1 

## PGP State Face**- to** **- Face Meeting**  **September 27, 28 , 2010**  **DAY 1 PARTICIPANT** **S AFFILIATION**  EPA HQ:Linda Boornazian OW/OWM/WPD Allison Wiedeman OW/OWM/WPD Jack Faulk OW/OWM/WPD Jennifer Chan OW/OWM/WPD Prasad Chumble OW/OWM/WPD Jordan Page OW/OWM/WPD Hema Subramanian OW/OWM/WPD Susan Lewis OPP/BEAD Arnet Jones OPP/BEAD Tim Kiely OPP/BEAD Elizabeth Hill OPP/BEAD Nicole Berckes OPP/BEAD Bill Jordan OPP Kevin Minoli OGC/WLO Mindy Kairis OGC/WLO Michele Knorr OGC/Pesticides Cheryl Rose OECA Melissa Katz OECA Mathew Dobbins OECA EPA Regions: (5) Kimberly Heil R7 David Rise R8 Coll een Gillespie R8 Darcy O’ Conner R8 Pete Weber R3 Sergio Bosques R2 Andrea Szylvian R1 George Papadopoulos R1 Maureen Krudner R2 States: (14) Elise Doucette Minnesota PCA Steven Goans Nebraska DEQ Bruce Fielding Louisiana DEQ Melvin Mitchell Louisiana DEQ2

Steven Dwinell Florida Dept. of Ag. & Cons . Jeff Schardt Fl orida F & W Cons. Comm. Daveki Keymoore New Jersey Div. of WQ Phil Coram Florida DEP Bill Meredith Delaware DNREC Hank Uhden Wyoming Dept. of Ag. Sharmon Stambaugh Alaska DEC/Division of Water David Priebe Oregon Dept. of Ag. Beth Moore Oregon Dept. of EQ Charles Maguire Texas Comm . on EQ David Villareal Texas Dept. of Ag. Bobby Simoneaux Louisiana Dept. of Ag. & F. Cary Hamilton New Mexico Dept. of Ag. Courtney Cswercko Iowa DNR Elleanore Daub Virginia DEQ – Water Permits Ed Stone Maryland Dept. of Environment Leah Krafft Wyoming Dept. of E Q Jill Bingham Georgia EPD 

## QUESTION**S & COMMENTS: SCOPE:** 
 Steve (NE) – Fungicides in cranberry farms, is it covered in PGP? o Steve (Fl) – These are FIFRA labels for fungicides but they do not fall into the weed or animal category.
 David (R8) – In northeast Montana there are a lot of prairie potholes. It is difficult for an aerial applicator to avoid pesticide applications.
 Bill (DE) – Can you provide some specific examples for Federal Facility (option e in permit scope of coverage)? o Jack F – Rangelands, pest control over very large areas. Larger than State and private applications o Bill (DE) – When spraying for grass hoppers, do they not stop over open waters? o Jack F – The challenge is conveyance and intermittent streams. Ge nerally can turn off nozzles but in large areas is difficult. May require permit coverage. The concern is that they are going to get sued.
 Cary (NM) – In rangeland there are many dry stream beds, which contain invasive species. o Allison W – States can ma ke their permits more stringent to include additional waters. o Cary (NM) – Concern over ditches. In NM over 6000 miles. Not all continually provide conveyances. When dry , no return flow to source.3

