# Oregon Department of Agriculture

Pesticide Use Reporting System 2007 Annual Report

July 2008

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

...... ....... .................. ...... .. .. .. ............... .. .. .. .. .. ....................... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . 1 ABSTRACT

.. .... . ....... ....... ................. ...... .. .. .. ............... .. .. .. .. .. .. ...................... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 2 ONLINE SYSTEM

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Issues

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Conclusions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 HOUSEHOLD USE

........ .............. ........... .. ................... .. .. ......... .. ..... ..... ........ ...... ....... ......... ..... ..... .. ..... 17 Overview

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Issues

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Conclusions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
APPENDIX

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Appendix B – Screen Shots from Online System

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Appendix C- Diary Packet for Household Pesticide Use Survey

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Appendix D - Additional Information on Rodenticides

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . . . 16

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

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

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

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 7 – Reported Sites for All Data (from all 2,989 total reports received)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 22 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 7

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

### 1 

# INTRODUCTION
This is the second 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 2007 was the first full year of reporting. The Household Pesticide Use Survey collected information for 2006. The first presentations of household pesticide use survey information were in the PURS Amended 2006 Annual Report. The PURS 2007 Annual Report includes presentations of household survey information collected for 2007.

### 2 

# ABSTRACT
The 1999 Oregon Legislature authorized development of the Oregon Pesticide Use Reporting System (PURS). The first full year of collecting non-household pesticide use in PURS was 2007. Also, 2007 was the second year of collecting information through the Household Pesticide Use Survey. For 2007, approximately 5,732 reporters filed 284,984 reports of pesticide use into PURS. These reports identified that 40,473,773 pounds of active ingredient pesticides were used in Oregon during 2007. This included approximately 551 active ingredients. The top five active ingredients, by pounds, for the entire state were:

• Metam-sodium (42%) [soil fumigant],

• Glyphosate (9%) [herbicide],

• Copper naphthenate (7%) [wood preservative],

• 1,3-dichloropropene (5%) [soil fumigant], 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 (84.7%),

• Other (8.8%),

• Forestry (2.8%),

• Aquatic (1.3%),

• Right-of-way (1.1%),

• Urban/General Outdoor (0.7%),

• Urban/General Indoor (0.5%),

• Public Health/Regulatory Pests (0.1%),

• Research (<0.1%). A number of issues were 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 2007, 1,693 households agreed to complete use diaries. Only 1,483 households completed at least one month of reporting. More than 40% of households reported no use of pesticides. The other participants provided 2,989 reports. Only 40% of the household reports contained sufficient information to calculate pounds of active ingredients. Reasons for reports lacking sufficient information to conduct these calculations were identified 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. Moss control products accounted for the largest number of pounds of active ingredients, closely followed by herbicides.

### 4 

# ONLINE SYSTEM Overview PURS was deployed on January 2, 2007, to receive reports for pesticide applications made during calendar year 2007. Reporters had until January 31, 2008, to file all reports of pesticide applications made in 2007. Following the deadline, PURS only accepted reports for applications made in 2008. PURS staff were available to help reporters during business hours through a dedicated phone line and by email. PURS staff also held hands-on help classes throughout the state in the spring and fall of 2007. These classes provided reporters the opportunity to bring their records to a computer classroom and receive one-on-one assistance registering in PURS and filing their reports. In addition to these classes, PURS staff made a number of presentations at training seminars, sent direct mailings, and updated information presented on the web site. Some, but not all pesticide applicators are required to be specially licensed. 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.” 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 who are required by PURS to report actually did so. A number of reporters called following January 31, 2008, to say they had missed the deadline. It is also assumed many people were still unaware of the PURS requirement. There were approximately 5,732 reporters who registered in PURS between January 2007 and the end of January 2008. 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 applicator. There were 242 proxies registered. A total of 284,984 reports were submitted for 2007. 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). Between March 18 and April 11, 2008, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) conducted an online survey of reporter experiences. A total of 745 reporters completed the survey. When asked to rate their overall customer service experience, 63% indicated it was good or excellent. When asked about the quality of information on the web site, 68% marked good or excellent. Many respondents also provided written comments. Reporters appreciated the outreach efforts but expressed frustration with online reporting, the type of information collected, and basic information available online explaining PURS and how to use the system. These comments will be used to improve outreach efforts and the information presented on the web site.

