Comments on Draft PGP 

By Ralph Smith, NJ DEP-Pesticide Control Program 

1.1.1 

The word ‘residue’ is missing from the sentence that follows ‘Activities Covered’ 

There is no use pattern for agricultural applications, such as for the treatment of cranberry bogs. 

What use pattern covers wetlands restoration treatments, such as for phragmites control? 

1.1.2.1 

Answer to comment: Yes, add language to continue coverage under PGP until an individual permit is issued. 

Provide a time limit for when submission for an individual permit has to occur once impairment is documented. 

1.1.2.2 

Answer to comment: Yes 

1.1.2.4 

There is an Endangered Species Protection Program already in place for pesticides, with pesticide label 

language & county bulletins. Why can’t that take care of this requirement? 

1.2.2 

Answer to comment: The threshold numbers should be based on treatment area & on annual use. Are the 

threshold numbers appropriate? Since they primarily affect the requirements to have a PDMP & annual 

reporting, the higher the thresholds the better, to lessen the burden on the regulated community & the regulators. 

Who has to submit an NOI: Just about everyone in NJ will have to submit an NOI under this criteria. We have 

quite a few municipalities that treat just one pond or lake for weed/algae control. The same occurs with lake or 

homeowner associations. The threshold numbers should apply to the government agency & lake/homeowner 

association operators – that is they need to submit an NOI only if they meet the threshold numbers. 

For Hire applicators for aquatic weed/algae control add customers throughout the treatment season, and add & 

drop customers year to year. It seems the NOI requires each treatment site to be identified in order for it to be 

covered by the PGP. Is this the case? If so, there has to be a provision that the NOI has to be updated at least 

annually if treatment sites are added or dropped & that the PGP covers the added sites in the interim. 

1.2.5.2 

Answer to comment: Yes, clear enough. 

2.1.2 

Answer to comment: Elaboration should not be necessary. 

2.2.1.2 

Answer to comment: More details should not be necessary. 
In a number of places, starting in this section, the term ‘Biological control agents’ is used. It is unclear if 

biological pesticides are included in this term, or does this just refer to biological controls that are not registered 

as pesticides? 

3.0 

The primary algaecides in use all contain copper, and there is a surface water quality standard for copper. 

Average application rates are between .5 ppm & 1 ppm, but certain species of algae have labeled rates as high 

as 2 ppm. In NJ, we only allow 1⁄2 to 1/3 of the waterbody to be treated at one time, so theoretically .25 to .5 

ppm of copper is being applied to the waterbody for algae control. Studies have shown that heavy algae growth 

removes most of the copper out of the water column quite rapidly, and granular formulations sink to the bottom 

& result in even more of the copper being removed from the water column by adsorping to the silt on the 

bottom. However, copper products applied as a liquid remain in the water column for over 4 hours at 50% or 

more of the application rate if the algae density is light. Of course, water chemistry plays a large role also in the 

amount of copper remaining in solution & for how long. It is safe to say that copper applications are going to 

result in temporary exceedances of established SWQS for copper for some applications. The way this section 

reads, copper applications for algae control are going to be problematic. Having the tool used for 90% of algae 

treatments subject to added restrictions, individual permits & lawsuits is a recipe for disaster. 

Appendix A - Adverse Incident 

Pesticides are regulated on a risk vrs benefits basis. They are by their nature toxic. When aquatic weed control 

and mosquito control applications are made, it is obvious that there will be exposure to non-target organisms, & 

sometimes toxic effects to non-target organisms. It’s the nature of the beast. FIFRA uses the term ‘unreasonable 

adverse effects’. The key word is ‘unreasonable’. The entire section that pertains to ‘Adverse Incident’ does not 

include ‘unreasonable’ anywhere. 

Also, how is an applicator supposed to predict a ‘...delayed or chronic adverse effect in the future’? Hire a 

psychic?