Calhoun, Christopher G. Ingersoll, Nile E. Kemble, Kathryn M. Kuivila,
Patrick
J.
Phillips,
2013,
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
(64)
32-51
Some pesticides occur in urban streams in sediments, rather than in the water. Analysis
of sediment contaminants in several urban areas across the country showed that one
particular pyrethroid insecticide, bifenthrin, was of particular concern related
to
potential toxicity
to
aquatic organisms in some urban streams.
(4)
Trends in pesticide concentrations in urban streams in the United States,
1992-2008,
by Karen R. Ryberg, Aldo V. Vecchia, Jeffrey D. Martin, Robert
J.
Gilliom,
2010,
USGS
Scientific Investigations Report
2010-5139
Trends in concentrations in urban streams show distinct declines in pesticides for which
use was reduced byreguJation, and increases in other pesticides that were added
to
the
market or expanded in use as other pesticides were phased out.
(5) Pesticides in groundwater of the United States: decadal-scale changes,
1993-2011,
by
Patricia
L.
Toccalino, Robert
J.
Gilliom, Bruce D. lindsey, Michael G. Rupert,
2014,
Groundwater, Vol.
52,
Groundwater.:...Focus Issue
2014
(pages
112-125)
Pesticides were detected in about half of the monitoring wells in urban areas during the
decades of both 1993-2001 and 2002-2011.
In addition to copies of these publications, I have also attached a powerpoint file that presents
excerpts from these reports relative to urban areas. Selected graphs are in the slides and
excerpts oftext are in the notes.
After you have a chance to take look through this material, please call or email if you have any
questions to clarify prior to your meetings.
Robert
J.
Gilliom
. Chief, Surface Water Assessment
National Water Quality Assessment Program
U.S. Geological Survey
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Selected Excerpts on Pesticides in Urban
Streams and Groundwater
All material summarized is from the following five pu bUshed reports:
An overview comparing results from two decades of monitoring for pesticides In the Nation's streams and rivers,
1992-2001 and 2002-2011, by Wesley W. Stone, Robert
1.
Gilliom, Jeffrey D. Martin: 2014, USGS Scientific
Investigations Report 2014-5154
Pesticides in U.s. streams and rivers: occurrence and trends durinc1992-2011, by Wesley W. Stone, Robert
J.
Gilliom, Karen R. Ryberg, 2014, Environmental Science and Technology (48) 11025·11030
Contaminants In stream sediments from seven United States metropolitan areas: part I: distribution In relation to
urbanization, by Lisa H. Nowell, Patrick W. Moran, RobertJ. Gilliom, Daniel L. Calhoun, Christopher G.lngersoll, Nile E.
Kemble, Kathryn M. Kuivila, PatrickJ. Phillips, 2013, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (64)32­
51
Trends;n pesticide concentrations in urban streams In the United States, 1992-2008, by Karen R. Ryberg, Aldo V.
Vecchia, 1effrey D. Martin, Robert 1. Gilliom, 2010, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2010·5139
PestiCides in Il'roundwater of the UnltedState.s: decadal-sCile chanps, 1993-2011, by Patricia L. To<:(aiino, Robert J.
Gilliam, Bruce D. Lindsey, Michael G. Rupert, 2014, Groundwater, Vol. 52, Groundwater-Focus Issue 2014 (pages
112­
125)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Sites Evaluated
Cn(';)-lf'1 l/;.ap X;pUCoM;i
.~:ntulrC(;t:
IUlod
IrA
It-';."_lb.K 01
~i'!U
1(1
lO~'H~!
UEtI.l:;.I,:a:;"d
cr.~1J11M tl:i.-u:~
y.nct:;J
w:hl-C.lu.d llu,i
1r.;i-lhAll
<:"I
e-qt.ai "-":::.
po:-f(C'G1
JlPKulru.lll~
IIIIIlJ
""1".d
(0
;:OJ
pn"~ill
*trKultllr('
bed
L~H
It..w. ..1
t:q~ll';
:; j-tHM:lIl:Irban ltnd acd
~>~
th&u
OJ
All
oli;;f'1
o:,,;.nbj;Wtll:-.c.:.
"f;tplmh:.ut'.
U(".)tI$l
.cd:w:Hif'w'b~
)Jlu4mt
At:n('t:.l!'lil~
;\i>U"d
t")b.l1l
£].