### 5 

## Issues The first year of reporting revealed 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 on a search result list without crosschecking with 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 they 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,

### 6 and submit the new report. PURS staff saw a number of situations where reporters entered information for one product, submitted the report, and clicked “Make Similar Report.” Reporters then re-entered 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 PURS 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 PURS staff review. ODA did not have the resources to review each report. 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. In addition to complications between PURS and Internet browsers, the screen settings reporters typically use in Internet Explorer did not show buttons on the far right of the displayed screen. Reporters had to scroll to the right side of the screen to see these buttons. 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 2007 were due no later than midnight January 31, 2008. After midnight January 31, PURS only allowed reports to be submitted with use dates of 2008. It was obvious from the call load that many reporters waited until January to file their reports. Many reporters waited until the last week and/or last day to attempt to file reports. The afternoon of January 31, PURS experienced a load issue probably due to processing reports submitted by electronic data submission (EDS) that effectively locked other reporters out of the system. Those reporters who were using the PURS interface to file their reports were getting kicked out of PURS or were not able to log into the system. Between this and confusion about the deadline being mandatory, PURS staff received numerous phone calls following January 31 from reporters who were trying to file reports with dates in 2007 complaining about not being able to submit those reports.


## Conclusions Five hundred and fifty-one (551) different active ingredients were reported used in 2007. 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. Appendix B provides examples of the screens reporters used in order to submit their reports. 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.

### 7 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

• Other

### 8 Table 1 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) for the Entire State

ACTIVE I NGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE Total 40,473,773 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 17,090,499 42% Glyphosate Herbicide 3,543,403 9% Copper naphthenate Wood preservative 2,751,392 7% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 2,163,713 5% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 1,631,520 4% All others Various 13,293,246 33% Table 2 – Pounds Reported by Water Basin

WATER BASIN LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE Middle Columbia 22,435,926 55% Willamette 9,646,485 24% Middle Snake-Boise 2,640,651 7% Southern Oregon Coastal 2,210,325 5% Klamath 951,595 2% Middle Snake-Powder 833,955 2% Deschutes 597,561 1% John Day 314,202 1% Lower Snake 311,565 1% Lower Columbia 287,205 1% Northern Oregon Coastal 189,995 <1% Oregon Closed Basins 48,448 <1% Upper Sacramento 4,734 <1% Black Rock Desert 748 <1% Northern California Coastal 378 <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 748 Carbonic acid, monopotassium salt Fungicide 308 41% Glyphosate Herbicide 111 15% Propargite Miticide 111 15% Potassium salts of fatty acids Various 83 11% BT kurstaki Insecticide 41 5% All others Various 94 13% Deschutes 597,561 Xylene range aromatic solvent Aquatic herbicide 169,568 28% Glyphosate Herbicide 95,510 16% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 79,216 13% 2,4-D Herbicide 34,903 6% Diuron Herbicide 26,914 5% All others Various 191,450 32%

### 9 John Day 314,202 Glyphosate Herbicide 152,969 49% 2,4-D Herbicide 121,563 39% Diuron Herbicide 10,139 3% Imazamox Herbicide 2,775 1% Dicamba Herbicide 2,503 1% All others Various 24,253 8% Klamath 951,595 Methyl bromide Fumigant/Soil fumigant 229,672 24% Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 214,377 23% Chloropicrin Fumigant/Soil fumigant 168,534 18% Tralkoxydim Herbicide 61,249 6% Carfentrazone-ethyl Herbicide 60,993 6% All others Various 216,770 23% Lower Columbia 287,205 Glyphosate Herbicide 76,784 27% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 54,747 19% Sulfur Fungicide 23,334 8% 2,4-D Herbicide 13,774 5% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 11,655 4% All others Various 106,911 37% Lower Snake 311,565 Glyphosate Herbicide 107,416 34% 2,4-D Herbicide 37,414 12% MCPA Herbicide 17,920 6% Diuron Herbicide 17,646 6% Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 13,129 4% All others Various 118,040 38% Middle Columbia 22,435,926 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 15,878,821 71% Glyphosate Herbicide 1,539,076 7% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 1,255,003 6% Sulfuric acid Desiccant 775,434 3% 2,4-D Herbicide 546,629 2% All others Various 2,440,963 11%Middle SnakePowder 833,955 Xylene range aromatic solvent Aquatic herbicide 235,670 28% Sulfuric acid Desiccant 221,621 27% Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 146,424 18% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 90,234 11% Glyphosate Herbicide 23,695 3% All others Various 116,311 14%

