# Oregon Department of Agriculture

Pesticide Use Reporting System 2008 Annual Report

June 2009

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

...... ....... .................. ...... .. .. .. ............... .. .. .. .. .. ....................... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . 1

ABSTRACT

.. .... . ....... ....... ................. ...... .. .. .. ............... .. .. .. .. .. .. ...................... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 2

ONLINE SYSTEM

......... ....... .................. .. .. .. .. .. .. ............... .. .. .. ...................... . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . .... ... . 4 Overview

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Continued Issues

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Issues Specific to 2008

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

HOUSEHOLD USE

... .... .... .. ... .. .... ... ................. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ............... .. .. .. .. .. .. ......... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . .. . 19 Overview

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Issues

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Conclusions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

APPENDIX

.. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ................... ....... ............... .. .. .. .. .. .. ............... .. .. .. .. ............... ...... . .... ........ ....... ..... 30 Appendix A – Top 100 Active Ingredients and Pounds Reported

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

### LIST OF TABLES
ONLINE COMPONENT Table 1 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) for the Entire State

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 2 – Pounds Reported by Water Basin

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 3 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Water Basin

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 4 - Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Site Category

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 5 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Agriculture

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 6 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Urban/General Indoor

. . . . . . . 16 Table 7 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Urban/General Outdoor

. . . . . 17
HOUSEHOLD COMPONENT Table 8 – Main Active Ingredients Reported, Presented by Pesticide Type

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

### LIST OF FIGURES
ONLINE COMPONENT Figure 1 – Oregon Water Basin Map

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 2 – Percentage of Pounds of Active Ingredients by Site Category

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
HOUSEHOLD COMPONENT Figure 3 – State Map with Regions Used in the Household Pesticide Use Survey

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 4 – Number of Participants By Region

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 5 – Number of Reports of Pesticide Use Received By Region

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 6 – Percentage by Region of Reports that Had Sufficient Information to Determine Active Ingredients

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 7 – Reported Sites for All Data (from all 3,036 total reports received)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 8 – Reported Purposes for All Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 9 – Reported Sites for Data with Active Ingredient Information

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 10 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 11 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 12 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 13– Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 14 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 15 - Active Ingredients by Type – Entire State

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 16 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 17 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 18 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 19 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 20 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 21 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 22 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 23 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 24 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 

## INTRODUCTION This is the third annual report published for Oregon’s Pesticide Use Reporting System (PURS). The 1999 Oregon Legislature directed the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to develop and implement a system to collect, organize, and report information on all categories of pesticide use in Oregon. In order to meet this requirement, PURS includes both an online reporting component (for all non-household applicators) and a household pesticide use survey component. The online component was partially implemented in 2002 but did not collect a complete year of reports due to funding issues. Calendar year 2008 was the second full year of reporting. The Household Pesticide Use Survey began collecting information in 2006. The first presentations of household pesticide use survey information were in the PURS Amended 2006 Annual Report. The PURS 2008 Annual Report includes presentations of household survey information collected for 2008.2 

## ABSTRACT The 1999 Oregon Legislature authorized development of the Oregon Pesticide Use Reporting System (PURS). The second full year of collecting non-household pesticide use in PURS was 2008. Also, 2008 was the third year of collecting information through the Household Pesticide Use Survey. In 2008, reporters filed 343,565 reports of pesticide use into PURS. These reports identified that 19,696,784 pounds of active ingredient pesticides were used in Oregon during 2008. This included approximately 572 active ingredients. The top five active ingredients, by pounds, for the entire state were:

• Metam-sodium (20%) [soil fumigant],

• Glyphosate (10%) [herbicide],

• 1,3-dichloropropene (6%) [soil fumigant],

• Sulfuric acid (6%) [desiccant], and

• Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons (4%) [insecticide]. The greatest percentage of pounds of active ingredients was from the site category of Agriculture. Because of licensing requirements for pesticide use on agricultural and forest crops, and outreach to agricultural and forestry pesticide applicators, the assumption could be made that PURS compliance was greatest among these reporters. Each of the site categories and percentage of pounds of active ingredients are as follows:

• Agriculture (77.3%),

• Other (11.1%),

• Forestry (4.2%),

• Right-of-way (3.5%),

• Urban/General Outdoor (2.5%),

• Aquatic (1.1%),

• Urban/General Indoor (0.7%),

• Public Health/Regulatory Pests (0.2%),

• Research (<0.1%). A number of issues were again identified regarding pesticide reporters filing electronic reports into PURS. Among these issues were:

• Reporters had trouble identifying the product used.

• Reporters had varying skill levels and access regarding online reporting.

• Reporters experienced difficulty in communication between PURS and their computers.

• Reporters did not understand the reporting deadline was mandatory. In the Household Pesticide Use Survey component of PURS for 2008, 1,717 households agreed to complete use diaries. Only 1,513 households completed at least one month of reporting. More than 51% of households reported no use of pesticides. The other participants provided 3,036 reports. Only 60% of the household reports contained sufficient information to calculate pounds of active ingredients. Reasons for reports lacking sufficient information to conduct these calculations continue to include:

• Participants were unable to specify the amount of pesticide used.

• Participants were unable to determine what products were pesticides.