,!(!
"
C~
.I)
30
2>
!l~
1aJI
li:­
An overview comparing results from two decades of monitoring for pesticides in the
Nation's streams and rivers, 1992-2001 and 2002-2011, by Wesley W. Stone, Robert J.
Gilliom,Jeffrey D. Martin: 2014, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5154
This report summarizes pesticide stream concentration data from samples collected
during
2002-11
and compares the results to findings from
1992-2001.
Site selection
was based on the number of years with data, watershed size, and frequency of
sampling within each year. For a sampling site, all years of sampling that met the
minimum sampling criteria were included in the summaries. The summaries for both
decades are based on the estimated amount of time a pesticide was detectable at a
stream site and the number of times HHBs and chronic ALBs were exceeded. For
summary purposes, sampling sites were grouped by dominant land-use classification.
2
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Frequency of Detections
Table 4. Percent of time one or more pesticides or pesticide
degradales were detected io streams, bV land-use classification.
PerChnl of lime
detected for
Percent 01 time
defected
101
Land-use classificaliQn
Agncultur~
1992-2001
98
96
2002-11
95
:<'h.'(ed
C.ball
96
99
98
An overview comparing results from two decades of monitoring for pesticides in the
Nation's streams and rivers, 1992-2001 and 2002-2011, by Wesley W. Stone, Robert
J.
Gilliom,Jeffrey O. Martin: 2014, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5154
One or more pesticides or pesticide degradates were detectable more than 90 percent
ofthe time in streams across all land uses during 2001-11 (table 4). As mentioned
previously, the data from this second decade included analysis of nearly twice as many
pesticides and pesticide degradates than the first decade; however, the overall percent
of time they were detected in streams was nearly the same for both decades (table 4).
Variations in percent of time pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in
streams was more evident for individual compounds.
@
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Frequency of Detections
An overview comparing results from two decades of monitoring for pesticides in the
Nation's streams and rivers, 1992-2001 and 2002-2011, by Wesley W. Stone, Robert J.
Gilliom,Jeffrey D. Martin: 2014, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5154
There were some major changes in insecticides in urban streams since 1992. The
report states" "Various uses of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, primarily residential, began
being voluntarily cancelled during the late-1990s, and these regulatory changes
continued into the early-2000s. In addition, fipronil was first registered for use in the
United States in 1996 (Jackson and others, 2009) and was suggested as an alternative
to organophosphate insecticides for residential and commercial turf applications during
the early- 2000s (U.s. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Fipronil was detected in
streams across all land-use clas-sifications from 17 to 63 percent of the time during
2002-11 (fig. 3); however, fipronil was not included in the NAWQA and NASQAN efforts
during 1992-2001 because it was not registered for use until 1996. Ryberg and others
(2010) found a preponderance of increasing fipronil stream concentration trends for
urban land-use streams from 2000 to 2008."
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Aquatic-Life Benchmark Exceedances
TatNa
5.
PltfCIIDt
of strQams
With OfIQ
or m(l(1I
pCJSticlde
concentration statistics
that
QXCQsd;ld
II
chronic
Aquatic
lJfg
Bgnchmail:
(AlBl.bvlan4~s.e
classifIcatIOn.
laII4-IJM
cl
as:sifieatiea
A~ncultnre
P.~of"'.u
txc..dilll
AlB
1!!12:-2101
69
Ptrtd .. .,.aas
.xc....
ng
AlB *2-11
61
..t6
:\hxed
45
Urbcm
53
90
An overview comparing results from two decades of monitoring for pesticides in the
Nation's streams and rivers, 1992-2001 and 2002-2011, by Wesley W. Stone, Robert J.
Gilliom,Jeffrey D. Martin: 2014, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5154
During
2002-11,
nearly two-thirds of agriculture land-use classification streams and
nearly one-half of mixed land-use classification streams exceeded a chronic ALB (table
5). For urban land-use classification streams,
90
percent exceeded a chronic ALB.
@
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Aquatic-Life Benchmark Exceedances
An overview comparing results from two decades of monitoring for pesticides in the
Nation'sstreams and rivers, 1992-2001 and 2002-2011, by Wesley W. Stone, RobertJ.
