Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Washington State Department of Agriculture Washington State Department of Agriculture
Using Targeted Monitoring to Evaluate Mi3ga3on Strategies that Reduce Pes3cide Loading to Streams
Kelly McLain, Ma>hew Bischof, Jaclyn Hancock, George Tu>le Washington State Department of Agriculture
September 2015 1
Collabora3ve Effort
2
• Summer 2014: WSDA and NMFS Pes7cide BiOp staff sat down to discuss possible targeted monitoring op7ons to reduce data gaps.
– Berry crops (blueberry and raspberry) in western WA are plagued by SpoHed Wing Drosophila (SWD), a fruit fly that impacts ripening fruit. This pest has dras7cally changed pes7cide use prac7ces, resul7ng in helicopter applica7ons of insec7cides during the peak growing and harvest periods. – This cropping area is also a pilot loca7on for the installa7on of na7ve riparian hedgerows, which have a low footprint, low installa7on and maintenance costs, and quick canopy establishment.
• WSDA partnered with the pes7cide users and dealers to iden7fy study loca7ons, and knowledgeable experts around the country to design a study that inves7gated the effec7veness of streamside vegeta7on in further reducing pes7cide loading to streams during aerial applica7on.
Streamside Vegeta3on Study
Study Objec7ve: How effec3ve is streamside vegeta3on at reducing pes3cide
loading during aerial applica3on?
Ø Compare sites with:
1. No vegeta7on
2. Smaller (hedgerow or equivalent) – between 10 and 30 V.
3. Wider vegetated zones (greater than 30 V.)
Ø Site specific variables: Applica7on Method, Weather Condi7ons, and
Vegeta7on Characteris7cs
Ø Deposi7onal and surface water samples were used to measure
effec7veness of the vegeta7on
3
Sampling Design
• 5 blueberry fields, 2 control and 3 vegetated
• Pre-‐applica7on vegeta7on assessment at each site
• 8 total spray events – 4 control, 4 vegetated
• All sites were evaluated during spray events using: – deposi7onal samplers (for driV) on six transects, three loca7ons within each transect,
– auto samplers to sample all flowing water, – grab samples before and aVer for non-‐flowing or ponded water, and
– weather sta7ons placed nearby but off-‐farm 4
Preliminary Data Evalua3on
• Data were compared for one single-‐sided control site (UD2) and one single-‐sided vegetated site (FM2), and one double-‐sided control site (UD1) and one double-‐sided vegetated site (FT1).
5
Transect Layout – UD2
6
Transect Layout – FM2
7
Transect Layout – UD1
8
Transect Layout – FT1
9
Site Assessment Criteria
10
Site Comparison: One-‐Sided Control vs. Vegetated
11
Site Characteris3cs (Averages) Control (UD2)* Vegetated (FM2)
Bankfull Width (m) 6.15 6.04
WeHed Width (m) 0.21 3.88
Depth (cm) 2.50 58.33
In Channel Densiometer (%) 95.10 99.75
Vegeta7on Height (m) NA 6.44
Vegeta7on Width (m) NA 4.90
Vegeta7on Densiometer (%) NA 98.5
Predominant Species Reed Canary Grass Willow, Spirea
*4 transects dry
Site Comparison: Double-‐Sided Control vs. Vegetated
12
Site Characteris3cs (Averages) Control (UD1) Vegetated (FT1)
Bankfull Width (m) 4.2 7.9
WeHed Width (m) 1.8 6.4
Depth (cm) 16.5 43.2
In Channel Densiometer (%) 48.8 76.0
Vegeta7on Height (m) 0.0 6.5
Vegeta7on Width (m) NA 8.4
Vegeta7on Densiometer (%) 0.0 93.4
Predominant Species Reed Canary Grass Willow, Spirea
Study Design – Deposi3onal
13
• Each treated field was divided into 6 equal transects.
• Within each transect, three zones were established to evaluate chemical movement away from the targeted crop field-‐edge, veg, and water
Transect Sizes – (Single-‐Sided)
14
7.8 8.0
7.3
7.3
7.4
6.6
15.3
14.7
14.0 15.0
14.0
14.8
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
6 5 4 3 2 1
Distan
ce (m
)
Transect
Distance from Field-‐edge to Water (One-‐Sided Sites)
Control Site (UD2) Vegetated Site (FM2)
Transect Sizes – (Double-‐Sided)
15
6.0
4.8 5.6 6.5
6.2 6.6
19.5
18.6 19.8
18.5 20
.6
19.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
6 5 4 3 2 1
Distan
ce (m
)
Transect
Avg. Distance from Field-‐edge to Water (Two-‐Sided Sites)
Control (UD1) Vegetated (FT1)
Study Design – Water
• Where flowing water was present, autosamplers were set up to take samples upstream and downstream of the treated field. – 4 -‐ 400mL composite samples were taken in 24 minute intervals.