 Charles (TX) – Ag. Requested to be included in permit coverage. Especially crop dusting and group applications. General view in Texas – want some kind of coverage BUT do not want to be called out.
 Elise (MN) – Runoff from cranberry farms were considered irrigation return flow. Do not want to control ditches prior to fields. o Allison W – Only talking about crops grown in “waters of the US” (WOUS)
 Bill (DL) – Concern about ditches. In Delaware, ditches in the fields always have water. Need to better define conveyances that would need coverage. o Kevin M – Difficult to define “point soure”. If conveyance does not reach “WOUS” do not need permit. o Bill (DL) – It is impossible to spray without contact to conveyance. If only connected during stormwater discharge, is that exempt? o Allison W – There is a difference between runoff from field that has pesticide and runoff from conveyances. o Bill (DE) – EPA need better clarification.
 Steve (Fl) – Prairie Potholes? o Allison W – Not addressed directly. If applying pesticide to WOUS then need a permit. Will not call out specifically.
 Steve (NE) – We will cover dry swales because they are “waters of the State.” Will will be doing 2 permits. 1) by water body types and 2 ) by flowing waters.
 Courtney (IA) – Road side managers are concerned about dry ditch applications. If applied when dry , need coverage? o Linda B – Some things are challenging. Don’t have ready answers based on case law.
 Steve (Fl) – Ag. Is making a mista ke by not asking to be covered. They will see unavoidably pest application to WOUS. It is easy for them to be covered under the permit and they should do so.
 Elise (MN) - Ditch managers know they do not apply terrestrial pesticides in waters . Looking at Wa shington State permit. o Allison W – Should only pesticides applied to water be covered? o Elise (MN) – Yes, crop dusters can avoid waters, only dealing with aquatic pesticides.
 Cary (NM) – All our water is applied to farms through gravity feeding, there is no return flow. If covered, the thresholds should be increased.
 Courtney (IA) – What about seasonally dry pesticides? We would like only aquatic pesticides. Will those need application? o Bill J – 1) Some pesticide labeling approved for not getting in wate r therefore don’t apply to lake, rivers, streams. That would be a FIFRA violation. OPP definition of “don’t apply to water” not the same as the Clean Water Act definition.4 2) Pesticide Office does not look at risk to aquatic systems, even though applied to terrestrial sites. We use different risk assessment models as opposed to the direct water applied risk assessment.
 David (R8) – Ag. applies to “entire field.” They cannot shut off near waters, canals, ditches. They are going to be opening themselves up for litigation. o Allison W – For crop/Ag. need to take baby steps.

 Options - 1) “Opt- In Category”

2) Different Permit What do you feel about those? EPA, politically, cann ot add Ag. not. o Steve (NE) – Right now they take action if applied to water. For grasshoppers, label says do not apply directly to water. For dry ditches, not directly applied to water so follow FIFRA. o Jack F – Different definitions of water under FIFRA a nd Clean Water Act.
 Charles (TX) – We are writing permit with WOUS, typically we do “waters of the State.” We will include all water bodies. We can pullout states specific playa lake.
 Bill (DL) – There are many complications. Could EPA add a category fo r use criteria? o Kevin M – There is flexibility **POLL S**  Terrestrial Application for Agricultural Pesticides 1) Coverage for Non WOUS crop Ag. under PGP: TX, LA 2) Opt In Category: MN, FL, DE, NJ, NM 3) Second General Permit: None 4) No Coverage: IA, OK, AK, VA WY 5) Against Editorial Title Change: VA, NM Scope Options (a -e) a) DON’T AGREE: VA, NM b) AGREE: TX, FL, OR, IA, DE, NJ, LA c) AGREE: MN, FL, IA, DE, AK, LA, TX d) AGREE: None e) AGREE: No Vote 

### IMPAIRED WATERS :  Elleanore (VA) – Should we look at all impairments? o Jac k F – There is flexibility for States
 Elleanore (VA) – Some waters are impaired for copper but need to use copper pesticides. Will they need individual permit?5 o Jack F – You have flexibility
 Phil (FL) - If discharge is done upstream are they not eligible? o Jack F – We were looking at direct discharges. 

### TIER 3 WATERS **:**  Steve (NE) – We have Tier 3 waters. Timing is crucial. In state parks mosquito control is needed for public health. For restorative purposes, 4-5 state agencies are envolved. We will cover Tier 3 in longer permit.
 Elleanore (VA) – Our proposed permit allows temporary discharges to Tier 3 waters.
 Pete ( R3)- Applications to control gypsy moths is needed to protect Tier 3 waters.
 Bill (DE) – Concerned about public health issues. Should be covered under PGP.
 Leah ?(WY) – no discharge to Tier 3 in State regulations. Most Tier 3 are in high population areas. Need mosquito control to ensure public health.
 Daveki (NJ) – Long list of Tier 3 wasters in NJ. Right now they are being sprayed for mosquitoes and gypsy moths. Not enough time for individual permit.
 Jack F – Looking at this issue from a legal stand point. 

