1

Draft EPA PGP Public Meeting

Albuquerque, NM

June 14, 2010

Notes on Questions from attendees:

How long is permit in effect?

What is a water of the U.S.?

What is a point source?

Why doesn’t NM have NPDES authority?

GPS can help avoid streams – need permit in this case?

Do applications into canals that are dry require permit?

Uncertain – EPA looking into this. Ephemeral stream can be water of U.S. 

How can you submit comment on ephemeral streams and dry ditches?

Can farmer be held liable for runoff to river or stream?

Does irrigation return flow and runoff exemptions assume pesticides are applied legally under 

FIFRA?

Section 18 – permits required?

Applies to section 18 as to any other pesticide use.

Backpack sprayers require permit if you can avoid deposition to water? – No

Aerial applications that can’t avoid deposition to water require permit coverage.

If you’re a manager but hire applicators, how does coverage work?

Both are permittees per Jack. 

Do you need two NOIs for the above situation? 

No – only one NOI required.

Can states have different permit conditions than the EPA permit? (e.g., TX and thresholds)

Do we expect most states even with authority to adopt EPA’s permit?

Jack – maybe half will be identical; one-fourth will do something similar; one-fourth may do 

something different

How is threshold calculated?

For NM, is it possible to adjust the permit?

We could write the permit that varies by state, even for non-delegated states.

Are the 44 states going to use general or individual permit process? General. Some states may 

have separate permits for, say, mosquitoes and weeds

Do state permits need to have EPA approval? They have obligation to submit to Region and 

Region can provide and comment (or not). EPA can object formally, but it’s not likely 

Region will object given generality of permit

How would the timing ―limbo‖ apply to applicators?

Minimizing – nothing quantitative about it

Operators concerned about decisions being open to scrutiny. 

Can EPA make directions for minimizing objective? Indicates issue related to FIFRA

How to resolve conflict between owner and applicator if they don’t agree on application rate?

Can EPA elaborate on ―lowest effective amount?‖ 

Do operators under the PGP have to be FIFRA certified? – No – certification requirements not 

affected by the PGP.
2

The EPA permit has to go thru Section 7 ESA consultation; state permits don’t have this 

requirement

Does ES consultation include candidate species? No (probably) – only listed species.

Will we reconsider the Tier 3 restrictions? Some forested areas in NE are trout streams that can 

be defoliated which has negative effect on the stream. Should be allowed to apply over 

streams to control gypsy moths to prevent defoliation.

What does ―conveyance‖ mean? Does irrigation 

Who will determine jurisdiction over a ―waters of the U.S.?‖ US Army Corps of Engineers?

Could we end up with individual consultations for ES in the permit? Jack – practically, that’s 

not an option. We’re looking at doing several steps under PGP, or you could do individual 

permit.

Monitoring – similar to doctor being required to do annual reporting for prescribing medication. 

Reporting required.

Is there jeopardy with previous applications if their business changes and they meet or exceed 

the threshold? - No.

Can owner require applicator to submit NOI (and do other permit requirements)? Not exactly, 

decision-maker submits NOI.

Filing NOI isn’t problem, PDMP is the expensive, complicated part.

Long discussion of stakeholder vs. applicator. It will be confusing for applicator to know 

whether he needs to comply with permit

Consider first year phase in with owner/decision-maker doing NOI and PDMP.

Consider separate system for applicators similar to pesticide applicator license while 

owner/decision-maker does NOI. Applicator can do one PDMP that covers a variety of 

application scenarios.

The way permit is written now puts liability for owner on applicator and vice-versa. 

Need to make clear separation of responsibility regarding liability.

Are we considering anything in annual report – can they comment on what state regulators 

would like to see (and not see)?

20 acre threshold will overwhelm regulators.

Aquatic Weed Control Associations, other associations – can they file for NOIs? 
3

Draft EPA PGP Public Meeting

Boise, Idaho

June 16, 2010

Notes on Questions from attendees:

1. Idaho Water Users Association – why didn’t EPA ask for re-hearing from 6th Circuit? 

2. How do State programs for crickets, grasshoppers, etc. on rangeland fit into this? Terrestrial 

can be controlled to avoid direct deposition to water. Also, we’re taking comment on 

activities and scope that should be included.

