### APPENDIX 1 a

– SUMMARY OF APPLICATION METHOD ADJUSTMENT

FACTORS AND METHOD USE FRACTIONS

Table A1

- 1

. Application Method Adjustment Factors for 2004

- 2 0 07

.

AMAF

Fumigation

Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate

Shallow injection

w/ high

permeability tarp

or no tarp

broadcast 61* 64* 74* not

applicable not

applicable not

applicable

Shallow injection

w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast not

applicable 44 48 not

applicable not

applicable not

applicable

Shallow injection

w/ high

permeability tarp

or no tarp

- bed not

applicable 64* 100* 77* not

applicable not

applicable

Shallow injection

w/ low

permeability tarp

bed not

applicable 64* 100* not

applicable not

applicable not

applicable

Shallow injection

w/ water treatments 41 20 not

applicable 21 not

applicable not

applicable

Shallow injection

w/ soil cap not

applicable not applicable not

applicable 14 not

applicable not

applicable

Deep injection w/

high permeability

tarp or no tarp

broadcast 41 64* 74* not

applicable not

applicable not

applicable

Deep injection w/

low permeability

tarp

- broadcast not

applicable 44 48 not

applicable not

applicable not

applicable

Deep injection w/

water treatments 27 20 not

applicable not

applicable not

applicable not

applicable

Rotovate/rototill not

applicable not applicable not

applicable 14 17 not

applicable

Sprinkler not

applicable not applicable not

applicable 77* not

applicable 10

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments not

applicable not applicable not

applicable 21 not

applicable not

applicable

Flood not

applicable not applicable not

applicable 77* not

applicable 10

Drip w/ high

permeability tarp

or no tarp 29 not applicable not

applicable 9 not

applicable 10

Drip w/ low

permeability tarp not

applicable 15 not

applicable 9 not

applicable not

applicable

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

harvest) not

applicable 100 100 not

applicable not

applicable not

applicable

* These are considered “high

- emission” fumigation methods and are prohibited within the San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert, and

Ventura NAAs during May

- October.

### Table A1

- 2

. 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

-

D 2 Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam 3 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 4

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 42 37

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 42 36 3

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap 15

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 16 14

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- broadcast

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 2 100

Sprinkler 55 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 10 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 10 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 5

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 13

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 Use of 1,3

- D was suspended in early 1990.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied.

4 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide app lied.

### Table A1

- 3

. 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

-

D 2 Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam 3 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 4

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 29 29

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 29 29 8

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap 25

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 42 42

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- broadcast

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 3 100

Sprinkler 60 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 2 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 2

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest)

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 Use of 1,3

- D was suspended in early 1990.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

. 4 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 4

. 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

-

D 2 Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam 3 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 4

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 50 35

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 50 34 10

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- broadcast

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 30 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 50 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 5

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 31

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 Use of 1,3

- D was suspended in early 1990.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

4 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 5

. 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Ventura nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

-

D 2 Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam 3 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 4

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 50 49

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 50 49 20

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- broadcast

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 50 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 15 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 15

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 3

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 Use of 1,3

- D was suspended in early 1990.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MI TC applied

4 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 6

. 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the South Coast nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

-

D 2 Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam 3 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 4

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 50 3

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 50 3 20

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- broadcast

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 50 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 15 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 15

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 95

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 Use of 1,3

- D was suspended in early 1990.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

4 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 7

. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 56.0 11.3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 33.0 6.3

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap 15

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 99

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 11.4

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 45 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 1 9 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 11.0 10

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 70.9

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

. 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 8

. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 2

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 97.0 79.5

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 0.6

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap 20

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 97 1.0

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 1.0 16.3

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 35 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 1 14 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 10

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 1.0 3.7

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

. 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide app lied.

### Table A1

- 9

. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 88 77.1

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 6

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 18.9

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 10

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 1.1

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 75 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 90 5 7 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 5 12

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 2 2.9

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 10

. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Ventura nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 1

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 67 100.0

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments 25

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 4

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments 20

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 95 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 33 50

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest)

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon di sulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 11

. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the South Coast nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 40 60.9

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 25

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 36 30.8

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 2

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 0.5

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 20 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 98 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 24 50

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 7.8

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide appl ied.

