Oregons Pesticide and Water Quality Monitoring and Management - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation to Oregon’s Pesticide Analytical and Response Center (PARC) May 17, 2017 Kirk V. Cook, RG Pesticide Stewardship Partnership Oregon Department of Agriculture

Oregon’s Pesticide and Water Quality Monitoring and Management Program

Overview….

— Basic Principles — Program elements — Statewide pesticide-related water quality team — Watershed-based Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships

(PSP)

— Water Quality Pesticide Management Strategy — Budget Summary/Status

Moving Forward and Key Challenges/Issues Oregon’s Pesticide and Water Quality Monitoring and Management Program

Key points in Oregon’s approach to pesticide occurrences in water bodies

• It is voluntary and locally driven
• It is collaborative both at the state and local level
• It is data driven
• Water quality data
• Pesticide characteristics
• Pesticide management
• It is based on “adaptive management” principles
• It is supported by both state and federal agencies

Oregon’s Pesticide and Water Quality Monitoring and Management Program

How Did Oregon’s Water Quality Pesticide Program Begin ?

Began in the Hood River Watershed in the early 2000’s to address Organophosphate (OP) insecticides detected above WQ standards

• An alternative to a solely regulatory approach in dealing with

pesticides in local water bodies With local support development of a coordinated voluntary program began

that included:

• State Agencies – DEQ monitoring
• Locals - Growers, Extension, SWCD, Watershed Council,
• Irrigation Districts & Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

Focused on development and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs)

• Application Practices, Buffers, etc.
• Outreach/Training
• Technical expertise, resources & tools in place at local level

All based on data collected within the watershed throughout the year

Identify streams with elevated pesticide concentrations or high # of detections Implement water quality monitoring and evaluate results Collaborate to implement voluntary management practices to address findings Follow-up monitoring to determine improvements over time Pes esticide icide Stew ewar ards dship hip Par artner nerships hips (PSPs) Collaborating at the watershed level Key Steps in Partnership Projects

Hood River PSP: What Can Be Achieved?

Goal: Reduction in concentrations & frequency of detections over time

A result of IPM, alternative pesticides, improved application practices, monitoring, etc.

Successes in Fruit Growing Areas along the Columbia

Expansion of the PSP Program

— As a result of Hood River success, additional pilot

projects added in 2000s

— Legislature funded program beginning in 2013 — Program supported by grant funding and in-kind

contributions until 2013

• Between 2005 and 2015, nine watershed-based

PSP projects were initiated

— Formation of State Water Quality Pesticide

Management Team (WQPMT) in 2007 provided guidance and consistency to watershed projects

(86%) (19%)

Only 2 sampling events during 2010 spray season Cherry growers increasing use of weather stations to reduce wind drift, using more ground (rather than aerial) spraying near streams, and rotating chemistry.

Irrigation District switched to mechanical control of vegetation, along with spot spraying of less toxic and persistent herbicide.

Water er Qualit Quality Monit

• nitor
• ring

ing

Areas of the State Where Pesticide Monitoring Has Occurred Each of the areas Indicated have petitioned the state to participate in the program known as the Pesticide Stewardship Partnership. Currently there are nine such areas with three Pilots that have been Conducted (or) are being conducted.

Water er Qualit Quality Monit

• nitor
• ring

ing

Currently water quality monitoring activities conducted thru the Pesticide Stewardship Partnership program capture: 78 currently registered pesticides

• 57 Herbicides
• 46 Insecticides
• 9 Fungicides

43 non-regulated pesticides

• Not registered in OR
• Banned or cancelled by EPA (Legacy Pesticides)

11 pesticide metabolites

• Breakdown products of current or legacy pesticides

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 2013 2016

Maximum Concentration Level Comparison – All PSP’s

ng/L

5 10 15 20 25 2013 2016

Number of ALB Exceedence Comparison – All PSP’s

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2013 2016

Frequency of Detection Comparison – All PSP’s

%

Water er Qualit Quality Monit

• nitor
• ring

ing

Program expanding to consider groundwater and sediments Evaluating concentration vs loading using flow data

