1

Training Pesticide Control Operators (PCO’s) and PCO companies in

Urban Pyrethroid Applications

CDPR Agreement No. 15-C0056

Annual Report

Reporting Period: January 1 to December 31, 2017

Principal Investigator

Lorence R. Oki, Ph.D.

UC Davis Plant Sciences & UC Agriculture and Natural Resources – Cooperative Extension

Co-Principal Investigator

Karey Windbiel-Rojas

UC Agriculture and Natural Resources – Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program

Report prepared by

Jared A. Sisneroz

UC Davis Plant Sciences

2

Introduction

The information in this report is a summary of the activities completed under agreement 15-

C0056. This report focuses on the work performed by public agency and industry collaborators,

University of California (UC) researchers and staff under the direction of Lorence R. Oki and

Karey Windbiel-Rojas pertaining to the deliverables of this agreement over period January 1,

2017 to December 31, 2017.

Background

The impetus behind the project is resulting from numerous detections of pesticides in urban

runoff at concentrations that may be toxic to aquatic organisms in monitoring by California

Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and UC researchers. Often, several types of

pesticides are detected per sample, potentially resulting in synergistic toxic effects to aquatic

organisms. Mitigation strategies include increasing irrigation efficiency to reduce non-storm

runoff, altering pesticide application techniques, implementing integrated pest management

(IPM) tactics when controlling pests, and bioremediation efforts. Of the aforementioned

strategies, a label change regarding the pyrethroid class of insecticides has occurred specifying

application methods to change application behavior with the goal of reducing pesticide content

in runoff.

This project was initiated in 2016 with the first meeting between project staff and DPR

occurring in May 2016. The project team began meeting in midsummer 2016 and consists of

public agency and industry collaborators, UC researchers, and staff. During these meetings, the

project team began to define the project goals, discuss details for conducting the workshops,

and define the training curriculum. The project team decided to hold a pilot workshop in

autumn 2017 to evaluate the proposed curriculum, which would then be followed by 3 more

workshops in spring 2018.

Scope of Work

The goal of this project is to provide outreach to pest control operators (PCOs) on the 2012

Surface Water Regulations, 2013 US EPA label changes, and the 2011 DPR Memorandum of

Agreement, with long-term intention of reducing pesticide content in urban runoff. Primary

deliverables include development of a pyrethroid application training program targeting PCOs,

implementation of the training program at a minimum of 3 workshops, and measurement of

knowledge gained by attendees from the course using pre- and post-workshop surveys.

Remaining deliverables include acquisition of DPR and Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB), the

board regulating pesticide applications to habitable structures, continuing education units

3

(CEUs) for workshops, conducting quarterly administration group meetings, and development

of a list of PCO’s in the Sacramento Metropolitan Area (SMA). Final reporting requirements

include presentation of efforts at a seminar and a final report at the completion of the project.

Project Tasks and Deliverables

Task 1 Identify PCO’s active in the SMA

In 2016, project staff created a list of PCO’s working in the SMA. The final version of the

list was sent as an Excel spreadsheet to the Contract Manager via email on 12/29/2016

and is attached in Appendix C.

Task 2 Conduct a Survey of PCO’s

Discussions between project staff and DPR determined that Task 2, hereafter referred to

as the “pre-survey”, will occur at the beginning of workshops before a training event

occurs. A pre-survey of participants was conducted at the pilot workshop held in 2017,

results are located in Appendix B.

Task 3 Develop a Curriculum/Training Program on Proper Pyrethroid Application

Development of an initial curriculum/training program occurred in 2017. This curriculum

was implemented at the pilot workshop. The project team is in the process of revising

the curriculum to incorporate feedback from pilot workshop participants. The

curriculum will be finalized in 2018 before any further workshops are held. For topics

covered in the curriculum, refer to the pilot workshop agenda in Appendix A.

Task 4 Obtain DPR and SPCB CE Units for Workshop/Training Sessions

3.0 DPR and 4.0 SPCB CEUs were obtained for the pilot workshop held on 10/19/2017.

We will also be requesting CEUs for the workshops planned for 2018.