### 10Middle SnakeBoise 2,640,651 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 715,015 27% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 685,982 26%Potassium Nmethyldithiocarbamate Soil fumigant 339,025 13% Chloropicrin Fumigant/Soil fumigant 91,863 3% Mancozeb Fungicide 54,077 2% All others Various 754,689 29% Northern California Coastal 378

Sulfur Fungicide 288 76% Basic copper sulfate Fungicide 85 23% Triclopyr Herbicide 5 1% Northern Oregon Coastal 189,995
Triclopyr Herbicide 53,646 28% Glyphosate Herbicide 50,707 27% 2,4-D Herbicide 20,289 11% Atrazine Herbicide 15,412 8% Sulfur Fungicide 8,912 5% All others Various 41,029 22% Oregon Closed Basins 48,448 Glyphosate Herbicide 18,616 38% Diuron Herbicide 8,442 17% Hexazinone Herbicide 5,380 11% Metribuzin Herbicide 4,100 8% 2,4-D Herbicide 3,665 8% All others Various 8,245 17% Southern Oregon Coastal 2,210,325
Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 862,447 39% Glyphosate Herbicide 307,292 14% Kaolin Various 272,417 12% Calcium polysulfide Fungicide 135,743 6% Atrazine Herbicide 128,099 6% All others Various 504,327 23% Upper Sacramento 4,734 2,4-D Herbicide 1,155 24% Diuron Herbicide 1,011 21% Glyphosate Herbicide 715 15% Ethofumesate Herbicide 425 9% Propargite Miticide 376 8% All others Various 1,052 22%

### 11 Willamette 9,646,485 Copper naphthenate Wood preservative 2,751,374 29% Glyphosate Herbicide 983,472 10% Diuron Herbicide 447,320 5% 2,4-D Herbicide 345,737 4% Pendimethalin Herbicide 314,712 3% All others Various 4,803,870 50% 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.

Other 8.8% Forestry

2.8% Aquatic 1.3%

Right-of-way 1.1% Public Health/Regulatory Pests 0.1%

Urban/General

Indoor 0.5% Urban/General

Outdoor

0.7% Agriculture

84.7%

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

SITE ACTIVE I NGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE1 Agriculture 34,270,330 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 16,999,812 50% Glyphosate Herbicide 2,949,547 9% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 2,163,713 6% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 1,609,352 5% 2,4-D Herbicide 1,043,747 3% All others Various 9,504,159 28%

### 12 Aquatic 523,137 Xylene range aromatic solvent Aquatic herbicide 454,775 87% Acrolein Herbicide 56,321 11% Copper sulfate pentahydrate Algaecide/ Herbicide 7,538 1% Triclopyr Herbicide 1,317 0.3% Spiromesifen Insecticide 977 0.2% All others Various 2,209 0.4% Forestry 1,141,459 Glyphosate Herbicide 435,207 38% Atrazine Herbicide 240,573 21% 2,4-D Herbicide 138,493 12% Triclopyr Herbicide 88,390 8% Hexazinone Herbicide 74,999 7% All others Various 163,797 14% Public Health/ Regulatory Pest 51,027

Malathion Insecticide 22,350 44% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 8,553 17% BT israelensis Insecticide 4,429 9% 2,4-D Herbicide 3,267 6% Piperonyl butoxide Insecticide 2,499 5% All others Various 9,929 19% Research 765 2,4-D Herbicide 169 22% Glyphosate Herbicide 125 16% Calcium polysulfide Fungicide 92 12% Picloram Herbicide 53 7% Imazapyr Herbicide 50 6% All others Various 276 36% Right-of-way 430,501 Diuron Herbicide 153,026 36% Glyphosate Herbicide 94,664 22% Triclopyr Herbicide 64,447 15% 2,4-D Herbicide 55,239 13% Methyl isothiocyanate Fungicide 6,473 2% All others Various 56,652 13% Urban/General Indoor 211,147 Copper ammonium carbonate Wood preservative 101,034 48% Tebuconazole Fungicide 38,688 18% Boric acid Insecticide 15,190 7% Methyl bromide Fumigant/Soil fumigant 14,260 7% Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 10,312 5% All others Various 31,663 31%

