Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257-1266
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2011-11-02T04:00Z

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
      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.

   * 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.
                  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?
         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.
   
   * 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.
      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

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