1

PGP State Face-to-Face Meeting

September 27, 28, 2010

DAY 1

PARTICIPANTS 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

Colleen 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 DEQ
2

Steven Dwinell Florida Dept. of Ag. & Cons. 

Jeff Schardt Florida 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 EQ

Jill Bingham Georgia EPD

QUESTIONS & 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. Generally 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 make 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 mistake 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 

Washington 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 water 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, cannot 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 and 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 for use criteria?

o Kevin M – There is flexibility

POLLS

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 Jack 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.

 Ed (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 who 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 reasonable. 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.

POLLS

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 enforceable 

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 Linda 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 vehicle 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 districts
8

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