DPR Urban Water Monitoring And

Pyrethroid Regulations

Robert Budd, PhD Environmental Monitoring Branch

Department of Pesticide Regulation March 3-5, 2015

Urban Monitoring

Objective 1: What Pesticides are in Surface Water?

Prioritization Model

Pesticide Use (lbs) Use score BM Tox score Final score Recom Permethrin 27,665 5 0.01 7 35 TRUE Bifenthrin 27,842 5 0.075 6 30 TRUE Cyfluthrin 8,667 4 0.0125 6 24 TRUE Diuron 21,010 5 2.4 4 20 TRUE Fipronil 8,095 4 0.11 5 20 TRUE Diquat 6,823 4 0.75 5 20 FALSE Pendimethalin 19,251 4 5.2 4 16 TRUE Chlorothalonil 13,859 4 1.8 4 16 FALSE Bromacil 12,643 4 6.8 4 16 TRUE Prodiamine 6,631 4 3 4 16 TRUE Cypermethrin 4,296 3 0.195 5 15 TRUE Sulfometuron 2,282 3 0.48 5 15 TRUE Carbaryl 2,081 3 0.85 5 15 TRUE Flumioxazin 1,895 3 0.852 5 15 FALSE Oxyfluorfen 1,665 3 0.29 5 15 TRUE Malathion 1,363 3 0.3 5 15 TRUE Lambda-cyhalothrin 827 2 0.0035 7 14 TRUE Triclopyr 16,939 4 70 3 12 TRUE Oryzalin 12,271 4 15.4 3 12 TRUE Imidacloprid 7,720 4 35 3 12 TRUE Acrolein 4,174 3 7 4 12 FALSE Halosulfuron-methyl 2,370 3 5.3 4 12 FALSE Chlorfenapyr 1,556 3 2.915 4 12 TRUE

Model Output

Most Prevalent Pesticides in California Urban Surface Waters (2009-2014)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Freq

uenc

y of

Det

ctio

n (%

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Freq

uenc

y of

Det

ctio

n (%

)

Insecticides Herbicides

Objective 2: Regional Differences

DPR Sites

Regional Differences

0

20

40

60

80

100D

etec

tion

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

NorCal

SoCal

Objective 3: Seasonal Differences

Dry Season Rain Event

Seasonal Differences Dry – extended period of no precipitation Rain – first flush, winter rain

Dry Season vs. Storm Monitoring

Pesticide detections more common in storm runoff

Dic

amba

Cyf

luth

rin2,

4-D

Perm

ethr

inD

iuro

nBi

fent

hrin

Fipr

onil

Mal

athi

onO

ryza

linTr

iclo

pyr

Del

tam

ethr

inL-

cyha

loth

rinC

yper

met

hrin

MC

PAC

arba

ryl

Des

ulfin

yl fi

pron

ilIm

idac

lopr

idFi

pron

il su

lfone

Pend

imet

halin

Fipr

onil

amid

e

Stor

m F

D (%

) - D

ry F

D (%

)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Storm > DryDry > Storm

Objective 4: Stormdrain Outfalls and Receiving Waters

Stormdrain outfalls Receiving Water

Bifenthrin 2,4-D Triclopyr Fipronil Imidacloprid SD RW SD RW SD RW SD RW SD RW

Perc

ent o

f Sam

ples

0

20

40

60

80

100 % > BenchmarkFrequency Detections

SD = Stormdrain RW = Receiving Water

Stormdrain vs. Receiving Water Concentrations

Dinoflagellates

Green algae

Copepods

Objective 5: Toxic to Aquatic Species?

Euglenozoans

Ceriodaphnia dubia

Hyalella azteca

Rainbow Trout

Diatoms

Objective 5 - Toxicity

UCD Aquatic Health Program - Hyalella azteca survival

US EPA Aquatic Benchmarks

Potential Toxicity

Bifenthrin Fipronil Fipronil sulfone Imidacloprid

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/L)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

6.0012.00

EPA Minimum Benchmark Value

H. azteca

Aquatic Toxicity

Dry Storm Dry Storm

H. a

ztec

a %

Sur

viva

l

0

20

40

60

80

100

NorCalSoCal

H. azteca Toxicity Tests Indicate Pyrethroids at Toxic Levels in Surface Waters

Pyrethroid Regulations

Pyrethroid Use 2000 - 2013

Homeowner use not reported

Use increased as a replacement for OPs

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Urb

an P

estic

ide

Use

(lb

ai x

100

0)

Pyrethroids Diazinon Chlorpyrifos

SW

Reg

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

Det

ectio

n Fr

eque

ncy

(%)

Pyrethroids Detected At High Frequency Throughout State

Pyrethroid Detections

Pyrethroids Around California

Pyrethroids detected throughout state by several research agencies

Bife

nthr

in

Cyf

luth

rin

Cyp

erm

ethr

in

Del

tam

ethr

in

L-cy

halo

thrin

Perm

ethr

in

Con

cent

ratio

n (

g/l

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.501.00 OPP BM

Pyrethroid Toxicity*

Pyrethroid Concentrations at Levels Potentially Toxic to Aquatic Species

Mean

*Samples collected at stormdrains

Pyrethroids have high runoff potential from urban areas

Urban hardscapes – impervious surfaces Storm drain systems

Justification for Regulations

Surface Water Regulations

• Enacted July, 2012

• Professional applicators, including landscape maintenance

• Objective: reduce amount of pyrethroids applied (and therefore runoff) in urban landscapes

Pesticides Affected

• Bifenthrin • Bioallethrin • S-Bioallethrin • Cyfluthrin • Beta-cyfluthrin • Prallethrin • Lambda-cyhalothrin • Cypermethrin • Deltamethrin

• Esfenvalerate • Fenpropathrin • Tau-fluvalinate • Permethrin • Phenothrin • Gamma-cyhalothrin • Resmethrin • Tetramethrin

2 ft

Vertical Perimeter Spray; 2 ft up from foundation

Pin Stream

Garage Door - Vertical; Pin Stream ≤ 1inch

2 ft Horizontal Pervious; 2 ft buffer to impervious

Pin Stream

≤ 1 in.

Crack & Crevice Spot –

2 ft diameter

Horizontal Impervious* (Driveway, Sidewalk)

* Including adjacent buffer zone

Only Spray When See

Evidence Of Pests!

Prohibited applications

Rainfall Standing

water

Unprotected termiticide

Curbside Gutters

Storm/French Drain

Aquatic Habitat (25 ft. down gradient)

Take home message Minimize applications to impervious surfaces

Only spray driveways and sidewalks when pest present

Don’t spray when rain is predicted

Know and follow pyrethroid regulations!

For further information presented, see:

Surface water pyrethroid regulations, http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/presentations/pepple_swregs_upc_2_1011.pdf

Questions?