Aquatic Pesticide Monitoring Program

1
Aquatic Pesticide Monitoring Program
Non-Chemical Aquatic Plant Control A New
Research Program Nicole David Ben K.
Greenfield Geoff Siemering
2

• Aquatic Pesticide Monitoring Program
• Background
• Increased permitting requirements for chemical
• pesticide application after Talent decision
• Increased costs for pesticide permitting
• reevaluate control methods
• Specified in SWRCB/Waterkeepers legal settlement
• Chemical monitoring program
• Non-chemical alternatives program

3
Chemical Program Objectives

• Gather basic sampling data for SWRCB
• Refine sampling, analytical, and toxicity
• protocols
• Identify and fill gaps in pesticide knowledge
• base
• Develop monitoring plan handbook

4
(No Transcript)
5
Pesticide User Groups

• 1. Irrigation supply systems
• 2. Drinking water reservoirs
• 3. Exotic weed control (canals and coastal)
• 4. Mosquito abatement
• 5. Flood and storm water control
• 6. Recreational impoundments (golf courses,
• parks, etc)

6
Target Aquatic Pesticides
Selected by Science Advisory Committee based on
toxicity and extent used.

• Copper sulphate
• Acrolein
• Glyphosate
• Fluridone
• Methoprene

• Diquat dibromide
• Malathion
• 2,4-D
• Triclopyr

7
Monitoring Techniques

• Chemical Monitoring
• Water
• Sediment
• Porewater
• Tissue
• Toxicity Testing
• Water EPA 3 species
• Sediment H. azteca
• Tox TIE (by tox labs)

• Water Quality Parameters
• Conductivity, pH, Temp., TSS, Alkalinity, Ca,
  Mg, Na, DOC, DO, Hardness
• Sediment Quality Parameters
• Grain size, Nitrate, solids, TN, TOC, SEM-AVS
  (for Cu sites)

8

• Non-Chemical Alternatives Program
• Objectives
• 1. Conduct thorough cost-effectiveness
  evaluations
• of non-chemical aquatic plant control options
• 2. Identify additional non-chemical methods for
• CA waters
• 3. Produce guidebook to help managers determine
• best control options

9

• Identify additional non-chemical approaches
• for California waters
• Interviews with weed-control experts nationwide
  to make
• sure CA isn't missing out on effective methods
• Demonstration Projects with potentially
  promising methods
• for specific water body types

10

• Available Methods
• Biological methods
• Insects
• Grass Carp
• Physical methods
• Mechanical Harvesting and Cutting
• Rotovation
• Weed Rollers
• Suction Dredging
• Bottom Barriers
• Manual Removal
• Water Drawdown
• Sediment Excavation/Chaining

11

• Biological Control
• Sterile Grass Carp
• Feeds on aquatic plants
• Non-selective
• Works best in small ponds
• Insects
• Reduce plant growth and seed production
• Establishment might be difficult
• Plant specific

12

• Mechanical Control
• Mechanical Harvesting/ Mechanical Cutting
• Cuts plants several feet below water surface
• Immediate but short-term results
• Impact on fish and invertebrates
• Risk of spreading invasive plants

13
Rotovation

• Barge-mounted rototilling machine
• Dislodges plant root crowns

Weed Rollers

• Metal cylinder attached to dock
• Rolls in 270 degree arc
• Compresses plants and soil
• Disturb bottom dwelling organisms
• and fish

14
Suction Dredging

• Diver-operated pump system
• Suction plants and roots from sediment
• Plant material is collected on the boat
• Slit curtain can be used to control
• turbidity

Bottom Barriers

• Semi-permanent materials laid over plant bed
• Eliminate sunlight
• Loss of habitat for benthic organisms

15

• Manual Removal
• Removes entire root crown
• Labor intensive
• Water Level Drawdown
• Dewatering water body by releasing water via
• dam or weir or pump
• Requires water level control structures
• Excavation
• Removes plants and surface sediment
• Viable for storm water and irrigation canals
• Increased turbidity downstream

16

• Preliminary Interview results
• Results from interviews with experts from 11
  states
• in draft Technical Memo
• California is in the loop. Most available
  approaches and
• technologies have been attempted in California
  waters
• Method improvements have mostly been restricted
  by
• a lack of funding.

17

• Mechanical Shredding Demonstration Projects
• Mechanical shredding without removal
• Comparing to chemical treatment at similar
  location and
• control site
• Cost effectiveness comparison
• Invertebrate community
• bioassessment
• Impact on water chemistry
• Possibility of trace metal
• analysis

18

• Demonstration Projects
• Preliminary plan - Mechanical shredding of water
  hyacinth
• (Eichhornia crassipes) in Delta sloughs.

19
(No Transcript)
20

• Demonstration Projects
• Fish Study Objectives
• Direct measurements of water chemistry before
• and after mechanical harvesting operations.
• Quantification of removed fish and fish species.

21

• Deliverables
• First Years Summary Report already available.
• Phase 2 data analysis and report for chemical
  project
• Beginning of 2004
• Data analysis and report for non-chemical
• demonstration projects
• Mechanical Shredding Mid 2004
• Fish Study Beginning of 2004
• Conclusion
• In many weed management situations a mix of
• techniques, possibly including non-chemical and
• chemical methods will be the most appropriate
  approach.