3. Terrestrial applications to a bank of the water (they’re also doing – leave buffer of say 3 ft, 

acknowledging there would be drift – does it need a permit/NOI? No covering drift; Jack 

said could file on NOI for all activities

3. Duration of NOI – same as permit (5 yrs) – yes. 

4. Is there difference between treatment area vs pest mgmt area? Ambiguous language in draft 

permit. Jack – we will attempt to clarify.

5. two NOIs required for applicator and mosquito control district? Control district responsible 

for NOI under current draft. If you work for 10 MCDs and they all submit NOI, applicators 

don’t need to submit NOI.

6. Scott Campbell – attorney in Boise- reporting requirements are giving litigants ammunition 

to sue applicators. Didn’t blame us because we’re career bureaucrats, but did blame EPA 

leadership. 

What are costs? Have litigation costs been included? Are all tributaries included?

Fact sheet – positive identification of weed or algae? Who’s going to do that?

PDMP – must be kept up to date? Need to clarify that

Applicator/operator must comply with any eligibility considerations under other federal laws. 

That tells people nothing. Need to clarify. It’s been raised in other NPDES permits, but we 

will clarify.

Need definition of size of irrigation ditch – affects ―every farmer in Idaho‖ if terrestrial 

applications are made. (Jack said it’s related to definition of water of U.S.) Systems are 

interconnected – how is treatment area defined? Does it cover downstream areas?

Record keeping, reporting, etc. are ―insane.‖ EPA is welcoming ―eco terrorist‖ litigation. 

Attributed this to Obama administration.

Waters of U.S. is the ―backbone‖ of this thing? How can we issue permit? Farmers are tapped 

out economically. Need to define and say who owns them. Allison said we will provide as 

much guidance as possible. Jack referred audience to some guidance on EPA website.

OR Dept of Agriculture – forest industry is concerned over litigation. Does agricultural 

stormwater runoff apply to forestry application? Allison – we’re looking into that. 

Cost of permit (OR Dept of Ag) – the duration is important for costing. OR has annual permits. 

OR estimates that $!000-$1200 per permit per year. 

OR Dept of Ag – 3.0 – will EPA establish ―numeric standards?‖ Not at this point. 

Clark Mosquito Control – one NOI for one entity no matter how large it is? 

Idaho Farm Bureau? IPM could be overturned.

Minimize is the problem word – it gives people opportunity to sue applicator over using the 

―lowest amount possible.‖

How many streams in ID are identified as pesticide problem? Dirk – none for specific 

pesticides; there may be some for ―pesticides‖ in general.
4

ID Transport Dept – covers direct application but not runoff. With any pesticide runoff, 

stormwater can reach water of U.S. Non-agricultural use – Jack - there are existing 

stormwater permits

Helena Chemical – are we looking at the right sector? What about homeowners who overfertilize, illegal use, etc.? EPA needs to restudy this? 

Weed and Mosquito Abatement District (Brian ???) – Noxious weed control mandated by ID 

statutes. How do they respond to needs when they don’t know where they’ll be? 

Comment (same person) – he made application where he needed an NPDES permit. The weed 

control was $2500; the individual permit requirements and compliance ended up costing 

$25,000 due to water quality sampling and notification. Allison said some states require 

water quality monitoring. They had to notify 1800 people living close by Certified Mail. 

Under proposed PGP no notification required.

Using EPA approved chems for banks and weeds, why do they need permits? Allison - That was 

the EPA position in 2006 rule. 6th Circuit said rule and interpretation of CWA was in error. 

Under draft – 3

rd party lawsuits – why do they have the right to sue if no interest in it? 

How much DEQ input from States has been included? We’ve worked with States from 

beginning. 

PDMP modifications for corrective actions, change in pest control activities, etc. Clarification 

needed between 5.0, etc. General point is that PDMP needs to be modified for minor 

changes. 