### 13 Urban General Outdoor 301,171 Glyphosate Herbicide 35,181 12% Bifenthrin Insecticide 25,179 8% Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) Fungicide 19,363 6% 2,4-D Herbicide 17,761 6% Mineral oil Insecticide 17,526 6% All others Various 186,161 62% Other 3,544,237 Copper naphthenate Wood preservative 2,750,669 78% Boric acid Insecticide 209,079 6% Ammonium bromide Biocide 95,336 3% Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 87,231 2% Copper(I) oxide Marineorganism control 70,524 2%

All others Various 331,398 9% 1 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
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 18,518,034 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 13,600,013 73% Glyphosate Herbicide 1,183,432 10% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 851,929 5% 2,4-D Herbicide 480,557 3%Potassium Nmethyldithiocarbamate Soil fumigant 339,025 2% All others Various 2,063,078 11% Fruits/Nuts 4,220,852 Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 1,550,034 37% Mineral oil Insecticide 430,996 10% Sulfur Fungicide 404,069 10% Kaolin Various 331,468 8% Calcium polysulfide Fungicide 208,742 5% All others Various 1,295,543 31% Livestock/Poultry 2,086 Piperonyl butoxide Insecticide 714 34% Copper sulfate pentahydrate Various 545 26% Tetrachlorvinphos Insecticide 311 15% Cyromazine Insecticide 98 5% Glyphosate Herbicide 69 3% All others Various 349 17%

### 14 Nursery/Christmas Trees 1,525,124 Methyl bromide Fumigant/ Soil fumigant 309,416 20% Chloropicrin Fumigant/Soil fumigant 249,363 16% Glyphosate Herbicide 139,977 9% Chlorothalonil Fungicide 87,477 6% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 51,900 3% All others Various 686,991 45% Oil Crops 132,752 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 82,175 62% Propargite Insecticide 7,413 6% Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 6,833 5% Paraquat dichloride Herbicide 5,605 4% Terbacil Herbicide 5,184 4% All others Various 25,542 19% Pasture/Forage/Hay 290,130 Glyphosate Herbicide 86,646 30% 2,4-D Herbicide 50,660 17% Paraquat dichloride Herbicide 34,093 12% Metribuzin Herbicide 22,321 8% Diuron Herbicide 17,866 6% All others Various 78,544 27% Seed Crops 2,936,264 Glyphosate Herbicide 479,972 16% 2,4-D Herbicide 386,365 13% Diuron Herbicide 294,082 10% Pendimethalin Herbicide 234,531 8% Ethofumesate Herbicide 209,573 7% All others Various 1,331,741 45% Vegetables 6,313,585 Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 3,249,179 51% 1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 1,139,530 18% Sulfuric acid Desiccant 997,055 16% EPTC Herbicide 112,767 2% Mancozeb Fungicide 82,352 1% All others Various 732,702 12% Other 331,504 Glyphosate Herbicide 173,298 52% 2,4-D Herbicide 19,037 6% EPTC Herbicide 16,321 5% MCPA Herbicide 9,901 3% Chloropicrin Fumigant/Soil fumigant 9,435 3% All others Various 103,512 31% 1 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

### 15 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 30,973 Boric acid Insecticide 14,337 46% Bifenthrin Insecticide 7,230 23% Chlorfenapyr Insecticide 6,560 21% Fipronil Insecticide 692 2% Permethrin Insecticide 534 2% All others Various 1,620 5% Site with Public Access 7,069 Methyl bromide Fumigant 2,125 30% Propiconazole Fungicide 965 14% 3-Iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC) Fungicide 952 13% Boric acid Insecticide 627 9% Bifenthrin Insecticide 532 8% All others Various 1,868 26%Site with Nonpublic Access 123,306 Copper ammonium carbonate Wood preservative 101,034 82% Methyl bromide Fumigant/Soil fumigant 12,084 10% Chlorpropham Plant growth regulator 3,350 3% 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene Plant growth regulator 1,565 1%Sodium ophenylphenate Fungicide 1,337 1% All others Various 3,936 3% Other 49,798 Tebuconazole Fungicide 38,688 78% Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 10,312 21% Imidacloprid Insecticide 776 2% Bifenthrin Insecticide 8 <1% Chlorfenapyr Insecticide 4 <1% All others Various 10 <1%