• Participants were unable to provide correct product identification.3 Because of these difficulties, household information was insufficient to extrapolate to all households in Oregon. The greatest percentages of pesticide applications were reported to have taken place outdoors. All types of “bugs” (fleas, insects, mosquitoes, and spiders) represented the largest percentage of purpose for control. Herbicides accounted for the largest number of pounds of active ingredients, closely followed by moss control products.4 

## ONLINE SYSTEM Overview Reporters had until January 31, 2009, to file all reports of pesticide applications made in 2008. Following the deadline, PURS only accepted reports for applications made in 2009. Staff were available to help reporters during business hours through a dedicated phone line and by e-mail. Staff also held hands-on help classes throughout the state in the fall of 2008. These classes provided reporters the opportunity to bring their records to a computer classroom and receive one-on-one assistance registering and filing their reports. In addition to these classes, staff made a number of presentations at training seminars, sent direct mailings, and updated information presented on the Web site. An update of the PURS system was released in October 2008. Most of the changes were minor visual changes. Some major changes involved how reporters submitted their reports, including: 1) combining the two reporting pages into one, 2) making it clearer on how to use the “Make Similar Report” button, 3) improving instructions available on each page, and 4) enhancing the search process for previous reports. By law, a “‘pesticide user’ means any person who uses or applies a pesticide in the course of business or any other for-profit enterprise, or for a governmental entity, or in a location that is intended for public use or access.” Some, but not all pesticide applicators are required to be licensed. Because of this, it is difficult to determine the number of entities that should be reporting into PURS. It is assumed that not all applicators that are required by PURS to report actually did so. A number of reporters called following January 31, 2009, to say they had missed the deadline. Between 2007 and 2008, there were approximately 6,290 reporters registered in PURS. PURS allows the business or organization to register as the reporter. PURS also allows individual persons actually making the pesticide application to register as the reporter. Therefore, the number of reporters does not represent the number of persons making pesticide applications. Some reporters decided to use proxies in filing their pesticide use reports. A proxy is an outside entity filing reports on behalf of the reporter. Of the 6,290 registered reporters, 264 were proxies. A total of 343,565 reports were submitted for 2008. The number of reports does not equal the number of applications. PURS allows reporters to aggregate their reports if they meet specific criteria. In order to aggregate, applications must be made within the same calendar month to the same site category and/or specific site in the same location (waterbasin or ZIP code).5 

### Continued Issues The second year of reporting continued to reveal a number of issues (discussed in detail below), including problems with:

• Product identification,

• Computer literacy, and

• PURS requirements. Reporters had trouble correctly identifying the product used.This issue is due, in part, to how pesticides are regulated. Products are assigned a unique identification (ID) number, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), when they are registered for use. This ID number, called the EPA registration number, is unique to product formulation. For marketing purposes, manufacturers may sell a product under a variety of trade names but the formulation and EPA registration number remain the same. In addition, product names are sometimes used to generically refer to an active ingredient. PURS includes all products that have been registered by the EPA or by ODA. Reporters can use either the EPA registration number or trade name of the product to search for the specific product used. Reporters who used the product name to search may not have selected the actual product used. Some reporters may have selected the first product returned in a search result list without crosschecking the EPA registration number. Therefore, they may have reported an old canceled product. Or, they may have reported a product containing different active ingredients and/or percentages of active ingredients than the product used. Reporters also expressed frustration when searching by EPA registration number that there were multiple returns for what they considered to be the same product. Under Oregon law, different product names are different products even if the products have the same formulation and the same EPA registration number. Different names can be due to a variety of reasons, one of which is marketing and labeling targeted at homeowners vs. professional applicators. EPA registration numbers are two or three part numbers separated by dashes and do not typically include letters (4-59; 9622-56-8705). The inclusion and placement of the dashes are important. The system allows reporters to manually enter the product used and that product’s EPA registration number. When the manually entered product did not match any product, the report went under review. Such situations were additional irritations for reporters. Reporters had varying skill levels and access regarding online reporting.While many people are familiar with computers, requiring online reporting was difficult for some reporters. Many reporters have never used, owned, or had access to a computer. Internet is still not available statewide. The available Internet in some areas consists of very slow dial-up access that can make reporting a difficult and time-consuming process. ODA attempted to build PURS with these reporters in mind. Graphics and other program items that slow the process down were kept to a minimum. It was also clear that reporters had difficulty navigating drop-down menus. An example would be reporters accidentally choosing Upper Sacramento for water basin when they intended to choose Willamette. Because the water basins are in alphabetical order, it is an easy mistake to select the incorrect water basin when using a mouse to select from a dropdown list. In addition to problems with Internet access and familiarity with computers in general, reporters had varying degrees of understanding of the terms used by PURS. In situations where a reporter applied the same product month after month, PURS allowed the reporter to basically make a copy of a report they had already submitted. Reporters submitted the first report and then clicked a button titled “Make Similar Report.” After clicking “Make Similar Report,” a new report was returned on the screen, pre-filled with all the data from the previous report except for the date. Reporters could then enter the new date, change quantity as needed, add additional products, and submit the new report. Staff saw a number of situations where reporters entered information6for one product, submitted the report, and clicked “Make Similar Report.” Reporters then reentered the same date and added a second product to the report. This process could be repeated multiple times. By doing this, reporters submitted the first product 20 times, the second product 19 times, etc. In situations where staff were aware of the problem and able to discuss it with the reporters, the reporters indicated they thought they were adding the products to the same report and did not understand that each one was a new report. A number of “Make Similar Report” issues were corrected but it is clear that a number of these were neither identified nor corrected. Only reports with special units (e.g. bait stations to be converted to ounces or grams) or manually entered products automatically came under staff review. ODA did not have the resources to review each report. In order to prevent the above situation, an updated version of PURS was released in October 2008. While in the past, PURS pre-filled in the amount when users clicked “Make Similar Report” the updated version left the amount blank. A user could not save the new report unless they either filled in the amount or removed the product from the list. It is expected that this change, in addition to better instructions, greatly reduced the number of unintentional duplicate reports. Reporters experienced difficulty in communication between PURS and their computers. It appeared that some Internet browsers were kicking reporters out of PURS or creating other issues when reporters were trying to navigate the system. This varied from annoying to extremely frustrating for reporters not familiar with computers. Reporters did not understand the reporting deadline was mandatory. Reports for applications made in calendar year 2008 were due no later than midnight January 31, 2009. After midnight January 31, PURS only allowed reports to be submitted with use dates of 2009. It was obvious from the call load that many reporters waited until January to file their reports. ODA was clear from the beginning of PURS that January 31 is the reporting deadline. Some reporters indicated they had assumed that because the reporting deadline fell on a weekend day, that they would have until the following Monday to file their reports. It was announced on the PURS website that January 31, 2009, was the reporting deadline and that Staff would be available between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm on the deadline. Staff still received numerous phone calls following January 31 from reporters who were trying to file reports with dates in 2008 unable to submit their reports. 