### Table A1

- 12

. 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 3

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 56.0 11.3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 33.0 6.3

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap 15

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 95

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 11.4

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 45 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 2 9 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 11.0 10

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 70.9

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 13

. 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 2

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 97.0 79.5

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 0.6

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap 20

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 97 1.0

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 1.0 16.3

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 35 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 1 14 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 10

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 1.0 3.7

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 14

. 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 88.0 77.1

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 6

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 18.9

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 16

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 0.2 1.1

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 75 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 84 5.0 7 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 5.0 12

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 2.0 2.9

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 15

. 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Ventura nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 67.0 100.0

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments 25

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 7

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments 20

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 93 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 33.0 50

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest)

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide appli ed.

### Table A1

- 16

. 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the South Coast nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 40.0 60.9

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 25

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 36.0 30.8

Shallow injection w/

water treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 0.5

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 20 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 100 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 24.0 50

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 7.8

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 17

. 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 0.0

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 56.0 11.3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 33.0 6.3

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap 15

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 99.9

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 11.4

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 45 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 0.1 9 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 11.0 10

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 70.9

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 18

. 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 0.3

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 97.0 79.5

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 0.6

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap 20

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 99.3 1.0

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 1.0 16.3

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 35 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 0.4 14 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 10

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 1.0 3.7

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon d isulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 19

. 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 0.4

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 88.0 77.1

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 6

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 18.9

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 0.0

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 0.2 1.1

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 75 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 99.6 5.0 7 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 5.0 12

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 2.0 2.9

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 20

. 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Ventura nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 67.0 100.0

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed

Shallow injection w/ water

treatments 25

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast 5.0

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments 20

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 94.9 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 33.0 50

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest)

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 21

. 2007 frequenc y of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the South Coast nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method 1

1,3

- D Chloropicrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

2 Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate 3

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 40.0 60.9

Shallow injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- bed 25

Shallow injection w/ low

permeability tarp

- bed 36.0 30.8

Shallow injection w/

water treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil

cap

Deep injection w/ high

permeability tarp or no

tarp

- broadcast

Deep injection w/ low

permeability tarp

broadcast 0.5

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 20 33

Sprinkler w/ water

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability

tarp or no tarp 100.0 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability

tarp 24.0 50

Non

- field soil

(structural/post

- harvest) 7.8

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 22

. Application Method Adjustment Factors for 2008.

AMAF

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3

- D Chloro

- picrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

Na Metam

K Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate

Chemigation (Drip

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 19 12

Chemigation (Drip)

1601 10

Chemigation (mini

sprinkler) 1602 10

Day Chemigation

(Drip System)

Nontarpaulin 1408 9 9

Day Chemigation

(Drip System)

Tarpaulin 1407 9 9

Day Drench

1413 100 100

Day

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast or Bed /Two

Water Treatments 1405 28

Day

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast or

Bed/Three Water

Treatments 1406 21 21

Day Power Mulcher

1410 14 14

Day Rotary Tiller 1409 14

Day Soil Capping

1411 14 14

Day

Sprinkler/Broadcast or

Bed/One Water

Treatment 1401 77 77

Day

Sprinkler/Broadcast or

Bed/Three Water

Treatments 1403 21 21

Day

Sprinkler/Broadcast or

Bed/Two Water

Treatments 1402 28 28

Day or Night Flood

1412 77

Night 4 A.M.

