pesticides and water quality in washington state
TRANSCRIPT
Washington State Department of AgricultureWashington State Department of Agriculture
Presented at the CMER Science SessionOctober 25th, 2016
George R. Tuttle MSNatural Resources Assessment Section
Pesticides and Water Qualityin Washington State
Monitoring Activities
The Natural Resources Assessment Section (NRAS) is WSDA’s research group:
We monitor the interface between agricultural practices and natural resources
Gather agricultural land use, pesticide use, and nutrient use data
Conduct surface and ground water monitoring projects
Work cooperatively with partners to meet WSDA’s mission of promoting agriculture while protecting the environment
Highlighted Project:
2015 Study: The Effectiveness of Riparian Vegetation at Intercepting Drift from Aerial Pesticide Application
Types of Pesticides Detected in 2015
The program currently monitors for 153 pesticide analytes…
1
1
1
6
19
14
38
80
Synergist
Wood Preservative
Insect Repellent
Degradate
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
All CatagoriesTotal
In 2015, 38 different herbicides were detected one or more times
Individual Pesticide Detections in 2015
Detections of herbicides accounted for 51% of all detections in 2015…
7
18
27
95
258
413
845
1663
Synergist
Wood Preservative
Insect Repellent
Degradate
Insecticide
Fungicide
Herbicide
All Catagories
So, why do we see so many herbicide detections? Pesticide use Climate Water solubility Pest pressure
Total
Active Ingredient # of Detections in 2015 Detection Frequency
Diuron 143 42%
2,4-D 87 26%
Dichlobenil 76 22%
Glyphosate 54 77%
Terbacil 52 15%
Metolachlor 48 14%
AMPA 46 66%
Imazapyr 37 11%
Triclopyr 37 11%
Bentazon 30 9%
Dicamba 23 7%
Simazine 23 7%
Isoxaben 19 6%
Bromacil 18 5%
MCPA 17 5%
15 Most Frequently Detected Herbicides
Active Ingredient Pesticide Category
Number of
Detections Above
Criteria
Number of
Detections in 2015
Azoxystrobin Fungicide 1 70
Bifenthrin Pyrethroid Insecticide 4 4
Captan Fungicide 4 8
Chlorpyrifos Organophosphate Insecticide 18 18
Malathion Organophosphate Insecticide 1 1
Metolachlor Herbicide 2 48
Pyridaben Insecticide 1 1
Sulfometuron methyl Herbicide 1 10
There were 32 detections of current use pesticides that approached or exceeded an aquatic life benchmark or water quality standard in 2015
Exceedance Summary
2015 Streamside Vegetation Study
7
The concept for this project was a collaborative effort between NMFS & NRAS
Objective: Determine how effective streamside vegetation is at reducing pesticide loading to streams.
Control Sites - without dense woody vegetation
vs.
Vegetated Sites - with dense woody vegetation
8
Riparian vegetation
Malathion
Aerially applied
Spotted wing Drosophila
Blueberries
5 Sites
• 2 control
• 3 vegetated
8 Application events
• 4 control
• 4 vegetated
2015 Streamside Vegetation Study
UD1 (Control Site)
2015 Streamside Vegetation Study
Site specific and event specific data:
Application method
Weather
Stream bank geometry
Vegetation characteristics
Pesticide deposition
Pesticide surface water concentration
over time
9
FT1 (Vegetated Site)
Study Design
10
Measurements collected at 6 equally spaced transects
Instream Measurements
• Geometry
• Shading
• Habitat
Vegetation Measurements
• Width
• Height
• Canopy cover
• Species composition
General water chemistry
Flow
Study Design
Depositional Samples:• Filter paper mounted on
platforms• Water• Vegetation edge• Field edge
11
UD1 (Control Site)
WV
F
Study Design
Water Samples– Standing water
• Grab samples collected at each transect before and after
– Flowing water
• Automated samplers placed upstream & downstream
• Composite samples, four 100mL subsamples collected every 6 min.