### Issues Specific to 2008 2008 had a couple situations that were new. 2008 saw an increase in the total number of reports along with a nearly 50% reduction in the total pounds of active ingredient reported. It is likely the increased reports were from pest control companies who submit their reports via electronic data submission (EDS). Many pest control companies maintain their records in electronic software. While the software companies provided many of these pest control companies upgrades that allowed them to file their PURS reports using EDS, many of the software companies did not provide these upgrades until 2008. Because they were waiting for the upgrades, a lot of the pest control companies told staff they did not file reports for 2007. The products that pest control companies use typically contain very low percentages of active ingredients. Because of this, the increase in reports would not contribute much to the total pounds active ingredients. It is likely that the upgrade in October 2008 greatly reduced the number of duplicate reports. While there is no way to quantify the number of duplicate reports submitted in 2007, staff agree that the number was likely a large percentage. With education and changes to the system to 2008, it is possible that the reduction to duplicate reports likely contributed to the reduction in total pounds active ingredients.7 In 2007, copper naphthenate was number three in the top five active ingredients (in pounds).After the 2007 report was released, one of the companies that use large amounts of copper naphthenate contacted the Department of Agriculture and explained that they had mistakenly reported the diluted amount of product used rather than amount of undiluted. This meant that the active ingredient was artificially elevated in the list. After the reporting deadline for 2008, the same company contacted the Department of Agriculture and explained that rather than over report the product, they had failed to report at all for 2008. This too contributed to the drop in total pounds active ingredients.


### Conclusions Five hundred and seventy-two (572) different active ingredients were reported used in 2008. Below are the top five pesticides by pounds of active ingredient. The top 100 pesticides used, in pounds of active ingredient, can be found in Appendix A. This report does not include an analysis of pesticide use trends since only two years worth of data have been collected. Additional tables follow providing information by water basin. Information for Urban/General Indoor and Urban/General Outdoor were reported by ZIP code. In order to compare all information by water basin, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) was used to determine the predominant water basin for each ZIP code. On the next page, a map of Oregon water basins, as well as a list of site categories and specific sites, is presented.8 Figure 1 – Oregon Water Basin Map
Site Categories and/or Specific Sites

• Agriculture o Field crops o Fruits/nuts o Livestock/poultry o Nursery/Christmas tress o Oil Crops o Pasture/forage/hay o Seed crops o Vegetables o Other

• Aquatic

• Forestry

• Public health/regulatory pests

• Research

• Right-of-way

• Urban/general indoor o Dwelling/residence o Site with public access o Site with non-public access o Other

• Urban/general outdoor o Site associated with dwelling/residence o Site with public access o Site with non-public access o Other

• Other9 Table 1 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) for the Entire State

ACTIVE I NGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE Total 19,696,784 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 3,980,871 20% Glyphosate Herbicide 1,914,144 10% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 1,214,251 6% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Desiccant 1,097,237 6% Sulfuric acid Insecticide 852,789 4% All others Various 10,637,492 54% Table 2 – Pounds Reported by Water Basin

WATER BASIN LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE Middle Columbia 7,482,839 38% Willamette 4,515,486 23% Southern Oregon Coastal 3,098,503 16% Middle Snake-Boise 1,537,464 8% Klamath 898,157 5% Lower Columbia 735,262 4% Middle Snake-Powder 445,819 2% Deschutes 333,055 2% John Day 240,586 1% Lower Snake 214,744 1% Northern Oregon Coastal 123,611 <1% Oregon Closed Basins 63,531 <1% Upper Sacramento 5,203 <1% Black Rock Desert 2,105 <1% Northern California Coastal 419 <1% Table 3 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Water Basin