### NOI & THRESHOLD :  Steve (NE)- Concerned about NOI for mosquitoes. Already keeping records and doing IPM. Throwing in an extra NOI would be duplicative.
 Eleanore (VA) – NOI means nothing to DEQ. Only a piece of paper. No staff to process. Want people to have coverage without NOI submission. o Allison W- How would you conduct inspection or regulate? o Eleanore (VA) - Don’t have any reports of problems in the past. They should report adverse impacts annually. They should record but not have to send it in for review.
 Steve (FL) – There are too many for- hire applicators. Will be a big burden. If trying to limit, this is the wrong approach.
 E d (MD) – Goal is to limit to a manageable level. EPA should consider no submittal of NOI.
 Bill (DE) – For mosquito control 6400 acres should exclude most smaller municipalities. Pay attention to larvicide threshold. Consider not requiring NOI for people w ho only apply larvicide.6

 Andrea (R1) – Concurs with Steve (FL) above, too many for- hire applicators. o Jack F – Should there be a certain threshold for for-fire applicators? o Steve (Fl) No. If trying to capture large-scale, go after governmental entities. If for- hire is doing control, they are doing it under a government contract.
 Phil (FL) – Like the concept of moving away from threshold. EPA should try to get away from weed/algae threshold.  Courtney (IA) - To require NOI from all drainage districts is rea sonable. Should strike out (ii) under (d) (1) ( NOI sheet) because you are outside of drainage district. Agree about (ii) (c) (NOI sheet). There should be 2 different thresholds for larvicide and adulticide.
 Charles (TX) – Texas tried not to permit same entity twice. For TX NOI means fees. Instead of NOI have a “self certification letter.”
 Bill (DE) – You should add “irrigation and drainage district” to (i) & (ii) of (d) (1). EPA should define “control district.”
 Steve (NE) – EPA should also think about “ major and minor districts”
 Bill (DE) – There are small companies that do aquatic animal control. This might discourage small companies from doing this service. o Jack F – Provide small info. is not a big burden. Trying to separate our responsibility. **POL L** **S** Who will your State be permitting? 1) Focus on Applicators : WY, NJ 2) Focus on Landowners / Decision - makers – MN, TX, NM, IA, OR, AK, DE, FL, GA 3) Permit both (multiple approaches) – TX, MN Assuming both applicator & decision - makers are permitted, who should be required to submit an NOI? a) Only applicators: WY b) Only decision -makers: TX, IA, OR, FL, AK, MN, DE c) From either applicators or decision -makers: NM, NJ, NE, MN d) Should be required of both applicators and decision - makers – NONE e) Should be required from no one: “vast majority” 

### STATE PERMITTING & SCHEDULES :  Steve (NE) – NE will have 2 permits.

1) Permit by rule – covers non-flowing waters or isolated waterbodies, and non -endangered species areas. 2) General permit – covers endangered species areas.7

IPM before permit decision is not a bad idea but is not a permitting rule. General permit will have discussion about IPM. o Linda B – Consider putting IPM as an eligibility requirement. o Steve (NE) – The biggest districts are dealing with flowing waters, IPM is not e nforceable in a permit.  Elise (MN) – Our plant and algae control permit is significantly different than EPA’s. There is a big universe for this.
 Leah? (WY) – WY’s permit will be consistent with state regulations. Will permit discharges to tier 3 due to health risks. Will be permitting applicators and require them to fill out a form consisting of thresholds and densities.
 Elise (MN) – Is permit going to say “you must follow FIFRA” o Jack F – Our permit will not mention FIFRA o Kevin M – Don’t want to open FIFRA label to litigation. o Allison W – We recommend State do not mention FIFRA. o Mindy – Just mentioning FIFRA will not be adequate. o Allison W- If you have strong justification then we will need that.
 Bill (DE) – Will the six EPA states not be required to submit PDMP to EPA? o Jack F – yes that’s correct. o Bill (DE) - Can that information be FOIA’d? o Linda B – If somebody requests, EPA will request it from entity. R1) - o Bill (DE) – Private entities are concerned about their info. being available to everone. o Lind a B – We have CBI. o Allison W – When the states develop a plan, is that automatically not publically available?
 Charles (TX) – Response from EPA on state permit is important. Regions will have 90 days to look at permit and the EPA has another 30 days. How is Region + EPA HQ organized to look at the state permits? o Allison W – We do not have contractor resources, will have to tightly coordinate with Regions.
 Andrea (R1) – If we include Ag. they would not want info. publicly available. What is the fall back position if Ag. is in? o Allison W – Right now, Ag. is not in plan.
 Ed (MD) – Would EPA be open to having NOI to be open in phases? o Linda B – Vessels – NOI received 1 year later. We have done it , but cannot delay requirements. o Ed (MD) – Is there a vehicl e when compliance schedule be allowed? o Linda B – 2 things??????
 Beth (OR) – We have a 2 prong approach

1) Cover the PGP scope 2) Going out to irrigation districts8

 Sharmon (AK) – We will use R10 general permit. AK not a big pesticide state.