Using!Targeted!Monitoring!to!Evaluate!Mi3ga3on! … · 2015. 10. 15. · FM1!Event1 Rto!L 0.1 m/s...
Transcript of Using!Targeted!Monitoring!to!Evaluate!Mi3ga3on! … · 2015. 10. 15. · FM1!Event1 Rto!L 0.1 m/s...
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