What does 5.2 mean regarding ―change in pest control activities.‖ ―Fodder‖ for lawsuits (Scott 

Campbell). Major issue regarding ―minimize‖ and ―lowest amount.‖ Remove phrase about 

significantly changing pest control activities – ―huge invitation‖ for litigation.

Travis Jones – ID Grain Producers Association – clarification from FR Notice – EPA seeking 

comment on other uses (terrestrial uses, viz., crops) that may result in discharge. He wants to 

know why EPA wants comment on this if agriculture excluded in PGP.

Q: No intent to disrupt FIFRA, but small irrigation companies can’t do this due to cost, impact, 

etc. What impact does this PGP have on public health, costs, etc. to small municipalities, 

etc.? Have we estimated impacts on environment due to this PGP? Impacts due to using 

mechanical methods, etc.

Q: Can we do permit that simply says compliance with FIFRA fulfills NPDES?

Q: Have we evaluated environmental impacts of using non chemical methods (e.g. sediment 

impact, etc.) Allison said permit can be ―shield‖ against 3rd party lawsuits. 

Same questioner – small governments said they won’t do it anymore because they don’t want to 

take on risk of third party lawsuits? 

Same Q: have we evaluated legislation to help resolve this? Executive branch can’t lobby 

Congress (Allison)

Q (same as above) – irrigation return flows – prior to 2006 there was guidance on irrigation 

return flows. How will this guidance be incorporated into the PGP? 3/29/2002 it was signed 

– How will people understand whether they’re covered under irrigation return flow 

exemption?

Jason Kinley – AMCA (from ID) - AMCA said no one should be complaining about keeping 

records for applying pesticides

Adverse incidents – everything – would fisherman who gets rash from mosquito application 

intended to reduce risk from West Nile be adverse incident? Need to change/consider this 

kind of activity.

Where do you document 
5

Ron ?? -- ?? River Basin – what new action will reduce pesticide application (as stated by EPA). 

IPM, minimization might 

Darren Kuhn? – new permit requirement would reduce amount of pesticide discharged to waters 

of U.S. How will EPA quantify the reduction in pesticides discharged to waters of U.S?

There should be some scientific quantification other than ―because we say so.‖ 

Bryce Ferris (?) – irrigation – reducing leaks, spills, etc. Is EPA going to be regulating operation 

and maintenance? 

Scott Campbell – Has EPA done any NEPA compliance activity? Jack – no NEPA obligation, 

so answer is no.

Has EPA done anything to evaluate ―global warming‖ impacts related to burning weeds instead 

of using pesticides (since EPA is regulating CO2 as a pollutant). Jack – No we’re not 

evaluating impact of other methods – just cost of compliance with the permit. 

Additional Questions/Comments from Boise Public Meeting:

1. Need to define ―near‖ in the permit itself

2. Black flies – ESA – how to limit liability for 3rd party lawsuits for new species that might 

be involved. Where does consultation timing leave pest control operators in ID when 

final permit is issued?

3. Suggested model plans (e.g., PDMP) – standard forms, etc.

4. TurboTax-like form – drop down questions, etc.

5. What is expected in terms of annual reports, how are they going to be used? 

6. Can they use reports already being kept? 

7. PDMP – does EPA want specific format? Almost certainly not as long as all the 

information was included. They’ll submit example report.

8. PDMP team – can it be an individual? Yes.

9. How can pesticide users be expected to know they’re subject to NPDES requirements if 

they’re under the threshold? Susan – outreach

10. How will EPA handle a large influx of individual permits?

11. How will outstanding state waters (i.e., not federally designated) be handled?

12. One person said environmental groups will ask for individual permits because general 

permits aren’t good enough.

13. Legal liability is a concern

14. OR incurred costs of $1000-$1200 per permit per year (see notes of public meeting)

15. Adverse effects – section expanded CWA to include total operations. If there is a spill 

and it’s cleaned up, now they have to report it. 

16. Added another level of regulatory ―liability.‖ Have we created EJ issue for small 

towns/communities with small budgets who can’t afford to implement permit reqmts and 

might lose mosquito control in small areas, etc.