12Auto Sampler + Depositional Sampler, Downstream position at FM2
Study Design
Weather Station• Wind speed & direction
• Temperature
• Humidity
• Solar radiation
13
Averages for Waterbody and Vegetation Measurements
Site Comparison
14
Site TypeMean Vegetated
SitesMean Control
Sites
Canopy Angle (°) 71.79 0
Instream Canopy Cover (%)
85.76 45.72
In Vegetation Canopy Cover (%)
95.62 0
Bankfull Width (m) 6.66 4.86
Buffer Width (m) 6.61 n/a
Buffer Height (m) 5.72 n/a
Upstream of FM2 (Vegetated Site)
Site Comparison
15Error Bars Represent One Standard Deviation *Two-Sided Sites
5.9 7.4
12.914.6
19.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
UD1* UD2 FM1 FM2 FT1*
Control Vegetated
Dis
tan
ce (
m)
Average Distance from Field-edge to Water
Water Results
16
– Only one control site had enough water to sample due to severe drought
– Concentration of malathion on the water samples were compared EPAs aquatic life criteria:• Endangered Species Level of Concern for Malathion: 1.65 µg/L
– No exceedances were detected at the vegetated sites
– Only exceedances occurring at control site*
* It is important to note that the control site was a very shallow water body with little to no flow in contrast to the vegetated sites
Site Type Site ID Event Sample Type Average (µg/L) Max (µg/L) Detections
Control UD1
1Grab – Before < 0.05 < 0.05 0 of 6
Grab – After 4.14 7.1 7 of 7
2Grab – Before 0.08 0.21 3 of 6
Grab – After 3.45 7.8 6 of 6
Deposition Results
1. Was there a statistical difference between deposition at vegetated and control sites?
2. If yes, what buffer characteristics had an effect on malathion deposition and by how much?
17
Deposition Results
Contracted with Washington State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Todd Coffey, PhD, developed a linear mixed model to test if deposition at veg. sites was statistically different from deposition at control sites…
Percent reduction from field-edge (F) to water (W) for all applications
18
Deposition Results
19
The model showed that Canopy cover, canopy angle, distance from F - V and, distance from F – W all had significant inverse relationships with instream malathion deposition
Todd also then used univariable analysis to test which site characteristics had the greatest effect on instream malathion deposition
The analysis showed that distance between the field and vegetation and canopy cover had the strongest influence
The model also shows that the instream malathion deposition could be further decreased by approximately 26% by either:
Increasing the distance between the field and veg. by an additional 0.6 m(or)
Increasing the canopy cover by an additional 9%
Conclusions
Malathion deposition was significantly reduced at vegetated sites
Dense woody vegetation significantly reduces instream deposition
Canopy cover and distance are significant factors in reducing
deposition
20
Take Home Message
Vegetated buffers as narrow as 15 feet that have good canopy cover (≥76%) can reduce pesticide loading to streams via drift during helicopter applications by as much as 97%
This study monitored pesticide applications where the no-spray buffer requirement on the label was only 25 feet
A study like this could be replicated in forestry to address uncertainties and public perception
Acknowledgements
• NMFS Pesticide BiOp team: Tony Hawkes, Scott Hecht, Cathy Laetz, Thomas Hooper, and David Baldwin
• Todd Coffey-Dept of Mathematics and Statistics at WSU
• Blueberry Producers in Whatcom
• Aaron Bagwell, Whatcom Farmers Co-Op
• Kyle Blackburn and Essential Flight Ops, LLC
• Washington Blueberry and Red Raspberry Commissions
• Steve Thun and Rick Jordan, Pacific Agricultural Labs
• Heather Hansen, Washington Friends of Farms and Forests
• EPA Office of Pesticide Programs staff
• Bernalyn McGaughey and staff, Compliance Services International
• Spray Drift Issue Management Team members, Crop Life America
• John Hanzas, Stone Environmental
• Paul Whatling, Cheminova
• Harold W. Thistle, USDA Forest Service
• Tim Bargar, U.S. Geological Survey
• Vince Hebert, Washington State University
• WSDA staff: Abigail Nickelson, Jaclyn Hancock, Joel Demory, Kelly McLain, Brian Scott, Margaret Drennan, George Tuttle, and Rod Baker.
22
NRAS Contact Information:
George Tuttle
Agency Toxicologist
360.902.2066
http://www.agr.wa.gov/PestFert/NatResources/
Kelly McLain
Western Area Supervisor
Pesticide Use Lead
360.902.2067
23