Gilliom,Jeffrey D. Martin: 2014, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2014·5154
The insecticide fipronil exceeded chronic ALBs for more than
20
percent of the streams
across all land-use classifications (fig. 4). The herbicide metolachlor (chronic ALB for
metolachlor) exceeded chronic ALBs for more than
10
percent of agriculture and mixed
land-use streams. Similarly, the insecticide malathion exceeded chronic ALBs for more
than
10
percent of agriculture and urban land-use streams. The insecticides cis­
permethrin (chronic ALB for per-methrin) and dichlorvos exceeded chronic ALBs for
more than
10
percent of mixed and urban land-use streams, respectively.
For streams in the urban land-use classification group, the organophosphate
insecticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion, and the carbamate insecticide
carbaryl all had decreases (greater than
10
percent) in the percent of streams
exceeding a chronic ALB from the first decade to the second decade (fig. 4). This is
consistent with the decreasing stream concentration trends found by Ryberg and others
(2010)
for chlorpyrifos and diazinon in individual urban land-use streams. These
pesticides also were detected less frequently in streams during
1992-2001
compared
to
2002-11
(fig. 3). In contrast, the percent of streams, across all land-use
classifications, exceeding a chronic ALB for fipronil during the second decade was
greater than all other insecticides during both decades. As discussed previously, fipronil
registration and use began toward the end of the first decade and was a suggested
alternative for organophosphate insecticides during the second decade.
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Implications and Next Steps
"Pesticides assessed during
1992-2011,
which represent somewhat less than half the amount of
synthetic organic herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides used for agriculture in the U.S.,
frequently occurred in streams and rivers and pose continuing and widespread concerns for
aquatic life based on benchmark exceedances. The potential for adverse effects is likely greater
than these results indicate because a wide range of potentially important pesticide compounds
were not included in the assessment. Recent regional studies in high-use areas, for example,
indicate the likelihood that neonicotinoid insecticides and fungicides occur frequently in surface
waters, but the environmental significance is not yet clear. In addition, sampling frequencies in
this study were not adequate to reliably characterize the highest short-term concentrations and it
focused on pesticides dissolved in water, whereas some hydrophobic pesticides, such as legacy
organochlorines and pyrethroid insecticides, are important as contaminants of sediment and
tissues and should be considered when evaluating stream ecosystems. pyrethroid insecticides
have been found to be toxicologically important in both agricultural and urban affected streams.
Clearly, some of the pesticides not included in the present assessment may add substantially to
overall occurrence and potential environmental significance. Expanded assessment should
include additional pesticides that are currently used, improved characterization of short-term
acute exposures, consideration of multiple environmental media (e.g., sediment and tissues), and
coincident assessment of biological conditions. Results suggest that a relatively small proportion
of individual pesticides in use may account for most of the concerns for aquatic life, based on
comparisons to individual water..quality benchmarks. "
An overview comparing results from two decades of monitoring for pesticides in the
Nation'sstreams and rivers, 1992-2001 and 2002-2011, by Wesley W. Stone, Robert J.
Gilliom,Jeffrey D. Martin: 2014, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5154
Excerpt from closing section of the 2014 Environmental Science and Technology article.
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Contaminants in stream sediments from seven
United States metroDolitan areas
Contaminants in stream sediments from seven United States metropolitan areas: part 1: distribution in relation
to urbanization, by Lisa H. Nowell, Patrick W. Moran, Robert
1.
Gilliam, Daniel L. Calhoun, Christopher G.
Ingersoll, Nile E. Kemble, Kathryn M. Kuivila, Patrick
J.
Phillips, 2013, Archives of Environmental Contamination
and ToxicologV
(64)32-51
These study areas vary
with respect to ecoregion, climate, geology and soil properties,
streamflow characteristics, and pre-urban land cover
(Table 1). A total of 98 stream sites were sampled during
2007, with
12-14
sites in most study areas
®
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Contaminants in stream sediments from seven
United States metropolitan areas
"9~
~
1
"
"
'"
II,
.; .1.
-l-
··1-
~I'.;-I;;,
Contaminants in stream sediments from seven United States metropolitan areas: part I: distribution in relation
to urbanization, by Usa H. Nowell, Patrick W. Moran, Robert
J.
Gilliom, Daniel L. Calhoun, Christopher G.