Stream Flow CFS Pesticide Concentration ug/L Pesticide Loading ug/sec 2.16 .167 9.91 2.57 .226 16.40 1.81 .241 12.354 .81 .354 9.56 * From 2016 data Amazon Watershed

Water Quality Pesticide Management Team

State Water Quality Pesticide Management Team (WQPMT) formed in 2007 to provide guidance and consistency to watershed projects

Water Quality Pesticide Management Team (WQPMT): Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) Local Partners: Watershed and other natural resource groups Local landowners, growers and chemical distributors Soil and water conservation districts Tribal governments Oregon’s Water Quality Pesticide Management Team

The WQPMT provides oversight for Oregon Pesticide Stewardship Partnership which fosters the implementation of the Pesticide Management Plan for Water Quality Protection through the:

• Identification of potential concerns and

improve water quality affected by pesticide use around Oregon.

• Combine local expertise in water quality

sampling results to encourage voluntary changes in pesticide use and management practices.

• Find ways to reduce pesticide levels while

measuring improvements in water quality and crop management.

• Work toward measurable environmental

improvements, making Oregon waters safer for aquatic life and humans.

State Collaboration – The Water Quality Pesticide Management Team

The Water Quality Pesticide Management Team Pesticide Evaluation Per the Pesticide Management Plan for Water Quality Protection, an evaluation of all pesticides (of interest) in a state must be evaluated to assess whether they merit an action: 1) Further monitoring assessment 2) Additional education and outreach 3) Modifications in use practices 4) Additional restrictions in use 5) Elimination from use due to environmental concerns This is conducted by the WQPMT who designates a Pesticide of Concern or Pesticide of Interest

4C : Very High Concern (POC) 3C : Mod-High Concern (POC) 2C : Moderate Concern (POC) 1C : Low Concern

>30% (Level C)

4B : High Concern (POC) 3B : Moderate Concern

• Watch List

2B : Moderate Concern 1B : Low Concern

11 - 30% (Level B)

4A: Mod- High Concern (POC) 3A: Moderate Concern 2A: Low Concern 1A : Low Concern

0 - 10% (Level A) >100% (Level 4)* > 50% (Level 3)* 20 - 50% (Level 2) 0 - 20% (Level 1)

Detection as % of Reference Concentration

Decision Matrix Based on Water Monitoring Data

Detected concentration relative to a reference concentration,

Frequency of detection, and Trend Over Time

* Actions @ levels 3 & 4 if detected 2 out of 3 years of monitoring

F r e q u e n c y

• f

D e t e c t i

• n

2,4-D Acetochlor Alachlor Aldicarb Atrazine (Aatrex) Azinphosmethyl (Guthion) Benfluralin Bentazon Bifenthrin Bromacil Carbaryl (Sevin) Carbofuran Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) Clopyralid Copper pesticides Cyfluthrin Cypermethrin Dacthal DBCP Deltamethrin Diazinon Dicamba Dicofol Diuron (Karmex, Direx) Endosulfan Esfenvalerate Ethalfluralin Ethoprop (Mocap) Fenbutatin oxide Fipronil Flumetsulam Glyphosate Hexazinone Imazamethabenz Imazapyr Imidacloprid Isoxaflutole Lambda- cyhalothrin Lindane Linuron Malathion Mesotrione Metalaxyl Metolachlor (Parallel) Metribuzin (Tricor) Metsulfuron methyl MSMA Myclobutanil Napropamide Norflurazone Oxyfluorfen PCP Pendimethalin Permethrin Phenoxy herbicides Phosmet Picloram Prometon Prometryn Propargite Propiconazole (Propimax) Simazine (Princep) Sulfometuron methyl (Oust) Tebuthiuron Terbacil Thiamethoxam Tralkoxydim Triadimeton Triallate Triclopyr Trifluralin