WATER BASIN ACTIVE I NGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE1
Black Rock Desert 2,105 Diuron Herbicide 1,160 55% Glyphosate Herbicide 468 22% Potassium permanganate Disinfectant 107 5% Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 73 3% Pyraclostrobin Fungicide All others Various 247 12% Deschutes 333,055 Xylene range aromatic solvent Aquatic herbicide 48,551 15% 2,4-D Herbicide 41,457 12% Glyphosate Herbicide 35,931 11% Boric acid Insecticide 35,097 11% Diuron Herbicide 20,092 6% All others Various 151,927 46%10 John Day 240,586 Glyphosate Herbicide 105,040 44% 2,4-D Herbicide 67,572 28% Boric acid Insecticide 40,910 17% Diuron Herbicide 7,747 3% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 2,672 1% All others Various 16,645 7% Klamath 898,157 Methyl bromide Fumigant/soil fumigant 265,977 30% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 175,671 20% Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 173,533 19% Chloropicrin Fumigant/soil fumigant 172,505 19% Tebuconazole Fungicide 15,136 2% All others Various 95,336 11% Lower Columbia 735,262 Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 232,383 32% Glyphosate Herbicide 93,950 13% Boric acid Insecticide 75,280 10% Copper hydroxide Fungicide 50,994 7% Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 46,091 6% All others Various 236,564 32% Lower Snake 214,744 Glyphosate Herbicide 68,315 32% 2,4-D Herbicide 20,537 10% Diuron Herbicide 14,567 7% MCPA Herbicide 14,287 7% Paraquat dichloride Herbicide 10,188 5% All others Various 86,848 40% Middle Columbia 7,482,839 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 3,129,778 42% Glyphosate Herbicide 760,251 10% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 633,870 8% Sulfuric acid Desiccant 609,106 8% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 466,556 6% All others Various 1,883,278 25%Middle SnakePowder 445,819 Sulfuric acid Desiccant 243,655 55% Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 43,826 10% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 42,019 9% Xylene range aromatic solvent Aquatic herbicide 23,339 5% Chloropicrin Fumigant/soil fumigant 11,957 3% All others Various 81,023 18%11Middle SnakeBoise 1,537,464 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 459,860 30%Potassium Nmethyldithiocarbamate Soil fumigant 364,991 24% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 318,917 21% Xylene range aromatic solvent Aquatic herbicide 77,093 5% Glyphosate Herbicide 46,793 3% All others Various 269,811 18% Northern California Coastal 419

2,4-D Herbicide 189 45% Triclopyr Herbicide 170 41% Glyphosate Herbicide 30 7% Difenoconazole Fungicide 13 3% Thiamethoxam Insecticide 10 2% All others Various 7 2% Northern Oregon Coastal 123,611
Glyphosate Herbicide 31,032 25% Atrazine Herbicide 16,426 13% 2,4-D Herbicide 12,191 10% Sulfur Fungicide 11,985 10% Hexazinone Herbicide 11,118 9% All others Various 40,859 33% Oregon Closed Basins 63,531 Glyphosate Herbicide 16,987 27% 2,4-D Herbicide 15,453 24% Diuron Herbicide 6,846 11% Atrazine Herbicide 5,877 9% Hexazinone Herbicide 5,009 8% All others Various 13,360 21% Southern Oregon Coastal 3,098,503

Boric acid Insecticide 672,503 22% Copper ethanolamine complex Algaecide 600,546 19% Copper ammonium carbonate Wood preservative 427,195 14% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 308,906 10% Kaolin Various 232,540 8% All others Various 856,812 28%12 Upper Sacramento 5,203 Diuron Herbicide 1,684 32% 2,4-D Herbicide 1,326 25% Glyphosate Herbicide 681 13% Hexazinone Herbicide 215 4% Dicamba Herbicide 200 4% All others Various 1,098 21% Willamette 4,515,486 Glyphosate Herbicide 635,750 14% 2,4-D Herbicide 257,805 6% Diuron Herbicide 251,660 5% Pendimethalin Herbicide 163,495 4% Methyl bromide Fumigant/soil fumigant 154,339 3% All others Various 3,052,438 68% 1 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Breaking out the pounds of active ingredients reported by site category, agriculture accounted for the largest percentage. Because of licensing requirements for pesticide use on agricultural and forest crops, and outreach to agricultural and forestry pesticide applicators, the assumption could be made that PURS compliance was greatest among these reporters. There is no mechanism within PURS to determine compliance with PURS requirements. Figure 2, below, shows all site categories by percentage pounds of active ingredients reported.

Public health/regulatory pest 0.2% Forestry

4.2%

Urban/ general indoor 0.7%

Right-of-way

3.5% Urban/ general outdoor 2.5% Other 11.1% Aquatic 1.1%

Agriculture

77.3%

Note: Research was <0.1% Figure 2 – Percentage of Pounds of Active Ingredients by Site Category Below are additional tables that show the top five active ingredients by pounds reported for each of the site categories and/or specific sites (Agriculture, Urban/General Indoor, and Urban/General Outdoor all have specific sites).13 Table 4 - Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Site Category

SITE ACTIVE I NGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE1 Agriculture 15,221,190 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 3,957,670 26% Glyphosate Herbicide 1,563,656 10% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 1,214,251 8% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 1,081,302 7% Sulfuric acid Desiccant 852,787 6% All others Various 6,555,524 43% Aquatic 206,961 Xylene range aromatic solvent Aquatic herbicide 142,646 69% Acrolein Herbicide 46,475 22% Sodium percarbonate Algaecide 10,200 5% Copper sulfate pentahydrate Algaecide/ herbicide 5,624 3% Glyphosate Herbicide 508 <1% All others Various 1,509 1% Forestry 820,541 Glyphosate Herbicide 226,225 28% Atrazine Herbicide 181,539 22% 2,4-D Herbicide 150,895 18% Hexazinone Herbicide 77,754 9% Triclopyr Herbicide 65,868 8% All others Various 118,260 14% Public Health/ Regulatory Pest 32,383
Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 5,677 18% Malathion Insecticide 5,294 16% 2,4-D Herbicide 4,702 15% BT israelensis Insecticide 4,134 13% Naled Insecticide 3,135 10% All others Various 9,441 29% Research 923 Glyphosate Herbicide 238 26% Calcium polysulfide Fungicide 108 12% 2,4-D Herbicide 77 8% Oryzalin Herbicide 73 8% Dimethoate Insecticide 48 5% All others Various 379 41% Right-of-way 683,408 Boric acid Insecticide 155,181 23% Diuron Herbicide 110,170 16% Sodium bifluoride Wood preservative 100,395 15% Glyphosate Herbicide 71,969 11% 2,4-D Herbicide 58,805 9% All others Various 186,888 27%14 Urban/General Indoor 144,851 Copper ammonium carbonate Wood preservative 65,008 45% Tebuconazole Fungicide 33,344 23% Methyl bromide Fumigant/soil fumigant 15,422 11% Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 7,484 5% Boric acid Insecticide 6,262 4% All others Various 17,330 12% Urban/General Outdoor 391,700 Cyfluthrin Insecticide 101,677 26% Bifenthrin Insecticide 37,174 9% Oryzalin Herbicide 30,994 8% Glyphosate Herbicide 30,757 8% 2,4-D Herbicide 20,453 5% All others Various 170,655 44% Other 2,190,827 Boric acid Insecticide 663,552 30% Copper ethanolamine complex Algaecide 600,546 27% Copper ammonium carbonate Wood preservative 427,195 19% Chromic acid Wood preservative 122,935 6% Copper oxides Marine organism control/wood prervative 120,705 6%