### 16 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 143,627 Bifenthrin Insecticide 23,604 16% Mineral Oil Insecticide 13,979 10% Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons Insecticide 12,203 8% Glyphosate Herbicide 8,887 6% Zinc sulfate monohydrate Moss control 8,523 6% All others Various 76,431 53% Site with Public Access 134,728 Glyphosate Herbicide 23,552 17% Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) Fungicide 16,071 12% Chlorothalonil Fungicide 12,899 10% 2,4-D Herbicide 10,035 7% Diuron Herbicide 8,624 6% All others Various 63,547 47%Site with NonPublic Access 21,070 Aluminum phosphide Fumigant 9,896 47% Glyphosate Herbicide 2,287 11% Diuron Herbicide 2,037 10% 2,4-D Herbicide 762 4% Chlorothalonil Fungicide 671 3% All others Various 5,417 26% Other 1,746 Diuron Herbicide 702 40% Glyphosate Herbicide 455 26% 2,4-D Herbicide 141 8% Chlorothalonil Fungicide 108 6% Dichlobenil Herbicide 70 4% All others Various 270 15% 1 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

### 17 

# HOUSEHOLD USE Overview The Gilmore Research Group (Gilmore) continued the Household Pesticide Use Survey in 2007. 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 12,266 households in 2007. 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 14% 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 (see Appendix C). 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 Survey

### 18 Figure 4, below, illustrates the number of participants by region.

158 163 161 263 153 155 158 165 152

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 1,693 households agreed to complete use diaries. However, only 1,483 participants actually completed at least one month of reporting. Of those, 687 reported that they did not use any pesticides during the quarter in which they participated. The other 796 participants provided 2,989 reports (Figure 5). Approximately 40% 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 is 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.

### 19 

# • 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.



## 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. Moss control products accounted for 47% of the pounds of active ingredient, but only 2% 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 6% of total insecticide poundage. Organophosphates, another insecticide chemical group, accounted for 8% of total insecticide poundage, while carbamates accounted for 10%. Of the herbicides, phenoxies accounted for 49%. Removing sodium nitrate, sulfur and carbon (see Appendix D) from the list of rodenticides to look at bait products, zinc phosphide accounted for 89%, strychnine for 6%, brodifacoum 4%, and warfarin 1%. Overall, looking at pounds of active ingredient, the greatest number of pounds reported were for:

• ferrous sulfate monohydrate (40%) [moss control],

• glyphosate (18%) [weed control],

• 2,4-D (16%) [weed control],

• zinc sulfate monohydrate (6%) [moss control], and

• MCPA (3%) [weed control]. The main five active ingredients by greatest number of records were:

• glyphosate (7%) [weed control],

• piperonyl butoxide (6%) [insect control],

• 2,4-D (6%) [weed control],

• fipronil (6%) [insect control], and

• permethrin (5%) [insect control]. Table 8, identifies active ingredients by type and highlights those that were reported in the greatest amount. In total, 101 active ingredients were identified as being used.

### 20 Table 8 – Main Active Ingredients Reported, Presented by Pesticide Type ACTIVE I NGREDIENT LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE1 I NSECTICIDES 9.11 Total Fipronil 3.15 35% S-methoprene 2.81 31% Carbaryl 0.76 8% Malathion 0.37 4% Boric acid 0.32 4% All others 1.70 19% H ERBICIDES 62.52 Total Glyphosate 27.54 44% 2,4-D 23.40 37% Mecoprop 2.15 3% Dicamba 1.51 2% Nonanoic acid 0.86 1% All others 7.06 11% M OSS CONTROL 71.00 Total Ferrous sulfate monohydrate 60.30 85% Zinc sulfate monohydrate 8.66 12% Zinc chloride 1.45 2% Potassium salts of fatty acids 0.36 1% Ammonium salts of fatty acids 0.23 <1% RODENTICIDES 1.91 Total Sodium nitrate 0.98 51% Sulfur 0.74 39% Carbon 0.18 9% Zinc phosphide 0.01 1% All others <0.01 <1% I NSECT REPELLENTS 0.41 Total DEET 0.37 90%.beta.-Alanine, n-acetyl-Nbutyl-, ethyl ester 0.03 7% Picaridin 0.01 2% FUNGICIDES 2.17 Total Calcium polysulfide 1.26 58% Captan 0.34 16% Chlorothalonil 0.23 11% Tebuconazole 0.16 7% Thiophanate-methyl 0.16 7% All others 0.02 1% S LUG/SNAIL CONTROL 3.05 Total Metaldehyde 2.99 98% Iron phosphate 0.06 2% 1 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

### 21 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 1 11.1% Region 2

6.4% Region 3

4.9%

Region 4 16.5%

Region 5 11.1% Region 6 13.7% Region 7 13.4% Region 8 12.0% Region 9 10.9%

Figure 6 – Percentage by Region of Reports that Had Sufficient Information to Determine Active Ingredients While approximately 60% 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.)