2012-2

• 2013 U

US-EP S-EPA a and Or nd Oregon P

• n Pestic

sticide ides of s of Inte Interest & st & C Conc

• ncern (7

rn (72)

Red = POC; Yellow = Higher Priority POI Under Review; Green = Evaluated, not a POC; White = Under Review or Not Evaluated

2,4-D Acetochlor Alachlor Aldicarb Atrazine (Aatrex) (R) Azinphosmethyl (Guthion) (R) Benfluralin Bentazon Bifenthrin - RUP Bromacil Carbaryl (Sevin) Carbofuran Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) (R) Clopyralid Copper pesticides Cyfluthrin (R) Cypermethrin (R) Dacthal DBCP Deltamethrin (R) Diazinon (R) Dicamba (R) Dicofol Diuron (Karmex, Direx) Endosulfan (R) Esfenvalerate (R) Ethalfluralin Ethoprop (Mocap) (R) Fenbutatin oxide Fipronil Flumetsulam Glyphosate Hexazinone Imazamethabenz Imazapyr Imidacloprid (R) Isoxaflutole Lambda- cyhalothrin (R) Lindane Linuron Malathion Mesotrione Metalaxyl Metolachlor (Parallel) (R) Metribuzin (Tricor) Metsulfuron methyl MSMA Myclobutanil Napropamide Norflurazone Oxyfluorfen PCP (R) Pendimethalin Permethrin (R) Phenoxy herbicides Phosmet Picloram (R) Prometon Prometryn Propargite (R) Propiconazole (Propimax) Simazine (Princep) Sulfometuron methyl (Oust) Tebuthiuron Terbacil Thiamethoxam (R) Tralkoxydim Triadimeton Triallate Triclopyr Trifluralin

2012-2

• 2013 U

US-EP S-EPA a and Or nd Oregon P

• n Pestic

sticide ides of s of Inte Interest & st & C Conc

• ncern (7

rn (72)

Red = POC; Yellow = Higher Priority POI Under Review; Green = Evaluated, not a POC; White = Under Review or Not Evaluated (R) Indicates some products containing ingredient are Federal Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP)

Amazon Clackamas Hood Middle Rogue Pudding S. Yamhill Walla Wallla Wasco Yamhill

2010

N/A N/A

2011

N/A

2012

N/A

2013

N/A

2014 2015 2016

Yearly Evaluation of Pesticides of Concern

• Diuron -

Table 3: Surface Water Response Categories and Management Options

1-Detectionfrequency 1-50% and >50% of reference concentration (Levels 1A,1B,2A,2B in Table 1)

• a. Evaluate weight-of-evidence for potential impact on aquatic life
• b. Re-evaluate monitoring program
• c. Annually assess monitoring results

2-Detection frequency above 50% BUT below reference concentration (Levels 1C, 2C, in Table 1)

• d. Evaluate weight of evidence for potential impact on aquatic life
• e. Evaluate data vs. historical detections of pesticides and use patterns
• f. Include detected pesticide(s) in outreach and educational efforts
• g. Initiate planning for PSP an/or AgWQM activities
• h. If continued high detections frequencies for two or more years, evevale to RC

3 and POC 3-One year of detection above reference concentration (levels 3A, 3B, 3C in Table 1)

• a. Evaluate against labeled uses, application methods, overall weight-of-evidence

assessment

• b. Evaluate need for conformational and source identification information
• c. Evaluate historical extent of occurrence and use
• d. Partner with local stakeholders to determine source and appropriate voluntary

reduction measures and consider appropriate BMP’s and management actions

• e. Work with stakeholders to consider alternative control chemicals and/or

methods

• f. Include detected pesticide(s) in outreach and educational efforts
• g. Initiate PSP and/or AgWQM activities
• h. Expand monitoring efforts
• i. Elevate to POC status

