### FL FWC Comments on PGP

Caton, William

to:

Jack Faulk

01/25/2010 04:45 PM

Cc:

Virginia Garelick, "Schardt, Jeffre y", "Coram, Phil", "Potts, Elsa", "Dwinell, Steve", "Howard, Dennis",

"Daiker, Dave", "'Drew, Ri chard'", "Caton, William"

Show Details

Jack,

Thank you for the continuing opportunities to participate and provide comments in developing the Pesticide

General Permit (PGP). Attached are comments on the EPA Deliberative Draft that was reviewed in Dallas on

January 21

‐ 22, 2010. These comments are primarily in reference to the PGP as it relates to aquatic plant and

algae control in waters of the US. Generally, most permit conditions seem reasonable and address water quality

protection while allowing responsible pesticide applications to manage aquatic plants to conserve uses and

functions of waters of the US.

Cover Page

On the cover page of the draft PGP there is a statement indicating that the EPA may be inclined ...”to exclude

homeowners from being eligible for coverage under this permit.” The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission (FWC) is the lead state agency for directing the control of aquatic plants in Florida and envisions

working under a PGP issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). All persons, including

homeowners working under FWC authorization therefore will be covered by the PGP. However, clarification is

needed on who would be responsible for liability issues, e.g. an adverse incident as a result of actions by a

homeowner permitted by FWC.

FWC has more than 7,000 active aquatic plant management permits issued mostly to homeowners and most fall

under the 160

‐ acre annual control threshold proposed in the PGP (Part 1.2.2.) for submitting a Notice of Intent

(NOI). These permits are authorized by FWC after considering water body uses and functions, target and non

‐

target species, management objectives, and available control tools that are compatible with current conditions

within the water body. This existing permitting process addresses the intent of the NPDES PGP by considering

integrated pest management (IPM) and water quality while conserving or enhancing uses and functions of

Florida and US waters and addressing individual riparian rights related to access to these waters.

Part 1.1.2.4.

This example of Endangered Species Act requirements from other general permits highlights a dilemma faced by

aquatic plant managers when controlling invasive aquatic plants among or near endangered species, their

habitat, and forage. One of the management options to consider when developing a Pesticide Discharge

Management Plan (PDMP

– Part 5.1.3.) is No Action

. We have observed that invasive species such as water

hyacinth and hydrilla can cover water surfaces or fill water columns in shallow Florida waters in a matter of a

few months to a few years if not routinely managed. When endangered species appear in waters with ongoing

invasive plant management programs the inclination by some is to discontinue pesticide use even when no

other control methods will provide effective control. Therefore water uses, including endangered species

habitat, are eventually impaired by the invasive plants in addition to water quality impairments including oxygen

depletion, and wide fluctuations in surface water pH and temperatures. The irony is that delays in applying small

amounts of pesticides can lead to long

‐ term and large

‐ scale pesticide use as invasive plants expand within and

among water bodies. People involved in regulating the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act must

also have a thorough understanding of invasive species management and mosquito control using pesticides. 

### Page 1 of 3

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web5791.htmPart 1.2.2.

It appears that pesticide applications for aquatic plant control in Florida conducted under the FWC permitting

authority fit within the framework established under Part 1.2.2., provided that FWC is issued a PGP and aquatic

plant management activities authorized under state statutes and administrative codes are determined by the

EPA and Florida DEP to meet NPDES requirements.

Part 1.2.2

. ‐ Threshold Table

We recommend only the 160

‐ acre threshold for aquatic weeds and algae for Waters of the US and eliminate the

10 linear miles threshold. 160 acres is measurable in a lake as well as a river/canal situation and can be readily

calculated or verified. In a linear situation, acreage is variable depending on the width of the treatment zone or

band. For example: a five foot band of water hyacinth on each side of a five

‐ mile river (10 total miles using the

table calculations) is only 6.25 acres

– far less than the 160

‐ acre threshold.

Part 2.0

‐ Technology

‐ Based Effluent Limitations

We agree with others at the face

‐ to

‐ face meeting in Dallas that technology

‐ based effluent limitations are the

more practical way to achieve cost

‐ effective, environmentally compatible aquatic plant management. There are

many ways to reduce amounts of pesticides applied to waters in addition to applying the lowest rates as

discussed in Part 2.1.1. Two examples include lowering water volumes (water levels) in reservoirs to reduce the

amount of pesticide necessary to control target plants, and re

‐ flooding after applications to further stress

treated invasive plants.

One of the most effective ways to reduce pesticide use is by keeping invasive plants at the lowest levels

compatible with best available technologies (BATs), water uses, current conditions, and funding

– a concept

known in Florida as maintenance control. This appears to be the intent of Part 2.1.1., but may need further

clarification here and under Part 2.2.2.2.

‐ either via language in the PGP or in supporting intent document

language. An example is in the bullets below Part 2.2.2.2.

– No action and Prevention are on opposite ends of

management continuum for invasive aquatic plants. Management concepts such as early detection / rapid

response and maintenance control should also be included in this Part as both are strategies that substantially

reduce the amounts of pesticides applied to waters of the US.

Part 2.2.2.3.3.

It is difficult to establish a management action threshold based on plant levels alone; therefore, there may be

several action thresholds based on conditions unique to each water body. This is especially important in invasive

plant management. We suggest rewording Part 2.2.2.3.3. as follows:

Minimize the impact on the environment and non

‐ target organisms by applying the pesticides according to

Best Available Technologies including; only when the an action threshold has been met, using best

professional judgment related to current conditions, and/or under an emergency conditions (e.g. invasive

species).

Part 7.0

‐ Annual Reporting

Clarification is needed for the final solid bullet:

• For each use pattern (see Part 1.1.1.) in waters in which the treatment threshold is exceeded :

o Active ingredient EPA product registration number(s) for each product used,

o Amount of each product used in waters in which the treatment threshold is exceeded

,

Section 8.2

‐ Record Keeping

While calibration, cleaning, and repair are part of management operations, reporting these actions does not

seem to add value to the intent of the NPDES PGP process. We suggest making the third bullet from the end part

of BATs and excluding calibration, cleaning, and repair from Record Keeping and Reporting.

• When the application equipment was calibrated, cleaned, and repaired, if applicable; 

### Page 2 of 3

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web5791.htmA.1. DEFINITIONS

Adverse Incident

‐ Part (2)

Delete this section since it is speculative. It is difficult to determine if a person or non

‐ target organism was

exposed

‐ it would be speculative to state whether or not there would be a toxic affect, especially a delayed

affect.

Control Measure

The definition of Control Measure as written says nothing about reducing pest abundance or effect on the uses

of the water body. The definition should be revised to include this statement and delete language about steps to

minimize pesticides. Minimizing pesticides seems to be a management strategy, not a control measure.

Integrated Pest Management

IPM is more than combining control tools. Responsible IPM requires identifying water body uses and functions,

defining objectives, considering all available tools, and incorporating (only) those tools that provide cost

‐

effective control compatible with the uses and conditions at the control site.

Regards,



### Jeff Schardt, Environmental Administrator

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Division of Habitat a nd Species Conservation

Invasive Plant Management Section

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 705

Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

Jeff.schardt@myfwc.com

850-245-2809

Fax: 850-245-2834 Page 3 of 3

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web5791.htm