PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN COMMITTEE
June 25, 2015
Room B144 Orville Freeman Building, Saint Paul, MN
PMPC members in attendance:
Roger Becker – UM Extension
David Flakne – Syngenta Crop Protection
Warren Formo – Minnesota Agr. Water Resources Coalition
Katrina Kessler– MN Pollution Control
John MacKenzie – MN Golf Course Sup.
Steve Morse - MN Environ. Partnership
Michael Ratka – Farmer
Deanna Scher – MN Dept of Health
Jill Trescott – Dakota Co Environmental Mgt
PMPC Member not in attendance: Dick Rossman– MN Dept. of Natural Resources (sent alternate Andrew Arends)
Others attending that signed-in (not including speakers): Kathy Reynolds- MDA; Jamison Scholer-MDA; and Larry Van Lieshout –MDA
Welcome and Introductions
Loretta Ortiz-Ribbing, Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) welcomed the participants, reviewed the agenda and the Pesticide Management Plan (PMP) objectives. She reminded the Pesticide Management Plan Committee (PMPC) members that the Commissioner welcomes questions and encourages interaction amongst this diverse group during the meeting.
Loretta Ortiz-Ribbing, MDA, facilitated the remainder of the meeting
Committee meeting information is posted at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/protecting/waterprotection/pmp/pmpc/pmpcmeetings.aspx
2014 Monitoring: When, Where, and How
MDA Presenter: Bill VanRyswyk
Bill provided general information related to the 2014 groundwater and surface water monitoring effort. Between the GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS analytical methods, the MDA analyzed for approximately135 pesticide analytes in 2014, including four new target analytes that were added to the list (bensulide, picoxystrobin, sedaxane, thiacloprid). Groundwater samples were collected from 167 sites across the state, generating 274 sample sets. Surface water samples were collected from 66 locations, generating 996 samples (50,297 individual analyses).
The details of the groundwater and surface water monitoring sites, precipitation monitoring, glyphosate monitoring, special Root River Watershed special project, and Wetland Pesticide Sampling project were discussed.
Review of 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Data
MDA Presenter: Mike MacDonald
Mike reviewed the 2014 pesticide detections in groundwater. The summary focused on groundwater “common detection pesticides,” as well as additional detected pesticides including dimethenamid, bentazon, clothianidin, imazamox, imidacloprid, metalaxyl, and thiamethoxam.
Trend analysis tables were added as a new addition to the report. These newly included trend tables show long term groundwater statistical trends for pesticides. A discussion ensued around the challenge of relying on purely statistical trend analysis, when ‘eyeballing’ the graphic data appeared to show more clear trends but not significance. It was stated that these trend tables need to be used in conjunction with their corresponding graphs to fully understand what is happening.
Let MDA know if the committee likes these trend analysis tables in the report, e.g. let us know whether they should remain, be removed, or modified.
A request was made by a member for updated sales data beyond 2011 for the Quick Guide and MDA relayed that a shift from registrant to dealer reporting has resulted in a need for auditing of sales data. A few glitches are being resolved and this data should be available for next year’s meeting.
Another committee member commented that anything related to pesticide sales, including regionally, would be helpful to the committee. MDA replied that at this time, pesticide use survey information is available at the website in biennial use reports, and this information could be further incorporated into future PMPC meetings.
Another similar comment was to group non-common detection compounds by their use, e.g. herbicides vs. insecticides, in that way, one could observe the relationship between, for example, thiamethoxam and its degradate clothianidin.
A discussion ensued around results showing concentrations of some compounds higher in deep wells vs. shallow wells leading to some worthy speculation regarding processes making this possible. One member suggested that, as MDA tries to understand this phenomenon, producers should be asked if they have switched practices. One compound discussed, in particular, was bentazon. To provide information on its past use, MDA provided a bentazon fact sheet. Committee members asked whether MDA will consider the possibility of creating similar fact sheets for all compounds (especially the ones that are frequently detected and talked about).
Another suggestion was to create a ‘crib sheet’ with common and trade names, and perhaps use, for pesticides in the report.
MDH-Rapid Assessment-Drinking water values
MDH Presenter: Sarah Fossen Johnson
Sarah presented background on the Health Risk Assessment Unit and how they typically develop guidance values. In addition, she explained how MDH conducts a full review and a rapid assessment, how they differ, and what the uses are for each.
A question was asked regarding the difference between HBV and HRL in rule making. This is often a question of developing a value between rule-making events (i.e., HBVs are eventually promulgated during the subsequent round of rule-making). Sometimes, there is insufficient data to advance the value to an HRL through promulgation.
Another question was asked regarding why the EPTC Rfd differs from the one MDH used. MDH values and EPA values sometimes are not the same. MDH may use a more conservative value developed from a more rigorous review of data, whereas EPA may be only seeking to generate an acute or chronic value.
Review of 2014 Surface Water Monitoring Data
MDA Presenter: Dave Tollefson
David led the review of 2014 pesticide detections in surface water and rainfall sampling.
A member asked whether the recently passed buffer law may impact pesticide losses to surface water. MDA responded that buffers will likely be beneficial but that chemicals/pesticides have vastly different chemical, physical, and biological properties that cause them to behave differently in the environment and since the size of buffers may differ, individual materials have the potential to behave differently in each buffer strip.
A member asked the reason for high chlorpyrifos concentrations in base flow and MDA responded that it coincides with pesticide applications done in August.
Another member asked if MDA considers that some of the compounds with upward trends may be affected by heavier or specifically-timed rainfall in relation to the pesticide application. MDA responded that they have noticed those associations, in general, but have not had time to evaluate each specific incident.
One suggestion was made for all long-term rainfall results. Can the same y-axis concentration scale be used for rainfall median and rainfall maximum graphs for the same active ingredient? This would allow better comparison over time.
Special Monitoring Studies-2014
MDA Presenters: Matt Ribikawskis, Mike MacDonald, and Jeff Paddock
An overview of report results were presented for sections on Pesticides in Wetlands (sediment and water results), the neonicotinoid water quality summary of data from 2010 through 2014, and the private well pesticide sampling project (also known as part of the Targeted Township Domestic Wells project).
2015 New Projects:
MDA Presenters: Mike MacDonald and Matt Ribikawskis
Mike briefly reviewed the MDH Public Water Supply Recon and Matt went over the Random Stream Sampling Survey (EPA-EMAP) project.
Pesticide Program Updates
MDA Presenters: Gregg Regimbal, Matt Sunseri, and Raj Mann
Matt briefly discussed new herbicide product active ingredient (a.i.) registrations (isoxaflutole and bicyclopyrone) for distribution in Minnesota in 2015 which also included the significant new use registration for Enlist-Duo which contains 2,4-D choline and glyphosate.
Raj briefly explained 2015 legislation changes with regards to the 2014 Plant Labeling law and 2014 Beekeeper Compensation for Pesticide Poisoning law. Raj also mentioned DriftWatch is now accepting apiary registrations and he provided an update on the status of the MDA’s full review of neonicotinoid insecticides.
Summary and Wrap Up
Loretta thanked the committee for their contribution to MDA programs and the state of Minnesota through their attendance, and reminded them of the MDA’s desire for committee comments on the annual monitoring report, especially in regards to groundwater “common detection pesticides,” “surface water pesticides of concern,” or other needs for product restriction to protect water quality were due by Friday July 31, 2015.
END OF NOTES