Pets 7.5%

Both 7.7% No Information 6.8%

Indoor 18.0%

Other 5.2% Outdoor 54.7%

Figure 7 – Reported Sites for All Data (from all 2,989 total reports received)

Mosquitoes

4.4% Spiders 2.6% All Types of "Bugs"

63% Insects 32.7%

Fleas 23.1% Weeds 18.9%

Snail/Slug

7.3%

Rodents

2.8%

Moss 2.3% No Information 2.9% Plant Disease 2.0%

Other 0.9% Figure 8 – Reported Purposes for All Data

### 22 Outdoor 56.2% Other 10.8% Indoor 19.1% Both (Indoor/

Outdoor)

6.2% Pets 7.7%

Figure 9 – Reported Sites for Data with Active Ingredient Information

Mosquitoes

5.5% Spiders 1.3% All Types of

"Bugs" 67% Weeds 20.5% Insects 37.3%

Fleas 22.5% Snail/Slug

5.9% Rodents

2.7%

Moss 1.7% Plant Disease 2.1% Other 0.5% Figure 10 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information

Moss 4.5% Plant Disease

0.6% Rodents 3.4% Snail/Slug

11.4% Weeds 14.8%

Spiders 0.6% Fleas 35.8% Insects 29.0% All Types of "Bugs"

63%

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

### 23 All Types of

"Bugs" 56% Insects 42.1%

Fleas 11.3% Weeds 30.1%

Snail/Slug

7.0% Rodents

1.8%
Moss 1.6% Plant Disease 3.6% Spiders 0.5% Mosquitoes 2.0%
Figure 12 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 2

Fleas 16.4% Mosquitoes

13.1% Spiders 1.9% All Types of

"Bugs" 74% Insects 42.8% Weeds 16.4%

Plant Disease 1.9%

Snail/Slug

4.0%

Moss 0.7% Other 1.2% Rodents

1.9%

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

Moss 1.4% Other 0.7% Rodents

7.0% Snail/Slug

1.4%

Weeds 10.6%

Spiders 3.5%

Fleas 59.2%

Insects 16.2% All Types of

"Bugs" 79%

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

### 24 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.

Rodenticide

0.7% Slug/Snail Control 1.2% Fungicide 1.0%

Moss Control

27.9%

Insecticide 3.7% Insect Repellent 0.2% Herbicide 65.3%

Figure 15 - Active Ingredients by Type – Entire State

Insect Repellent 5.4%

Herbicide 76.1%

Fungicide

9.5% Insecticide

9.0%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 16 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 1

Herbicide

90.7% Rodenticide

4.0% Insecticide

4.4% Fungicide 0.9%

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

### 25 Insecticide

3.3% Insect Repellent 0.1% Rodenticide 17.1% Fungicide 0.5%

Herbicide 78.9%
Figure 18 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 3

Herbicide

71.6% Insect Repellent 0.5%

Insecticide

25.6% Fungicide 0.9% Slug/Snail Control 1.4%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 19 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 4

Herbicide

99.4% Slug/Snail Control 0.2% Insecticide

0.5%

Note: Rodenticide and Fungicide were <0.1% Figure 20 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 5

### 26 Slug/Snail Control 0.6% Fungicide 6.5%

Herbicide 23.2%

Insecticide

4.1% Moss Control

65.5%

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

Moss Control

89.9% Slug/Snail Control 0.3% Rodenticide

0.6% Insecticide 0.6% Herbicide

8.5%

Note: Fungicide and Insect Repellent were <0.1% Figure 22 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 7

Slug/Snail Control 11.9% Fungicide 0.5%

Herbicide 31.1%

Insect Repellent 0.3%

Insecticide

27.2% Moss Control

29.0%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1% Figure 23 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 8

### 27 Moss Control

62.2% Insecticide 1.8% Herbicide

24.5% Slug/Snail Control 11.4%

Note: Rodenticide and Fungicide were <0.1% Figure 24 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 9