Ingersoll, Nile E. Kemble, Kathryn M. Kuivila, PatrickJ. Phillips, 2013, Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology (64) 32-51
Mean PECQ-5B is the estimated toxicity of a sample. Each sample in each metropolitan
area is represented by a bar on the graph and each segment of the bar is a particular
contaminant or group. The light blue bars that are prevalent for many ofthe more
urbanized streams are the pyrethroid insecticide, bifenthrin.
Excerpt from article: The overall mean PECQ-5B increased significantly with increasing
urbanization. At highly urban sites ([50
%
urban), pyrethroids accounted for an average
of approximately 75 % of the mean PECQ-5B, all other organics combined
approximately 11
%,
and trace elements only approximately 13
%.
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Contaminants in stream sediments from seven
United States metropolitan areas
£XI'WWlOfI
I
....
m~rMo-
,
I'
1 . . .. . ­
I
II/!, t.
~~
0 ....""
I
I
A,cr.-&.' ,""'''lntI''''I'''
II\~ ~"'''
.
.ii!llt....
'l
d.j~,...
... I"
Il,.,
,'10*4£1
I'U'V"J1
\Ii ..
,~
...
h'if",l)
\1)1>,:0.1
'tl("..
I"~ '-~"')'~
Wt.,ot, Lon.1'
laIl<J
h "II.. '
I.lr.in ..
k".....
t
,h\'4[1h
;"'S',
uti,,,,,
b.,Jt
Contaminants in stream sediments from seven United States metropolitan areas: part I: distribution in relation
to urbanization, by lisa H. Nowell, Patrick W. Moran, Robert
J.
Gilliom, Daniell. Calhoun, Christopher G.
Insersoll, Nile E. Kemble, Kathryn M. Kuivila, Patrick
J,
Phillips, 2013, Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology (64) 32-51
Excerpt from article: The overall mean PECQ-5B (estimated toxicity) increased
significantly with increasing urbanization. At highly urban sites ([50
%
urban),
pyrethroids accounted for an average of approximately 75
%
of the mean PECQ-5B, all
other organics combined approximately 11
%,
and trace elements only approximately
13%.
10
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Contaminants in stream sediments from seven
United States metropolitan areas
liThe results of the present study confirm the importance of
bifenthrin as a primary cause of potential toxicity in urban
streams reported previously for residential creeks, especially
near storm drain outfalls, in parts of California (Weston et al.
2005; Amweg et al. 2006; Holmes et al. 2008), Illinois (Ding et al.
2010), and Texas (Hintzen et al. 2009). Findings for the
pyrethroids illustrate the importance of tracking new
contaminants introduced to aquatic ecosystems and the
development of analytical methods and toxicity thresholds to
support the assessment and management of contaminated
sediments."
Contaminants in stream sediments from seven United States metropolitan areas: part I: distribution in relation
to urbanization, by Lisa H, Nowell, Patrick
W,
Moran, Robert
J.
Gilliom, Daniel
L.
Calhoun, Christopher G.
Ingersoll, Nile E, Kemble, Kathryn M, Kuivila, Patrick
J.
Phillips, 2013, Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology (64) 32·51
®
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Trends in Herbicide Concentrations in Urban Streams
~-~~~~~-~
1UWI
••
-.r(
'
,
..
_ - - - ,
.---
......
~-----,
~'~::.~~-..,
,..."r!
'f~Hl
1(H!II.li
::::.I::::::i
c:t:J
;
!
"·... 1
-~ ~~~
___
-.-S;.J_~j
f••
---=""-----1
T'"'i
~
;
t.A.J.I;
~~-=:-"'-.-
..
-j
""
tMIPtt!
,I)
wUTft
~ \~::!
;
""
~
...
,
I;RKH!
!Ulltnr
.
1
1
!
:::1
;t1f\....
;Q!
III Mltc]
JICllVJi
i
2·~~~~,~_~
___
,.~~~~__1
,~
~
;..-.,--"'.,._---4 ,._.••'"._..
MlIlWESI
~
n"J!ICt!
c.:t:.:::.
...;
... 111-...... :
QJ
"'
I
!
!
l
-;;-iror;
1-".«-------,
nWUIlI,1
:It."
r··-·....,.----j
f-----='----I
.
""
co
...
III
-
I
WlST
1\~1
:_wtal
:.t:l
i:l:1
i
t
aTloOltl'
n"""':_.~
,II
._~_,
...