Task 5 Conduct a minimum of 3 Workshops/Training Sessions for PCO’s

Project staff held a workshop attended by 21 Professional Management Professionals

(PMPs) on Thursday, October 19, 2017 at the UC ANR building in Davis, California. The

workshop featured speakers and a hands-on demonstration portion. A detailed agenda

is included in Appendix A.

Task 6 Conduct a Follow-up Survey of PCO’s to Evaluate Workshop Effectiveness

Discussions between project staff and DPR determined that Task 6, hereafter referred to

as the “post-survey”, will occur at the end of the workshop to gauge knowledge learned

4

by the participants. A post-survey of participants was conducted at the pilot workshop

held in 2017; results are located in Appendix B.

Task 7 Project Administration

Four quarterly meetings have occurred during this period, satisfying contract

requirements. To disseminate project information, including meeting arrangements,

agendas, and minutes with collaborators and DPR, project staff created and are using a

closed communication system developed and hosted by UC ANR called “Collaborative

Tools.” (https://ucanr.edu/collaborate/posts.cfm?cluster=10336, restricted).

Task 8 Dissemination of Data

Submission of this report fulfills contract requirements for this task during this period.

Summary of Activities

The project team successfully held a pilot workshop on Thursday, October 19, 2017 at the UC

Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR) building in Davis, California. The workshop was

held from 7:30 am to 12:00 p.m. and featured 3 presentations by different speakers and a

hands-on demonstration portion. Using contact information gathered from the PCO list created

in 2016 (Task 1), the workshop was advertised to SMA PMPs via email. Twenty-one PMPs from

12 pest control companies counties attended. A detailed agenda and materials from the

workshop are attached in Appendix A. Per Task 4, 4.0 SPCB CEUs and 3.0 DPR CEUs were

obtained for the workshop.

During the workshop, participants were surveyed before instruction began (Task 2) and at the

completion of instruction (Task 6). The pre-survey was conducted using Turning Point audience

participation software. Participants were asked 11 questions; the first 7 questions assessed

participant demographics, while the last 4 questions assessed participant knowledge of

pyrethroid practices and regulations. These last 4 questions were repeated after instruction

ended to assess the efficacy of the curriculum. Overall participant knowledge as measured by

the repeated pre- and post-survey questions was high. For each the 4 repeated questions,

increases in participants selecting the correct answer was observed in the post-survey. Survey

questions and responses, along with selected participant feedback is located in Appendix B.

The project team is using responses to the pre- and post-surveys along with participant

feedback to adjust the curriculum and survey questions for future workshops. Tentative

locations for workshops in the spring 2018 include Elk Grove, Folsom, and Roseville. Project

staff is reaching out to contacts in each location to find local partners and secure venues for

2018.

5

Appendix A – Pilot workshop agenda

Best Practices for Urban Pyrethroid Applicators

UC ANR Building, Sacramento Valley Room

2801 2nd Street, Davis CA 95618

October 19, 2017

7:30 am – 12:00 pm

Agenda

7:00 - 7:30 AM Check-in- Registration and continental breakfast

7:30 - 7:45 AM Introduction Darren Van Steenwyk, Technical Director, Clark Pest Control

7:45 - 8:00 AM Pre-Quiz - current pesticide application practices Loren Oki, Environmental Horticulture Specialist, UC Davis

8:00 - 8:40 AM

Ecological impacts of runoff and impact of monitoring on regulations Mike Ensminger, Senior Environmental Scientist, California Department of Pesticide Regulation

8:40 - 9:25 AM

Regulatory response to monitoring data - Using CA Code of Regulations and product labels to inform applications Alicia Scott, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Pesticide Regulation

9:25 – 10:00 AM

Critical uses for and alternatives to pyrethroid insecticide applications around structures Karey Windbiel-Rojas, Area Urban IPM Advisor, UC Statewide IPM Program

10:05 - 10:20 AM Break

10:20 - 11:35 AM Group Exercise: Overview of best practices, from calibration to recording Moderator: Darren Van Steenwyk

11:35 - 11:50 AM Post Quiz- Required for Structural Pest Control Board CEU’s

11:50 - 12:00 PM Quiz Discussion

6

Appendix B – Pilot workshop pre- & post-survey results

The following 6 questions of the pre-survey were posed to participants before instruction focus

on gaining information about the participants.