17. Can thresholds be based on population density or other factors? Should submit comment.
6

Draft EPA PGP Public Meeting

Boston, Massachusetts

June 21, 2010

Notes from Q & A Session:

Permit is for chemical residue from pesticide applications; is there a list of residues?

For purposes of the GP, EPA has assumed that all chemical pesticides will leave a residue; 

however, there is no need for a permit if the discharger can prove that there was no residue. 

(Josh, National Environmental Law Center)

How does permit address inert ingredients in pesticides? May be addressed in future permits. 

Need clarity on Federal Facilities/Federal lands since legal definitions for both vary from state to 

state and ambiguity exists regarding what certain entities are considered, and how states that are 

writing their own permits will interpret it (Jeff, VT Ag). 

Several reference were made to applicator burden—but the process needs to be workable for the 

public; there are several parts of the permit that are not available for review by the public-such as 

IPM plans, PDMPs, etc. There were also comments aimed at showing that there should be some 

burden (just not undue); otherwise, what is the point of the permit? That is, we should move 

beyond business as usual and actually make a difference. 

Some groups that are trying to reduce invasive species may have disincentive to take action due 

to requirements on Tier 3 systems. Need to include something about this in the permit (Betsy 

Reilly). 

IPM / PDMP; what is the difference? IPM is better labeled as IPM Plans and includes typical 

industry practices, whereas PDMPs are involved more with spill control, calibration of 

equipment, etc. 

Be clear in the permit that IPM includes chemical control. 

Post application monitoring should be done by the applicator, as it could actually make a positive 

difference in terms of discharges and would not be burdensome to conduct. Results from post 

application monitoring should be collected and publicly available in order to guarantee that the 

permit is being complied with (VT). 

The permit states least effective amount—how does that fit in with multiple applications and will 

we be considering the possibility that an applicator could be in compliance with FIFRA but out 

of compliance with CWA?

Are terrestrial applications near water covered?

Control mechanisms /industry practices/BMPs only refer to use of chemical products.

Should have great focus on water ecosystem management-looking at various control measures.
7

What are the costs associated with implementation of this; is there any data?

Will there be funding made available to states to help them implement GP? Is the EPA 

concerned about state backlogs? Answer: No, there is no additional funding but some states that 

have to create their own permit have the ability to request funding and impose permitting fees 

that can cover some of the costs. (Greg, CT Ag Experimental Station). 

Need clarity on who applies for coverage versus who files NOI. Also felt that the landowner 

should hold ultimate responsibility since they should be aware of what if happening on their 

land. 

Thresholds are too low for aquatic vegetation/animal control in comparison to other use pattern 

thresholds, and feels that it may be harsher on small folks. Proposed that for vegetation, it may 

be better to work off a volume-based threshold (Watershed Association of South Western MA; 

Betsy Reilly). 

Process is very cumbersome and repeats efforts already in place via the state departments of 

environmental protection. There needs to be some recognition regarding the current state that 

exists for each use pattern and the differences between current requirements and what will be 

required under the new permit. According to Allison, around 27 states already have permitting 

programs in place for one or more of the use patterns (Mike Mundel).

There is nothing under the permit that would help EPA in determining the cumulative effects of 

multiple applications of different types of pesticides on a single waterbody. Knowing this 

information could help EPA in maintaining environmental integrity (e.g. maintain/promote fish 

health in particular waterbodies). Also, in general would like to see better monitoring practices 

be in place/better information be collected (e.g. Watershed Association of South Western MA).

What is considered near water? Concerns were raised regarding how the applicator is supposed 

to know if discharges reach waterbodies. Applicator can make judgment call as to whether 

application will lead to unintentional spraying in water. 

The definition of ―adverse incident‖ needs to be clarified so as to not include AI regarding the 

targeted species/weed. Any application area with have NTOs.