• In the absence of flowing water, grab samples were taken before and aVer each treatment event. (WA State is experiencing its worst drought in recorded history – ponded water is not reflec7ve of typical condi7ons.)
16
Results – Control (UD2)
17
14,667
2,889
6,000
16,222
6,889
4,667
4,444
76
3,778
6,667
3,111
1,822
1,844
1,333
1,667
2,222
1,311
422
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
6 5 4 3 2 1
Malathion
(µg/m
2 )
Transect
Deposi3onal Results-‐Control Site (UD2)
Field-‐edge
Vegeta3on
Water
Results – Vegetated (FM2)
18
11,111
33,333
13,111
93,333
17,556
60
10,000
2,222
2,667
2,444
93
933
144
71
98
8 5 6
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
6 5 4 3 2 1
Malathion
(µg/m
2 )
Transect
Deposi3onal Results-‐Vegetated Site (FM2)
Field-‐edge
Vegeta3on
Water
Results – Control Double-‐Sided (UD1)
19
Results – Vegetated Double-‐Sided (FT1)
20
Deposi3onal Results
21
8,556
3,316
1,467
28,084
3,060
55
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
Field-‐edge Veg Water
Malathion
(µg/m
2 )
Average Malathion Deposi3on
Control (UD2)
Vegetated (FM2)
* Error bars represent standard error, not standard devia3on
Deposi3onal Results – Double-‐Sided
22
9678
4596
4311
6065
929
349
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Field Edge Veg Water
Malathion
(µg/m
2 )
Average Malathion Deposi3on at Two-‐Sided Sites
Control (UD1)
Vegetated (FT1)
* Error bars represent standard error, not standard devia3on
(n=12) (n=6)
Results
23
Water Sample Results – Vegetated (FM2 & FT1)
24
Samples Time (min) Results FM2 (µg/L) Results FT1 (µg/L)
1UP 0-‐24 ND 0.10
2UP 24-‐48 ND ND
3UP 48-‐72 ND 0.13
4UP 72-‐96 ND 0.061
1DN 0-‐24 ND 0.23
2DN 24-‐48 0.11 0.29
3DN 48-‐72 0.054 0.27
4DN 72-‐96 ND 0.27
*ESLOC: 1.65 µg/L
Grab Sample Results – UD1 vs. FT1
25
Samples Results UD1 (µg/L) Results FT1 (µg/L)
All Before Grabs ND ND
AVer T6 7.1 0.008
AVer T5 3.1 0.081
AVer T4 2.9 0.15
AVer T3 3.3 0.17
AVer T2 3.4 0.18
AVer T1 6.9 0.28
*ESLOC: 1.65 µg/L
Summary Wind Data
Site Direc3on Max observed wind
UD2 Event 1 towards water (R to L) 0.5 m/s 1.1 mph
UD2 Event 1 away from water (L to R) 0.7 m/s 1.6 mph
FM1 Event 1 R to L 0.1 m/s 0.2 mph
FM1 Event 1 L to R 0.2 m/s 0.4 mph
UD1 Event 1 R to L 0.6 m/s 1.3 mph
UD1 Event 1 L to R 0 m/s 0 mph
FT1 Event 1 towards water (R to L) 0 m/s 0 mph
FT1 Event 1 away from water (L to R) 0.8 m/s 1.8 mph
26
Acknowledgements
• Partnered Blueberry Producers • Aaron Bagwell, Whatcom Farmers Co-‐Op • Kyle Blackburn, Essen7al Flight Ops, LLC • Steve Thun and Rick Jordan, Pacific Agricultural Labs • Washington Blueberry and Red Raspberry Commissions • Tony Hawkes, ScoH Hecht, Cathy Laetz, and Thomas Hooper, NMFS
Pes7cide BiOp team • Bernalyn McGaughey and staff, Compliance Services Interna7onal • Heather Hansen, Washington Friends of Farms and Forests • Members of OPP EFED, EPA Headquarters • Spray DriV Issue Management Team members, Crop Life America • John Hanzas, Stone Environmental • Paul Whatling, Cheminova
27
Ques3ons?
28