II
»
__
~
__
;t
0-__
=
..__-::--:'
.i,..--cc~'--=-.' ::---~;-----::--:'
_
..
~_
. . ._
..
trMi .......
~
.1m,.,.,.,~,*",,1'IIIIIdIIi
~
,.
_ _ £iIiIIiiI _
~..............
_
~ ~
,~
l,lI"'ill
....,.; "¢'r...,...
"IU
~ ~
UI.~
1~...,,
1111._"
__
lui*'-
'
FIg_,.)I
1f~oa~'~Piz..;wj\(Nt'{t4f ft,f"'It\4l,....~,tIfI.
..,.,......, ...
..dQutlttflJUllowf..
·d'iI~~....ooJ
Trends In pesticide concentrations In urban streams in the United States, 1992-2008,
by
Karen R. Ryberg, Aldo
V. Vecchia,Jeffrey D. Martin, RobertJ. Gilliom, 2010, USGSScientifk Investigations Report 2010-5139
Trend results for the herbicides indicated many significant trends, both upward and
downward, with varying patterns depending on period, region, and herbicide. Overall,
for all of the herbicides and periods, deethylatrazine showed the most consistent
pattern of upward trends in concentrations, especially in the Northeast (200D-2008),
South (1996-2004 and 200D-2008), and Midwest (1996-2004 and 200D-2008). Other
herbicides showed less consistent increases, including simazine in the South (1996­
2004), prometon in the Midwest (200D-2008), and atrazine in the South (1996-2004).
The most consistent downward trends were for simazine in the Northeast and Midwest
(1996-2004), prometon in the Northeast and Midwest (1996-2004) and West (1996­
2004 and 200D-2008), and tebuthiuron in the South (1996-2004 and 200D-2008) and
West (200D-2008).
@
12
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Trends in Insecticide Concentrations in Urban Streams
~.~IO)I
1>_._.l!DlI
f~~~'-;~~-"l
~.~at
1.U.\tUl--~~
---~-~---.,
NDR~f
l~,.l
)''-'*1
tll5M:
If:
1
1_
l
1
_
I
J
I.
i ...
::::.;t::::!
t=1=:J
:::r-----:
-i
1-!------1
~vntto;Il
H:
N:
I
1
' "
: .
=
I ______
±'-__.--,
::;
SOU1'M
!
S
<1,~!
2
1I{.1Y!'Ij
'~l
Itta
l.
i
i
»~;
co
__ -
o<t;
' .
I.
!
I
u ...
..,,!
~
...
: ,__
1
:
i
:
( '.
....
~
MlDWfST
~
~
:_Mlf!
. I'.
j _
~
t<
,..
lit
'"
_~~ ~ ~
_ _ _
~;
I
!
:
'"
.111\
!<It
!It
I:
r
i
j
III I"*'t
_~~I
___
~
:
--~.~ ~--~-~-.
if--_..
~,-_-j
--I
i
• ,
I
j
I-
,
II
!!
r:..-:t;:::)
ct:l
WfST
",,-.i
t'~i
IU'I('.~·
"~I
.-;
q:::
oc:
I
1 •
!:.
j
~(;~~.iTt--rnw--
• .
~-r-T-"~,
Tt4J(O,tNptl({NtI'''nAJ
::P
!
i.
! ..
• ;';-.......-;--.;;--;'
I
urtANA'lOil
"~ttoIJIfH!(fl_
/lIB'"
~
~
__
lto<$""J
I1t
lJW,~t_""""""""~
MIl S......
flld."~_o'l'_~po.nM'
o..--N
~
~.......,""~
to"" ...
1.W\fE.n ......
~
CM.Wll\1II
~'""'"
"""h
I
~
Trends in pesticide concentrations In urban streams In the United States, 1992-2008,
by
Karen R. Ryberg, Aldo
V, Vecchia,Jeffrey D. Martin, RobertJ. Gilliom, 2010, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 201()'S139
Trend results for two organophosphate insecticides, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, were
consistent with known decreases in urban uses of these chemicals. Many residential
uses of chlorpyrifos were phased out or eliminated at various times during 1997-2001,
which is consistent with highly significant chlorpyrifos downward trends during 1996­
2004 and substantially decreased chlorpyrifos concentrations in urban streams.
Diazinon trended strongly downward during both the 1996-2004 and
200D-2008