All others Various 255,894 12% 1 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.15 Table 5 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Agriculture

S PECIFIC SITE ACTIVE I NGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE1 Field Crops 6,056,435 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 2,837,319 47% Glyphosate Herbicide 877,631 14% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 699,486 12% 2,4-D Herbicide 348,805 6%Potassium Nmethyldithiocarbamate Soil fumigant 332,280 5% All others Various 960,913 16% Fruits/Nuts 2,846,295 Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 1,044,558 37% Mineral oil Insecticide 316,474 11% Kaolin Various 238,344 8% Sulfur Fungicide 215,002 8% Glyphosate Herbicide 126,184 4% All others Various 905,733 32% Livestock/Poultry 6,170 Tetrachlorvinphos Insecticide 2,154 35% Phosmet Insecticide 1,077 17% Glyphosate Herbicide 794 13% Piperonyl butoxide Insecticide 758 12% MCPA Herbicide 367 6% All others Various 1,020 17% Nursery/Christmas Trees 1,210,355 Methyl bromide Fumigant/soil fumigant 396,880 33% Chloropicrin Fumigant/soil fumigant 252,300 21% Glyphosate Herbicide 64,713 5% Chlorothalonil Fungicide 49,303 4% Oxyflurofen Herbicide 33,188 3% All others Various 413,972 34% Oil Crops 27,671 Terbacil Herbicide 3,544 13% Propargite Insecticide 3,199 12% Ethoprop Insecticide 3,155 11% Glyphosate Herbicide 3,015 11% Acephate Insecticide 2,867 10% All others Various 11,892 43% Pasture/Forage/Hay 181,855 Glyphosate Herbicide 50,538 28% 2,4-D Herbicide 30,162 17% Paraquat dichloride Herbicide 20,275 11% Diuron Herbicide 15,317 8% Metribuzin Herbicide 10,790 6% All others Various 54,774 30%16 Seed Crops 1,589,048 Glyphosate Herbicide 261,091 16% Diuron Herbicide 148,744 9% Pendimethalin Herbicide 126,571 8% Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 102,956 6% 2,4-D Herbicide 99,276 6% All others Various 850,411 54% Vegetables 3,071,305 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 1,014,538 33% Sulfuric acid Desiccant 852,642 28% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 451,603 15%Potassium Nmethyldithiocarbamate Soil fumigant 151,718 5% EPTC Herbicide 71,945 2% All others Various 528,858 17% Other 236,055 Glyphosate Herbicide 133,785 57% 2,4-D Herbicide 28,325 12% Chloropicrin Fumigant/soil fumigant 22,293 9% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 10,721 5% Imidacloprid Insecticide 5,663 2% All others Various 35,268 15% 1 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Table 6 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Urban/General Indoor

S PECIFIC SITE ACTIVE I NGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE Dwelling/Residence 11,824 Boric acid Insecticide 5,817 49% Bifenthrin Insecticide 2,662 23% Diuron Herbicide 717 6% Sulfuryl fluoride Fumigant 520 4% Cyhalothrin Insecticide 257 2% All others Various 1,850 16% Site with Public Access 3,775 Sulfuryl fluoride Fumigant 592 16% Aluminum phosphide Fumigant 414 11% Boric acid Insecticide 397 11% Glyphosate Herbicide 277 7% Bifenthrin Insecticide 275 7% All others Various 1,819 48%17Site with Nonpublic Access 86,960 Copper ammonium carbonate Wood preservative 65,008 75% Methyl bromide Fumigant/soil fumigant 15,422 18% Thiram Fungicide 1,194 1% Chloropropham Plant growth regulator 1,016 1%Sodium ophenylphenate Fungicide 710 1% All others Various 3,610 4% Other 42,292 Tebuconazole Fungicide 33,344 79% Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 7,484 18% Imidacloprid Insecticide 667 2% 3-iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC) Fungicide 354 1% Propiconazole Fungicide 342 1% All others Various 101 <1%