Regarding weed control, it was noted that although mechanical harvesting is several times the 

cost of pesticide application in a given season, harvesting could reduce the overall levels of 

weeds over time which may save money over time. It was also noted that there are 

challenges/feasibility issues with mechanical approaches. Furthermore, the additional burden 

created by weed requirements would be impossible to quantify until after the first year (Jerry 

Smith, Aquatic Control Technology)

Mail-order sales of aquatic herbicides should be considered in future permits (Jerry Smith, 

Aquatic Control Technology)

Is the alternatives analysis more extensive if over the threshold? Is the current alternatives 

analysis extensive enough? 
8

CWA calls for technology development to minimize discharges-chemical control still used. 

Regarding ―minimize‖ and control measures, how will the permit account for 

methods/treatments that one day may be more economically feasible than what is currently 

considered the most economically feasible method? Could the permit be written in a way that 

would promote technological adoption/advancements? 

The timeliness of returning ground permit applications needs to be stressed. For example, in MA 

it takes a very long time to process and receive such applications. Furthermore, the timing of 

when clients (such as towns/cities) hire applicators can be a small window, and it could be 

difficult to have the timing work out with the application beings submitted (Jerry Smith, Aquatic 

Control Technology) 

Desire to see incident data collected through this permit be combined with 6(a)(2) incident data 

It is believed that in many cases, there would be little additional burden by requiring postapplication monitoring since in most cases that is already happening (in MA) (Jerry Smith, 

Aquatic Control Technology) 

In closed systems with respect to mosquito control: what if water tainted with pesticides goes 

through water treatment facility—is it covered? This is not the same situation as if it were to seep 

into ground water. Same concern was raised for catch-basins.
9

EPA PGP Public Hearing

Washington, DC

June 23, 2010

Notes on Questions from attendees:

1) National Cotton Council (Keith Menchey)

- Question: Citizens have the ability to challenge NPDES permits. What does ―challenge‖ 

mean?

- EPA Answer: If a third party believes that a particular operator is causing WQ problems 

they can bring suit against that operator. The third party will have the burden of showing 

that the operator is responsible for the WQ exceedance. 

- Question: Doesn’t the ―minimize‖ language conflict with the FIFRA labels? 

- EPA Answer: Through these meetings we’ve realized that this language is a problem, 

we’re considering new terms. If the FIFRA label says you can use more pesticide you 

can, but we want folks to consider using less. 

- Follow-up Comment: The Cotton Council thinks this provision will open a flood gate of 

litigation 

- Question: Agree with EPA’s decision not to require numeric limitations, but would states 

be allowed to include numeric limits in their permits? Is there anything EPA can do to 

prevent them from doing that? 

- EPA Answer: Yes, states can develop a permit that they feel is best for their state, and if 

that means including numeric limits that’s their choice. EPA will review the permits and 

determine on a case-by-case basis what is appropriate. 

- Question: What if a state says they can’t afford or won’t develop a permit? 

- EPA Answer: We’re trying to provide as much assistance as we can to the states. We 

recognize that the states have resource issues, and we’re working with states to use our 

template. We’re doing what we can to help to assist them with issuing their permit.. We 

increased 106 grants this year and hope to increase them by $10 million more next year. 

We hope that a state wouldn’t choose to not develop a permit because that would cause 

many problems in that state. We have not heard that states will not be able to develop a 

permit.

2) Jim

- Question: This was a question about joint liability. It’s clear that joint liability would 

apply if an operator sprays for the government. But what if an operator is working for a 

nonprofit organization or a homeowner? Would those entities share liability? 

- EPA Answer: The person who has the opportunity to consider alternatives to spraying is 

the one responsible for the IPM. The applicator would be responsible for the equipment 

calibration and application requirements. So EPA sees it as joint liability. 

- Follow-up Question: So nobody would ever be completely off the hook?

- EPA Answer: No. 

- Question: Could operators contractually indemnify the other person? 
10

- EPA Answer: Cannot say for sure (not an attorney), but EPA wants to keep the flexibility 

for people to retain or contract out responsibility. It just needs to be clear to EPA who is 

doing what. 

3) Aquatic Ecosystems Restoration Foundation (Carlton Layne )

- Question: If a researcher is doing research on herbicides and the total acreage would 

exceed 20 acres, does he have to submit an NOI? 