1. How long have you been a pest management professional?

2. Of the options below, which source of information do you rely on the most to learn about new regulations and label requirements?

a. Internal/company provided education 2 9.09%

b. Continuing education classes and/or workshops 7 31.82%

c. Vendors and/or pesticide suppliers 8 36.36%

d. Trade publications 1 4.55%

e. Government and regulatory agencies 4 18.18%

n= 22

3. How do you apply pyrethroids? Please select all that apply:*

a. Handcan (overhead application) 2 8.70%

b. Handcan (ground application) 6 26.09%

c. Power-rig 7 30.43%

d. Granule spreader 5 21.74%

e. I do not apply pyrethroids 3 13.04%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0-1 years 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21+ years

Year

s

How long have you been a Pest Management Professional (PMP)?

7

n= 23 *due to the set up of the question in the Turning Point program, participants were unable to choose more than one answer. Project staff will resolve this issue before the next workshop. This data is presented here for reference only.

4. I primarily use pyrethroids to control _____. (select one)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Ants Bed Bugs Cockroaches Fleas Flies Mosquitos Spiders I do not usepyrethroids

# o

f R

esp

on

ses

(N=2

3)

5. The main reason for my product selection is _____. (select one)

a. Price/economy 1 4.35%

b. Toxicity 2 8.70%

c. Previous experience with a product 14 60.87%

d. Customer preferences 0 0.00%

e. Advice from pesticide supplier/dealer 3 13.04%

f. Advice from boss/manager 3 13.04%

n= 23

6. As a PMP, I apply the most pesticides ______.

a. Outdoors 17 80.95%

b. Indoors 1 4.76%

c. Equally indoors and outdoors 3 14.29%

n= 21

8

7. On a scale of 1-5, with five being the most familiar, rate your familiarity with pyrethroid

labels, and application requirements pertaining to surface water quality?

* Project staff will reword this question before the next workshop so there is a more definitive difference between answer choices.

The following questions were posed to participants before (Pre) and after (Post) instruction

with the goal of measuring the efficacy of the workshop.

8. When applying pyrethroids to a horizontal impervious surface such as a driveway, which

of the following application methods are not permitted according to updated surface

water regulations in Title 3, California Code of Regulations Section 6970 Surface Water

Protection in Outdoor Nonagricultural Settings?

0

2

4

6

8

1 - Veryfamiliar

2 3 - Moderatelyfamiliar

4 5 - Somewhatfamiliar

# o

f R

esp

on

ses

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Crack and crevicetreatment

Spot treatment lessthan 2 sq ft.

Perimeter band application less than

2’ wide (correct)

Pin stream

# o

f R

esp

on

ses

Pre (N=21) Post (N=18)

9

9. Broadcast applications of granular pyrethroids are not permitted within __ feet of

horizontal impervious surfaces.

10. In California, pyrethroid applications can be made to vertical surfaces up to 3’ above

grade, if the label states that.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1' 2' (correct) 3' 4'

# o

f R

esp

on

ses

Pre (N=22) Post (N=19)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

True False (correct)

# o

f R

esp

on

ses

Pre (N=20) Post (N=19)

10

11. In California horizontal perimeter band treatments cannot be made 3’ or greater from

the base of a building outward.

At the end of the pilot workshop participants were surveyed to obtain feedback on workshop

performance, their responses are below:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

True (correct) False

# o

f R

esp

on

ses

Pre (N=23) Post (N=19)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Very good. I learned a lot! Pretty good. I learned somenew things.

Ok. I learned a little. Not useful.

# o

f R

esp

on

ses

Key Workshop - Overall Rating

Ecological impacts of runoff and impact of monitoring on regulations

Regulatory response to monitoring data - Using CA Code of Regulations and product labels to inform applications

Critical uses for and alternatives to pyrethroid insecticide applications around structures

Group Exercise: Overview of best practices, from calibration to recording

11

Appendix C. PCOs on SMA

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22