Table 7 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Urban/General

Outdoor S PECIFIC SITE ACTIVE I NGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE1
Site Associated w/ Dwelling/Residence 217,812 Cyfluthrin Insecticide 101,302 47% Bifenthrin Insecticide 35,949 17% Mineral oil Insecticide 14,389 7% Oryzalin Herbicide 11,728 5% Boric acid Insecticide 6,602 3% All others Various 47,842 22% Site with Public Access 142,792 Glyphosate Herbicide 23,436 16% Oryzalin Herbicide 18,914 13% Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) Fungicide 16,245 11% Chlorothalonil Fungicide 12,015 8% 2,4-D Herbicide 11,789 8% All others Various 60,392 42%Site with NonPublic Access 26,088 Aluminum phosphide Fumigant 4,006 15% Diuron Herbicide 3,711 14% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 3,267 13% Glyphosate Herbicide 2,631 10% 2,4-D Herbicide 1,419 5% All others Various 11,055 42%18 Other 5,009 2,4-D Herbicide 2,582 52% Dicamba Herbicide 861 17% Diuron Herbicide 696 14% Glyphosate Herbicide 331 7% Bifenthrin Insecticide 229 5% All others Various 308 6% 1 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.19 

## HOUSEHOLD USE Overview The Gilmore Research Group (Gilmore) continued the Household Pesticide Use Survey in 2008. Gilmore telephone screeners were used to recruit households to participate in the diary portion of the survey. Using a purchased sample of phone numbers selected randomly from throughout Oregon, Gilmore contacted a total of 13,737 households in 2008. During the telephone contact, respondents were asked if they would be willing to use a diary form to keep track of the use of pest control products over a three-month period. Approximately 12% of all households contacted agreed to participate in the diary portion of the survey. For those who agreed to participate in the diary portion, Gilmore mailed reporting forms within one week of recruitment. The mailing included a letter from the ODA director thanking the respondent for agreeing to participate and provided phone numbers and a web site. To address the fact that many households did not fill out diary forms on a regular basis or with complete information, Gilmore made monthly telephone calls to participants. The calls were used to remind participants to keep track of their use of pest control products. Through these calls, Gilmore obtained interim monthly pesticide use information, which was later compared with the contents of submitted diary forms. The state was divided into nine regions according to counties (Figure 3). Each quarter, attempts were made to obtain minimum numbers of participants for each region totaling at least 250 participants per quarter from the entire state. The percentage of participants for each region was to be 10% with the exception of region 6 at 17%. This method was used to obtain information from throughout Oregon rather than just from the areas of highest population, such as in and around the Portland Metro area.

Figure 3 – State Map with Regions Used in the Household Pesticide Use Survey20 Figure 4, below, illustrates the number of participants by region.

179 180 262 181 182 183 181 181

188

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Region 9 Region 8 Region 7 Region 6 Region 5 Region 4 Region 3 Region 2 Region 1

Figure 4 – Number of Participants By Region
A total of 1,717 households agreed to complete use diaries. However, only 1,513 participants actually completed at least one month of reporting. Of those, 776 reported that they did not use any pesticides during the quarter in which they participated. The other 737 participants provided 3,036 reports (Figure 5). Approximately 60% of the reports contained sufficient information to calculate pounds of active ingredients.

0 100 200 300 400 500 Region 9 Region 8 Region 7 Region 6 Region 5 Region 4 Region 3 Region 2 Region 1

All data Data with sufficient information to determine active ingredients Figure 5 – Number of Reports of Pesticide Use Received By Region



### Issues The most significant issue continues to be not being able to calculate pounds of active ingredient used from the information reported. Several reasons why reports contained insufficient information to calculate pounds of active ingredients included: 

# • Participants were unable to specify amount of pesticide used.For some products, such as those in spray cans, it is difficult to provide actual amounts used. 

# • Participants were unable to determine what products were pesticides. Under federal and Oregon law, “pesticide” is a very broad term that includes insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, fungicides, etc. Basically, anything that kills, repels, or mitigates a pest is a pesticide. Many persons do not understand this meaning of “pesticide.” Thus, some products that are pesticides may not have been reported. And, some products that are not pesticides were reported. It is because of this confusion that ODA chose to use the term “pest control products” rather than “pesticide” when conducting the Household Pesticide Use Survey.21 

# • Participants did not provide correct product identification. 1. Each pesticide product is assigned a unique registration number by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This EPA registration number is on the label of each product and identifies that product. The survey used this EPA registration number to identify specific products used. A number of reports did not include the EPA registration number. Some reports included another number, such as the barcode, instead of the EPA registration number. 2. Relying only upon a product’s name may not identify the specific product used. For example, there are about 75 different products that contain “Roundup TM ” in the trade name. Some contain the single active ingredient glyphosate but in varying concentrations. Some contain additional active ingredients. In addition, there are a number of “generic” products containing glyphosate that some persons may refer to as “Roundup TM .” Despite education outreach activities by ODA and Gilmore, many participants did not understand how to identify the product used. 3. The Department did ask Gilmore to collect bar code information during 2008 in hopes of having an alternative way to identify the product. This did not work however. Participants did not always provide the barcode and many of the barcodes provided did not adequately identify the product used.