- EPA Answer: EPA doesn’t want to interfere with research. If a researcher’s work will 

exceed the thresholds, he will need to submit an NOI and follow the IPM and other 

permit requirements to the extent they don’t conflict with research. 

4) American Mosquito Control Association (Bill Meredith)

- Question: [read statement and provided written comments]

o Membership concerned about the threat of litigation – state’s don’t have enough 

resources or funding available

o Fear the money required for the PGPs new regulatory overlay will take away from 

core program functions. Not clear what the value added will be (of the permit). 

- U.S. Small Business Administration (Kevin Bromberg): What do you want from the 

permit, then, other than not having one at all? 

5) Fairfax Water & American Waterworks Association (Tracy Goldberg)

- Question: [read statement and provided written comments]

o 20 acre threshold is very small compared to the 640 acre threshold. The threshold 

should be changed to capture only the larger applications.

o Applications to Tier 3 waters should be allowed under the permit

o Imperative that the permit be consistent with FIFRA labels

6) Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Steve Dwinell)

- Comment: FL Dept. of Ag. supports EPA’s efforts. This has been a very difficult and 

complex situation and EPA has developed a reasonable approach. The general permit is 

appropriate. TBEL is appropriate.

7) American Mosquito Control Association (Bill Meredith)

- Question: the PGP brings with it the potential for citizen involvement – can citizens do 

anything other than bring litigation? Can they request and receive any information they 

want, or are there administrative avenues? 

- EPA Answer: As with any NPDES permit, the NOI is publically available. The annual 

report is also publically available if citizens ask for it. The PDMP doesn’t need to be 

submitted for EPA review, but does need to be kept onsite and citizens can request to see 

it. The control agency will determine whether the request is reasonable. 

- Question: concerned that the content and quality of the PDMPs will be open to public 

scrutiny. This will push entity to write better document. Are there protections for states 

from unlimited challenges? 

- EPA Answer: Most requests need to come through EPA, EPA will act as an intermediary. 

If the request goes to the state, the state will make the determinations based on state rules. 

Folks have had this concern with every general permit but so far it hasn’t been a realized 

issue, though it may be different for pesticides. EPA may be able to develop a public 
11

database to house the information – the agency is trying to determine how to make the 

information available but not cause burden on the regulatory agencies. 

8) Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) (Jim Skillen)

- Question: The threshold of 20 acres for algae and weed control is incredibly low – can be 

met in 20 minutes of aerial application or 3 hours by boat. To remove the burden on small 

businesses this threshold needs to be a much larger number. 

- EPA Answer: We specifically asked for comments on the threshold numbers. When you 

provide comments please indicate what would be an appropriate number and why. It’s 

our understanding that most folks are already doing much of what is required by the 

permit, or can reference and pull information from similar documents. 

o Response from Commenter: The permit requires operators to keep records for 

three years beyond the permit’s expiration, would also have to update the plan 

when employees turnover. Worried about paperwork violations (heard that these 

are the number one type of general permit violation). It’s just harder to keep 

records that will be reviewed by regulators - more stringent requirements. 

o Response from U.S. Small Business Administration (Kevin Bromberg): The 

economic analysis conducted by EPA for this permit indicates that 31,000 farms 

will be below the threshold individually, but the applicator who is applying to 

multiple farms will not be. Does it make sense to have a PDMP for separate areas 

that may not be geographically contiguous? Should maybe have separate IPM 

plans for non-contiguous property. Indicated the EPA didn’t consider cumulative 

jobs when setting the threshold numbers. 

 EPA Response: As we’ve worked on the permit we have gotten more 

knowledgeable – when the economic analysis was written we didn’t have 

enough information. We would like people to comment on what types of 

entities will end up being permitted and what the cost to those entities will 

be. We are looking for comments on size of organization, who can afford 

IPM, and information to justify threshold.

9) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Steve Dwinell):

- Question: Can a state chose to develop a permit that covers more use patterns than those 

covered by EPA’s permit? 

- EPA Answer: Yes, if a state determines that there are other use patterns that would need 

an NPDES permit (per the CWA’s requirements) then they can develop a general permit 

that would cover those additional use patterns. States may have greater authority than 

EPA to cover additional sources. 