### 28 

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

# ACTIVE I NGREDIENT LBS. REPORTED 1 Metam-sodium 17,090,499 2 Glyphosate 3,543,403 3 Copper naphthenate 2,751,392 4 1,3-Dichloropropene 2,163,713 5 Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons 1,631,520 6 2,4-D 1,270,276 7 Sulfuric acid 997,055 8 Diuron 605,197 9 Chloropicrin 488,968 10 Sulfur 481,892 11 Mineral oil 464,962 12 Xylene range aromatic solvent 455,339 13 Methyl bromide 434,489 14 Pendimethalin 431,350 15 MCPA 369,477 16 Chlorothalonil 353,538 17 Potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate 339,096 18 Kaolin 332,746 19 Atrazine 298,905 20 Mancozeb 296,126 21 Ethofumesate 263,300 22 Copper hydroxide 242,814 23 Boric acid 238,641 24 Chlorpyrifos 232,507 25 EPTC 228,872 26 Calcium polysulfide 219,733 27 Triclopyr 215,825 28 Dicamba 172,612 29 Copper ammonium carbonate 149,625 30 Paraquat dichloride 142,134 31 Metribuzin 138,944 32 Flufenacet 129,500 33 Hexazinone 115,364 34 Ammonium bromide 95,336 35 Malathion 92,095 36 Bromoxynil 88,550 37 Oxamyl 82,044 38 Copper(I) oxide 81,885 39 Propiconazole 76,611 40 Oxyfluorfen 73,384

### 29 41 Simazine 69,254 42 Dimethenamid 67,162 43 Carfentrazone-ethyl 66,999 44 Tralkoxydim 61,308 45 Oryzalin 61,219 46 Metolachlor 59,882 47 Acrolein 56,321 48 Isoxaben 52,868 49 Ethoprop 50,434 50 Metaldehyde 49,179 51 Tebuconazole 46,084 52 Zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate 45,790 53 Trifluralin 44,208 54 Imazapyr 43,336 55 Acephate 42,953 56 Methomyl 42,228 57 Sodium bentazon 42,055 58 Diazinon 41,948 59 PCNB 40,260 60 Bifenthrin 39,662 61 Mono- and di- potassium salts of phosphorous acid 39,302 62 Thiophanate-methyl 38,273 63 Copper sulfate pentahydrate 38,152 64 Azoxystrobin 37,330 65 Carbaryl 37,005 66 Aldicarb 35,635 67 Pentachlorophenol 33,936 68 Prohexadione calcium 33,100
69 Didecyl dimethyl ammonium carbonate and didecyl dimethyl ammonium bicarbonate 32,939 70 Phosmet 30,783 71 Napropamide 30,768 72 Dimethoate 29,057 73 Propargite 27,784 74 Clopyralid 27,023 75 Captan 26,259 76 Glufosinate-ammonium 25,487 77 Iprodione 24,863 78 Endosulfan 24,452 79 Copper ethanolamine complex 23,530 80 Carbonic acid, monopotassium salt 22,590 81 Clethodim 22,457 82 Nonanoic acid 22,305 83 Terbufos 22,167 84 Chlorpropham 21,923 85 Sulfometuron methyl 21,265

### 30 86 Dazomet 21,133 87 Basic copper sulfate 19,147 88 Trinexapac-ethyl 17,563 89 Maleic hydrazide, potassium salt 16,419 90 Imidacloprid 16,114 91 Pyraclostrobin 15,846 92 Boscalid 15,804 93 Aluminum phosphide 15,491 94 ADBAC 15,101 95 IPBC 14,490 96 Terbacil 14,241 97 Oxadiazon 13,412 98 Dichlobenil 13,174 99 Propyzamide 12,983 100 Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 12,336

### 31 

## Appendix B – Screen Shots from Online System Registration System

Reporting System

### 32

### 33

### 34 

## Appendix C- Diary Packet for Household Pesticide Use Survey

### 35

### 36

### 37

### 38

### 39

### 40 

## Appendix D - Additional Information on Rodenticides Sodium nitrate, sulfur and carbon are active ingredients in a product that is dropped into rodent holes and creates gases that are intended to kill rodents, including gophers, moles, and rats. This product has a very different mode of action from other rodenticides. It also contains high percentages of these active ingredients while many bait rodenticides are less than one percent active ingredient.