SENT ELECTRONICALLY January 25, 2010 

Jack Faulk 

Water Permits Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: January 13, 2010 Draft Pesticide General Permit (PGP) 

 

Dear Mr. Faulk: 

Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on the Draft Pesticide General Permit 

(PGP). Staff had the opportunity to participate in the webcast on January 14 and the face-toface meeting in Dallas, TX on January 20 and 21. Minnesota consolidated comments from state 

agencies involved with water and pesticide management; the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), and the Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 

First, we believe the permit should authorize all entities, regardless of size or business 

affiliation, to discharge pesticides to waters of U.S, including homeowners. If a threshold is met, 

then a Notice of Intent (NOI) would be required, similar to the fifth bullet under section 1.2.2 of 

the draft permit. We are still gathering data to see what thresholds requiring submittal of an 

NOI make sense for Minnesota. 

We intend to draft a permit that authorizes discharges to outstanding resource value waters as 

long as the discharge complies with state non-degradation rules. We intend to use EPA’s Fact 

Sheet as a platform with which to build a state Fact Sheet that outlines the process for meeting 

non-degradation requirements. Also, if a waterbody is impaired for a pesticide and an EPAapproved TMDL is in place and an implementation plan for that waterbody allows pesticide 

application, we intend to allow a discharge to be authorized under our state general permit. If 

the TMDL and associated implementation plan have special requirements for the application of 

pesticides, the MPCA will review these requirements and may issue an individual permit. 

Overall, we agree with the ‘use patterns’ in section 1.1.1. The following are comments for this 

section of the draft permit: 

• We suggest removing “...in area greater than 15 contiguous acres” from the second 

bullet describing Area-Wide Pest Control. If the EPA agrees to authorize all pesticide 

applications to, in and near water in this permit, we believe this type of parameter is 

better described in a section that outlines who needs to submit an NOI (currently 

section 1.2.2). 

• It is not clear if the control of snails for Swimmer’s Itch reduction is covered in the 

fourth bullet of section 1.1.1, Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control. Snails themselves may 
not be defined as an aquatic nuisance animal. There may be value in including 

organisms that harbor a pesticide, parasite, or disease organism but may not be a “pest” 

themselves to this final use pattern. 

• It is unclear what group of species is defined by the term “invasive”. The term 

“invasive” can refer to non-native species that cause significant impacts to humans or 

aquatic ecosystems, but can also refer to native species with specific growth 

characteristics. 

Section 2.1.1 identifies a process where specific treatment protocols are used to minimize 

impacts. To implement the technology-based effluent limitations, the Permittee needs to know 

1) the lowest effective amount of pesticide product per application; 2) the optimum frequency 

of pesticide application, and 3) how dose and treatment frequency impact the development of 

pest resistance. If the information available on the product label will be viewed as sufficient to 

fulfill the above requirements, please clarify that point. We understand that EPA is trying to 

avoid referencing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but this point 

may be clarified without a reference. Also, we understand that an aquatic pesticide can be used 

to treat an aquatic pest not listed on the label as long as the maximum label rate is not 

exceeded. In this case, the label may not provide guidance for the specific treatment option 

undertaken and it may be difficult for the Permittee to meet the above requirement. 

In section 2.2.1.1, the term “each treatment area” should be better defined. At the Dallas 

meeting, it was noted that for Mosquito Control this was impractical for individual treatment 

areas, but practical if it consisted of a whole district. This term is also used in sections 2.2.2, 

2.2.3, and 2.2.4, but may have a different meaning. Please clarify. (It may also have been EPA’s 

intent to address this term in Appendix A). 

In section 2.2.2, Aquatic Weed and Algae Control, EPA seems to assume that there will be a 

specific abundance of a pest (action threshold) that will initiate control activities and that the 

primary goal of treatment is “pest control”. However, in Minnesota, we use pesticides as part of 

treatment protocols where the primary goal of treatment is “ecosystem enhancement”. These 

treatment protocols focus on non-native, invasive species that are causing impacts to both 

humans and the ecosystems they have invaded. Within this context, there may not be a specific 

abundance threshold that is the trigger for when treatment should be initiated. Therefore, we 

ask that treatment decisions instead be based in-part on the status of the ecosystem within 

which the “pest” organism is found. 

Also, section 2.2.2.2 seems to assume that the primary goal for making treatment decisions 

should be the action which will “most successfully minimize discharges resulting from 

pesticides”. Where the goal of pesticide treatment is the restoration or enhancement of 

ecological systems, we would like to see the definition of success in a broader term. For 

example, in cases where non-native, invasive species are being managed to reduce both human 

and ecological impacts, it would seem more appropriate to balance efforts to minimize 

pesticide inputs against the anticipated ecological enhancements from making those 

treatments. 
Overall, we appreciate the time and effort given to sections 2.0 (Technology –Based Effluent 

Limitations) and 3.0 (Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations). We look forward to seeing the 

Fact Sheet which will help Minnesota develop its own state-specific Fact Sheet. 

We intend to coordinate permit recordkeeping requirements with established state laws to 

minimize duplication of efforts. Currently, MDA requires specific pesticide records and records 

retention under MN Statute 86B and the MDNR authorizes aquatic plant management or 

aquatic nuisance control under Minnesota Rules 6280. Therefore, sections 4.0 (Site 

Monitoring), 7.0 (Annual Reporting) and 8.0 (Recordkeeping) will reflect current Minnesota 

laws and statutes. 

We greatly appreciate the hard work put into generating this draft permit. We realize how 

time-sensitive the issue is and look forward to continued work with EPA Headquarters and EPA 

Region 5. 

Sincerely, 

Elise M. Doucette 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

cc via electronic mail: Rebecca Flood, MPCA 

 Joseph Martin, MDA 

Steve Hirsch, MDNR 

Marvin Hora, MPCA 

 Joseph Spitzmueller, MDA 

 Joseph Zachmann, MDA 

 Steve Enger, MDNR