10) Pond Medics (Trent Louis)

- Comment: The PGP will impose severe requirements on small businesses. It’s hard to 

keep up with staffing and paperwork, and smaller operators are still in limbo about 

getting their heads around the permit. Its long term implications. The bad part of the 

permit outweighs the good. There are not a lot of industry folks in the room, but there are 

a lot in existence. Pond Medics has a staff of four full-time folks but manages thousands 

of acres of water. Clients shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to maintain 

water quality and nuisance control for their uses (livestock, irrigation, etc). The new PGP 

will close to double the cost to private land owners to treat their water because of the 

increased insurance costs (caused by liability concerns) that the operators will have to 
12

carry. The permit would prevent good water quality, not encourage because landowners 

would stop maintaining their water.

11) Clarke Mosquito Control (Todd Trowbridge - private applicator and manufacturer)

- Question: Can operators claim pieces of the PGP as confidential business information? 

- EPA Answer: We’ll look into that. Anybody can claim things as confidential; it’s up to 

EPA to make the final decision on what can or cannot be claimed as CBI. Typically, what 

is in a discharge cannot be claimed as confidential. 

12) Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry (Bobby Simoneaux)

- Comment: State expressed thanks to EPA for its hard work and willingness to consider 

state’s comments. But time is running out for the individual states to develop their 

permits. Encouraged EPA to work with the states more to develop their permits. Asked 

EPA HQ to share more information with the regional offices so they are better equipped 

to assist the states. 

- EPA Answer: We are providing that assistance and information to the states/regions. 

We’ve had trouble doing it up until now because things were changing so quickly. 

- Question: Would EPA agree that NOIs are not always required? 

- EPA Answer: Regulations state NOI is not required but evaluate who to include. There 

could be situation where NOI is not needed if authority knows the permittees. Authority 

needs reasons for its decision. 

13) David Bell (Maine)

- Question: How can a forestry application avoid violating water quality standards where 

the standard is narrative and includes the phrase ―as naturally occurs.‖

- EPA Answer: Not sure, we’ll look into it further. Also some concern over the ―no toxics

in toxic amounts‖ standard that many states have. 

14) Pond Medics (Trent Louis – Texas)

- Question: Didn’t see any provisions for upstream conveyances or occurrences created by 

somebody other than the operator. How do you protect downstream users from upstream 

activities, specifically with respect to water quality monitoring? 

- EPA Answer: This is one of the reasons we’re not asking for water quality monitoring. 

It’s hard to determine where the pesticides are coming from. We’ll look into this to see 

what protection EPA can afford in these situations. 

15) Aquatic Ecosystems Restoration Foundation (Carlton Layne)

- Question: How should an applicator assess the action threshold when he is applying 

pesticides for many different things in many different areas? How does this jive with the 

PDMP?

- EPA Answer: The applicator just needs to show that he has considered other alternatives 

to spraying. A range is good for action threshold.

16) Earthjustice (Cheryl Cortempglia)

- Question: Has EPA done a NEPA assessment for the PGP? 

- EPA Answer: We’re not required to do a NEPA assessment for a general permit (That is 

required only for a regulation.) However, we are conducting an ESA consultation that 

considers species. 
13

- Question: Can EPA set up any general monitoring for large bodies of water that are 

drinking water sources or where people swim? 

- EPA Answer: Under FIFRA, OPP has already done a human health assessment and 

considered fish toxicity issues. 

o Commenter Follow-up: Are these specific to a geographic area? 

o EPA Answer: They are a general assessment, but will cover the most sensitive 

situation. Some states are conducting their own monitoring. 

- Question: Can EPA monitor during seasonal times when certain species are present or 

breeding, etc? 

- EPA Answer: There are some species protections already in the permit, and we are 

considering other protections through our consultation with the Services. 

17) David Bell (Maine)

- Question: If water is impaired for pesticides in general (rather than for a specific 

pesticide) can an operator get coverage under the PGP? 