Level 2 Level 3

Table 3: Surface Water Response Categories and Management Options

4-Detection in two of three years above reference concentration

• a. Evaluate extent of pesticide occurrence within a local watershed and across

the state

• b. Continue to work with stakeholders to determine source and the

implementation of additional voluntary and mandatory BMP’s and use restrictions

• c. Work with stakeholders to implement alternative control chemicals and/or

methods

• d. Plan and implement follow-up monitoring efforts

5-Detection above reference concentration after BMP’s are implemented

• a. Implement additional regulatory restriction, and/or mandatory BMP’s
• b. Coordinate with DEQ on potential 303(d) listing
• c. Implement program to determine effectiveness of regulatory actions
• d. Initiate enforcement actions for cases of misuse or illegal disposal
• d. Evaluate data vs. historical detections of pesticides and use patterns

Hood River Amazon, Clackamas, Pudding, Yamhill Middle Rogue, Wasco, Walla Walla South Yamhill – No Action Level 4 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2

2015-17 Technical Assistance Grants OSU X-mas $ 25,170.00 OSU SO $ 40,854.00 OSU PM $ 37,460.00 CGFG $ 22,000.00 NCAP $ 39,705.00 2015-17 PSP Partner Grants HRSWCD $ 3,750.00 PRWC $ 8,250.00 YWSC $ 8,250.00 CRWSC $ 6,250.00 LTWC $ 7,897.00 JCSWCD $ 7,425.00 2015-17 Total Grant Funding TA $ 165,188.77 PSPP $ 52,622.00 WWWC $ 4,500.00 JCSWCD $ 2,500.00 PUR $ 3,500.00

The Water Quality Pesticide Management Team Technical Assistance

The Water Quality Pesticide Management Team Technical Assistance

P H Mc

P

GP O

2015-16 Pesticide Collection Sites KF Sept 2015 B Oct 2015 O Oct 2015 GP Mar 2016 WC Mar 2016 P Apr 2016 Ph Apr 2016 H Apr 2016 L June 2016 T Oct 2016 Mc Nov 2016 R Feb 2017 Linked 2015-16 HHW Sites KF 2526 lbs 8 participants B 2329 lbs 6 participants 9959 lbs 15 participants

WC

10929 lbs 12 participants 4641 lbs 21 participants 6246 lbs 11 participants 17000 lbs 21 participants H 7200 lbs 18 participants L R T Statistics Lbs collected 137384 # participants 230

H R

Nov 2015 8044 lbs 18 participants

TD

Nov 2015 4200 lbs 11 participants

M

May 2016 1580 lbs 5 participants

The Water Quality Pesticide Management Team Waste Pesticide Collection

1963 lbs 5 participants 47784 lbs 48 participants 2413 lbs 6 participants

R

7352 lbs 18 participants 874 lbs 2 participants

PSP Program Budget as of 5/01/2017

Program Element Current Allocation Expenditures by June 30, 2017 Estimated Remaining Balance

Monitoring $1,047,064 redirect & $18,000 MWC) (Addition of $10,000 ODF $ 1,075,064.00 $ 0 Pesticide Collection $200,000 (Additions of $10,000 DEQ

• 15 state events: $186,206.00

$ 0 Technical Assistance $200,000

• 5 Major Technical Assistance

Grants ($165,189.00)

• 9 PSP Partner Grants

($ 52,622.00.00) Administration $ 247,945.00 ~ $ 5000.00

Moving Forward and Key Challenges/Issues for WQPMT/PSP Program (2015 & Beyond)

— Complete the assessment of pilot PSP watersheds — Manage allocation of resources among program elements — Planning for next biennium

— Select new waste pesticide collection locations & criteria — Address benchmark changes and communication of risk (Env. & HH) — Integrate sediment and groundwater into monitoring program — Structure of the Technical Assistance Allocation — Communication – reports, fact sheets, web pages, etc. — Role of WQPMT vs. PARC & other initiatives (Stream Team, etc.)

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/PesticidesPARC/PSPBiennumUpdate.pdf

Questions