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 Pe sticide General Permit (PGP)

Dear Mr. Faulk:

Thank you for the opportunity to read and co mment 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 Minneso ta 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 disc harges to outstanding resource value waters as long as the discharge complies with state non-de gradation 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 wate rbody is impaired for a pesticide and an EPAapproved TMDL is in place and an implementati on 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 ha ve 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 sect ion 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 pe rmit, 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 contro l of snails for Swimmer’s Itch reduction is covered in the fourth bullet of section 1.1.1, Aquatic Nuisan ce Animal Control. Snails themselves maynot be defined as an aquatic nuisance an imal. 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 de fined 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 specif ic treatment protocols are used to minimize impacts. To implement the technology-based e ffluent limitations, the Permittee needs to know 1) the lowest effective amount of pesticide pr oduct 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, Fungicid e, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but this point may be clarified without a reference. Also, we u nderstand 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 Contro l this was impractical for individual treatment areas, but practical if it consisted of a whole dist rict. 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 Cont rol, 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”. Howeve r, 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, invasi ve species that are causing impacts to both humans and the ecosystems they have invaded. With in 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 th e primary goal for making treatment decisions

should be the action which will “most successf ully minimize discharges resulting from pesticides”. Where the goal of pesticide trea tment 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-na tive, invasive species are bein g 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 Ru les 6280. Therefore, sections 4.0 (Site Monitoring), 7.0 (Annual Reporting) and 8.0 (R ecordkeeping) 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