- EPA Answer: Yes. This is because we don’t know what the water is impaired for 

specifically, or where those pesticides came from. In many cases the impairment is for 

pesticides that are no longer in use. 

o Commenter Follow-up: If you’re concerned about water quality, this seems like 

an artificial distinction. 

18) AGRA informa (Larry Pearl)

- Question: Would EPA consider including a pesticide needs assessment as a permit 

requirement? 

- EPA Answer: The PDMP required by the permit already requires an alternatives analysis; 

a needs assessment is inherent in this. What more would the commenter want? 

o Commenter Follow-up: The assessment included in the PDMP many not be as 

detailed as some groups will want. 

19) American Mosquito Control Association (Bill Meredith)

- Comment: Thought EPA’s fact sheet did a good job of explaining why ambient water 

quality monitoring would not be a value added. Largest of the largest still have funding 

issue. California is the only state thinking about ambient monitoring. Unless EPA can 

provide states with funding, he would recommend staying away from requiring this. 

20) RISE (Jim Skillen)

- Question: Once an operator submits its annual report, will it be FOIA’able? 

- EPA Answer: Yes

o Commenter Follow-up: That would mean submitting to the state our client list. 

This is a big problem. 

21) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Steve Dwinell)

- Question: Would we need an NOI for each treatment area? 

- EPA Answer: No. Operator would estimate location for the NOI. Will put this question 

in the Q&A.

o Commenter Follow-up: PDMP requires operator to identify location. 
14

22) Pond Medics (Trent Louis – Texas)

- Question: Worried about the company with the deepest pockets closing everyone else out 

of business. Companies use the information provided in the annual reports to shut down 

smaller operations. The reporting and information requirements are very vague and 

abstract, not sure what to do – there are not guidelines or standards. 

- EPA Answer: We’re developing a guidance template for the PDMP and annual report. 

We’ll develop the template based on existing plans in the states as well as comments 

from folks. In submitting comments, be clear about what information you think is CBI. 

The goal of the reporting requirements is to determine which pesticides are being applied 

where. 

o Commenter Follow-up: What does this tell us about what is being discharged? 

Seems its not useful information without ambient water quality monitoring. 

o EPA Answer: EPA has an obligation to ensure that water quality is being 

protected; we feel the annual report is the best way to get this information. If you 

think there is a better set of data that should be submitted, let us know. In absence 

of monitoring, we are asking for annual report.

23) RISE (Jim Skillen)

- Comment: To get around the CBI issue, operators could send the information though 

EPA and EPA could aggregate the information for the entire industry. 

24) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Steve Dwinell)

- Question: Does the CWA require annual reporting? 

- EPA Answer: The CWA does require reporting, but not specifically an annual report. 

- Question: Can EPA provide more information to help applicators determine what is a 

water of the U.S. or a water of the state? 

- EPA Answer: EPA will provide examples in the final permit where it’s clear a permit is 

required, but we can’t solve the waters of the U.S. problem in this permit. 

25) RISE (Jim Skillen)

- Question: We get lots of questions about ditches and dry swales that are only wet for part 

of the year. Guidance on how to handle these would be much appreciated. 

- EPA Answer: This is one of the top three issues on our list. We’re working on this. 

26) American Mosquito Control Association (Bill Meredith)

- Comment: What additional information might EPA need to determine whether this 

permit is necessary? Pesticides don’t cause a lot of problems; FIFRA has done its job. It 

hard to detect small incremental improvement. 

27) Pond Medics (Trent Louis – Texas)

- Question: What is EPA comparing the data received in the annual report to? How is it 

helpful? There is no baseline to compare the data.

- EPA Answer: Based on the data we do have, we have concluded that the extra protections 

of the permit will be more protective of water quality. Over time we’ll be able to track 

changes in use, gather information about where applications are occurring and where 

water quality problems are. The information we’ll collect will allow us to determine 
15

where to monitor in the future. This is a starting point. If we don’t start gathering the 

information now we’ll be no better off 5-10 years from now. 

o Commenter Follow-up: In Texas, landowners are maintaining their lakes today. 

They might not treat further.