### Conclusions Households that reported continue to show that participants have difficulty identifying pesticide products. There are also continued concerns about the ability of pesticide users to read the label and correctly identify information. Herbicides accounted for the greatest percentage of pounds active ingredient in 2008 at 53%. By reported purpose, herbicides accounted for 22% of the reports. Of the herbicides, phenoxies (a chemical family) accounted for 28%. Moss control products accounted for 33% of the pounds of active ingredient, but only 1.3% of the reports identified moss control as the purpose. Moss control products contain higher percentages of active ingredients and typically have higher application rates, than do other types of products. One specific chemical grouping, including pyrethrins and synthetic pyrethroids, accounted for 9% of total insecticide poundage. Organophosphates, another insecticide chemical group, accounted for 67% of total insecticide poundage, while carbamates accounted for 5%. Overall, looking at pounds of active ingredient, the greatest number of pounds reported were for:

• glyphosate (30%) [weed control],

• ferrous sulfate monohydrate (21%) [moss control],

• 2,4-D (12%) [weed control],

• zinc sulfate monohydrate (11%) [moss control], and

• malathion (6%) [insect control]. The main five active ingredients by greatest number of records were:

• permethrin (8%) [insect control],

• glyphosate (7%) [weed control],

• tetramethrin (5%) [insect control],

• methoprene (5%) [insect control], and

• imidacloprid (4%) [insect control].22 Table 8, identifies active ingredients by type and highlights those that were reported in the greatest amount. In total, 99 active ingredients were identified as being used. Table 8 – Main Active Ingredients Reported, Presented by Pesticide Type ACTIVE I NGREDIENT LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE1 I NSECTICIDES 15.87 Total Malathion 10.29 65% Canola oil 0.92 6% Carbaryl 0.78 5% Bifenthrin 0.59 4% Diatomaceous earth 0.45 3% All others 2.85 18% H ERBICIDES 85.64 Total Glyphosate 48.44 57% 2,4-D 18.69 22% MCPA 3.37 4% Dicamba 2.67 3% Triclopyr 2.49 3% All others 9.98 12% M OSS CONTROL 53.76 Total Ferrous sulfate monohydrate 33.79 63% Zinc sulfate monohydrate 18.22 34% Ferric sulfate 1.42 3% Ammonium salts of fatty acids 0.34 1% RODENTICIDES2 0.0093 Total Zinc phosphide 0.0042 45% Strychnine 0.0038 40% Bromadiolone 0.0080 9% Brodifacoum 0.0050 5% Diphacinone 0.0001 1% All others <0.0001 <1% I NSECT REPELLENTS 1.89 Total DEET 1.26 67% Oil of citronella 0.61 32% Picaridin 0.02 1% FUNGICIDES 0.49 Total Calcium polysulfide 0.16 34% Captan 0.14 28% Tebuconazole 0.07 15% Sulfur 0.05 10% Triforine 0.03 6% All others 0.04 8% S LUG/SNAIL CONTROL 3.22 Total Metaldehyde 2.87 89% Iron phosphate 0.35 11% ANIMAL REPELLENT 0.42 Total Castor oil 0.42 100% 1 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 2Rodenticides contain very low percentages of active ingredient. Therefore, the total poundage used was quite low and are

presented to the fourth decimal place.23 The number of reports with sufficient information to determine pounds of active ingredients varied some among the nine regions. Figure 6, below, illustrates this.

Region 9 13.0%

Region 8

9.9%

Region 7 14.8%

Region 6 15.9% Region 5 8.3% Region 4 11.4% Region 1

7.1%

Region 3 13.7% Region 2

5.9%

Figure 6 – Percentage by Region of Reports that Had Sufficient Information to Determine Active Ingredients While approximately 40% of the reports contained insufficient information to determine pounds of active ingredient used, most did contain information about site of pesticide application and the intended purpose for the application. Following are summaries about site and purpose of reported pesticide use, both for all reports and those that contained sufficient information to calculate pounds of active ingredients. The purpose of product use, presented by quarter is also included for reports that contained sufficient data to calculate pounds of active ingredient. (Note: Percentages in the following charts may not add to 100% due to rounding.)

Indoor 16.9%

Both 2.1% No Information 0.5% Pets 22.8%

Outdoor 57.1%

Other 0.7% Figure 7 – Reported Sites for All Data (from all 3,036 total reports received)24 Other 2.4% No Information 0.4% Moss 1.5% Plant Disease

1.8% Rodents 4.6% Snail/Slug

8.1% Weeds 20.5%

Mosquitoes 4.4% Spiders 1.5% Fleas 23.3% Insects 31.5% All Types of

"Bugs"

62%

Figure 8 – Reported Purposes for All Data

Outdoor 60.9%

Other 1.0% Pets 17.5%

Both 1.2%

Indoor 19.4%

Figure 9 – Reported Sites for Data with Active Ingredient Information

Spiders 1.3%

Mosquitoes

4.8% Fleas 18.4%

Other 2.0% Moss 1.3% Plant Disease

1.9% Rodents 4.9% Snail/Slug

9.3%

Weeds 21.6%

Insects 34.4% All Types of

"Bugs" 58.9%

Figure 10 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information25 Moss 2.7% Other 2.3% Plant Disease

2.3% Rodents 7.7% Snail/Slug

1.8% Fleas 40.5% Mosquitoes

0.5% Spiders 3.6% Weeds 16.4% Insects 22.3% All Types of

"Bugs" 66.8%

Figure 11 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 1

Other 2.4% Plant Disease

3.0% Rodents 2.3% Fleas 9.5% Mosquitoes

8.5% Spiders 0.5% Insects 29.6%

Moss 1.5% Snail/Slug

15.1%

Weeds 27.7%

All Types of "Bugs" 48.1%

Figure 12 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 2

Other 2.0% Plant Disease

1.2% Rodents 4.7% Snail/Slug

6.7% Weeds 21.6%

Fleas 12.9% Mosquitoes

4.0% Spiders 1.6% Moss 0.3% Insects 44.9% All Types of

"Bugs" 63.5%

Figure 13– Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 326 Other 0.4% Plant Disease

0.4% Rodents 10.8% Snail/Slug

5.2% Fleas 39.2% Spiders 1.2%

Moss 2.4% Weeds 8.4% Insects 32.0% All Types of

"Bugs" 72.4%

Figure 14 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 4 The following (Figure 15) illustrates the pesticide types reported by percentage pounds of active ingredient. Additional charts are included below that separate this information out for the nine regions. Type of pesticide is related to purpose information previously presented. For example, herbicides are used for weed control, insecticides are used for “bug” control, etc.