Start/Sprinkler/

Broadcast or Bed/Two

Water treatments 1472 35

Night

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/ 1455 13 13Broadcast or Bed/Two

Water Treatments

Night

Sprinkler/Broadcast or

Bed/Two Water

Treatments 1452 77

Nontarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast or Bed 1206 26 64

Other label method

- Methyl Bromide 1190 100 100

Tarpaulin/Deep/Bed

1208 26

Tarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast 1207 26

Tarpaulin/Shallow/Bed

1106 10

Tarpaulin/Deep/Broad

cast 1107 48

Tarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast

– Nobel

Plow 1103 44 48

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 2 3

. 2008 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3

- D Chloro

- picrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

Na Metam

K Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate

Chemigation (Drip

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 3.0 9.6

Day Chemigation

(Drip System)

Nontarpaulin 1408 16.5

Day Chemigation

(Drip System)

Tarpaulin 1407 83.2

Day Rotary Tiller 1409 16.8 83.5

Nontarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast or Bed 1206 97.0 55.7

Tarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast 1107 74.8

Tarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast

– Nobel

Plow 1103 34.8 25.2

Chemigation (Drip

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 3.0 9.6

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide app lied.

### Table A1

- 2 4

. 2008 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3

- D Chloro

- picrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

Na Metam

K Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate

Chemigation (Drip)

1601 97.1

Chemigation (mini

sprinkler) 1602 2.9

Day Chemigation

(Drip System)

Nontarpaulin 1408 1.3 10.5

Day Chemigation

(Drip System)

Tarpaulin 1407 0.1 0.2

Day Drench

1413 5.1

Day

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast or Bed /Two

Water Treatments 1405 0.2

Day

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast or

Bed/Three Water

Treatments 1406 9.4 2.4

Day Power Mulcher

1410 3.5 42.5

Day Rotary Tiller 1409 5.2

Day Soil Capping

1411 3.0 1.3

Day

Sprinkler/Broadcast or

Bed/One Water

Treatment 1401 1.4 7.6

Day

Sprinkler/Broadcast or

Bed/Three Water

Treatments 1403 14.3 0.7

Day

Sprinkler/Broadcast or

Bed/Two Water

Treatments 1402 7.7 7.1

Day or Night Flood

1412

Night 4 A.M.

Start/Sprinkler/Broadc

ast or Bed/Two Water

treatments 1472

Night

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/ 1455 58.7 17.4Broadcast or Bed/Two

Water Treatments

Night

Sprinkler/Broadcast or

Bed/Two Water

Treatments 1452 0.3

Nontarpaulin /Deep/

Broadcast or Bed 1206 98.0 19.5

Other label method

- Methyl Bromide 1190 0.4 0.3

Tarpaulin/Deep/Bed

1208 1.2

Tarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast 1207 0.9

Tarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast

– Nobel

Plow 1103 80.1 99.7

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 2 5

. 2008 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3

- D Chloro

- picrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

Na Metam

K Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate

Chemigation (Drip

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 88.3 100.0

Day Chemigation

(Drip System)

Nontarpaulin 1408 57.1

Day

Sprinkler/Broadcast or

Bed/Three Water

Treatments 1403 34.2

Day

Sprinkler/Broadcast or

Bed/Two Water

Treatments 1402 1.3

Night 4 A.M.

Start/Sprinkler/

Broadcast or Bed/Two

Water treatments 1472 7.4

Nontarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast or Bed 1206 11.7

Tarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast 1107 37.4

Tarpaulin/Shallow/Bed

1106 100.0

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.

### Table A1

- 2 6

. 2008 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the Ventura nona ttainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3

- D Chloro

- picrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

Na Metam

K Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate

Chemigation (Drip

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 99.5 89.1

Chemigation (mini

sprinkler) 1602 100.0

Day Chemigation

(Drip System)

Nontarpaulin 1408 0.2

Day Chemigation

(Drip System)

Tarpaulin 1407 99.8 100.0

Nontarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast or Bed 1206 0.5 0.1

Tarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast

– Nobel

Plow 1103 10.8 100.0

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.



### Table A1

- 2 7

. 2008 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in

the South Coast nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3

- D Chloro

- picrin Methyl

Bromide Metam

Na Metam

K Dazomet Na

Tetrathio

carbonate

Chemigation (Drip

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 100.0 63.4

Other label method

- Methyl Bromide 1190 0.9 2.3

Tarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast 1107 0.5 4.8

Tarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast

– Nobel

Plow 1103 35.2 92.9

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied.

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of

carbon disulfide applied.