Animal repellent 0.3% Fungicide 0.3% Slug/snail control 2.0%

Moss control

33.3%

Insect repellent 1.2%

Insecticide 9.8% Herbicide 53.1%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 15 - Active Ingredients by Type – Entire State

Insecticide

5.7% Moss Control

38.8%

Herbicide 53.8% Fungicide

1.8%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 16 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 127 Herbicide 89.4% Fungicide

0.1% Insecticide

10.5%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 17 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 2

Insecticide

9.2% Insect repellent 16.9%

Herbicide 73.4% Slug/snail control 0.5%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 18 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 3

Insecticide

9.0% Fungicide 0.7%

Herbicide 52.4% Slug/snail control 0.9%

Moss control

36.9%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 19 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 428 Herbicide 81.3% Moss control

6.8%

Insecticide

11.7% Fungicide 0.3%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 20 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 5

Fungicide

0.3% Slug/snail control 2.0%

Moss control

66.4% Insecticide 2.1% Herbicide 29.2%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 21 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 6

Moss control

38.9%

Insecticide 1.1% Herbicide 58.8% Fungicide

0.1% Slug/snail control 1.0%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 22 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 729 Moss control

1.8% Insect repellent 4.5% Slug/snail control 4.5%

Insecticide

9.1%

Herbicide 80.1%

Note: Rodenticide and Fungicide were <0.1% Figure 23 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 8

Slug/snail control 6.4% Fungicide 0.2%

Moss control

17.5%

insect Repellent 0.2%

Insecticide 46.6% Herbicide 29.0%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 24 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 930 

## APPENDIX Appendix A – Top 100 Active Ingredients and Pounds Reported

# ACTIVE I NGREDIENT LBS. REPORTED 1 Metam-sodium 3,980,871 2 Glyphosate 1,914,144 3 1,3-Dichloropropene 1,214,251 4 Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons 1,097,237 5 Sulfuric acid 852,789 6 Boric acid 837,341 7 2,4-D 778,878 8 Copper ethanolamine complex 600,636 9 Copper ammonium carbonate 492,203 10 Potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate 483,999 11 Methyl bromide 435,656 12 Chloropicrin 400,936 13 Diuron 385,174 14 Mineral oil 339,466 15 Sulfur 255,627 16 Kaolin 240,653 17 MCPA 240,142 18 Atrazine 228,305 19 Pendimethalin 222,578 20 Chlorothalonil 211,140 21 Mancozeb 192,842 22 Chlorpyrifos 184,265 23 Copper hydroxide 166,010 24 Xylene range aromatic solvent 149,012 25 Triclopyr 125,542 26 Copper oxide 124,358 27 Chromic acid 122,935 28 Ethofumesate 121,520 29 EPTC 120,030 30 Calcium polysulfide 114,912 31 Hexazinone 105,284 32 Cyfluthrin 105,082 33 Sodium bifluoride 100,395 34 Dicamba 96,964 35 Trifluralin 95,759 36 Paraquat dichloride 94,046 37 Flufenacet 87,992 38 Arsenic acid anhydride 86,702 39 Metribuzin 83,186 40 Bromoxynil 79,103 41 Oryzalin 70,22231 42 Malathion 62,245 43 Copper naphthenate 60,658 44 Oxyfluorfen 59,499 45 Oxamyl 58,606 46 Tebuconazole 57,174 47 Metaolachlor 55,969 48 Propiconazole 54,489 49 Bifenthrin 51,882 50 Clopyralid 48,592 51 Acrolein 46,732 52 Dimethenamid 42,538 53 Ethoprop 40,004 54 Trifloxystrobin 34,768 55 Diazinon 33,491 56 PCNB 33,295 57 Pentachlorophenol 30,770 58 Prohexadione calcium 30,327 59 Imazapyr 29,859 60 Imidan 29,352 61 Pine oil 28,963 62 Simazine 28,855 63 Ziram 27,030 64 Thiophanate-methyl 26,799 65 Aluminum phosphide 26,582 66 Methomyl 25,652 67 Sodium bentazon 25,244 68 Iprodione 25,144 69 Dazomet 24,891 70 Acephate 23,975 71 Dimethoate 21,352 72 Maleic hydrazide 21,251 73 Metaldehyde 20,763 74 Napropamide 20,702 75 Chlorpropham 20,385 76 Basic copper sulfate 20,018 77 Copper sulfate pentahydrate 19,529 78 Azoxystrobin 18,949 79 Propargite 18,937 80 Endosulfan 18,576 81 Carbaryl 17,189 82 Imidacloprid 16,922 83 Sulfometuron methyl 16,866 84 Diclofop-methyl 16,713 85 Sodium percarbonate 15,607 86 Ammonia 14,989 87 Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki 14,88032 88 Isoxaben 14,847 89 phosphorous acid 14,315 90 Trinexapac-ethyl 13,982 91 Captan 13,030 92 Pyraclostrobin 12,935 93 Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 12,646 94 Aminopyralid 12,466 95 IPBC 12,433 96 Zinc phosphide 12,367 97 Carbonic acid, monopotassium salt 12,250 98 Azinphos-Methyl 11,734 99 Bromacil 11,189 100 Dichlobenil 10,746