Estuary Program
PESTICIDES OF CONCERN IN
THE PUGET SOUND BASIN:
A Review of Contemporary
Pesticide Usage
FINAL REPORT
TC-3338-32
SEPTEMBER 1988
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X - Office of Puget Sound
Seattle, Washington
-------
TC 3338-32
Final Report
PESTICIDES OF CONCERN IN THE
PUGET SOUND BASIN:
A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY PESTICIDE USAGE
by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X - Office of Puget Sound
Seattle, Washington
September 1988
Tetra Tech, Inc.
11820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98005
-------
PREFACE
The Puget Sound Estuary Program, under the auspices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection, was initiated in 1985 to monitor and assess environmental damage
to Puget Sound. It is co-managed by U.S. EPA Region X, the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) and Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology). This report was prepared as part of that program to synthesize
information on the usage of pesticides and their potential environmental
effects in the Puget Sound basin, with a focus on identifying potential
problem pesticides that may contaminate Puget Sound. This information is
intended to provide a basis for future pesticide sampling and monitoring
programs by federal and state agencies.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ii
LIST OF FIGURES Vi
LIST OF TABLES vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 OBJECTIVES 1
1.2 PESTICIDE DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS 2
1.3 PERSPECTIVES ON CURRENT AND HISTORICAL PESTICIDE
USE IN THE PUGET SOUND BASIN 5
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF PESTICIDES OF CONCERN 9
2.1 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH 9
2.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION 9
2.2.1 Agriculture 11
2.2.2 Federal Agencies 13
2.2.3 State Agencies 14
2.2.4 County Road Departments 15
2.2.5 Urban Users 15
2.2.5.1 Cities/School Districts 15
2.2.5.2 Commercial Applicators 17
2.2.5.3 Private Households 20
2.2.6 Private Timber Companies 21
2.2.7 Railways 22
111
-------
2.2.8 Wood Treatment Plants 22
2.2.9 Antifoulant Paint Applicators 23
2.3 PESTICIDE USAGE 24
2.3.1 Estimated Usage of Pesticides in Puget Sound Counties 24
2.3.2 Pesticide Usage By Watershed 34
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND TOXICITIES OF PESTICIDES 38
2.4.1 Criteria for Fate and Toxicity Evaluation 38
2.4.2 Pesticide Fate and Toxicity Data 44
2.4.3 Persistence and Toxicities of Pesticide
Degradation Products 54
2.5 DETERMINATION OF LEVEL OF CONCERN 54
3.0 ONGOING RESEARCH, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 64
3.1 PESTICIDE RESEARCH IN THE PUGET SOUND AREA 64
3.1.1 Agricultural Pesticides in Padilla Bay 64
3.1.2 Parathion in Skagit Valley 67
3.1.3 Ethylene Dibromide in Skagit Valley 67
3.1.4 Groundwater Contamination in Whatcom County 67
3.1.5 Sea Surface Microlayer 67
3.1.6 Pesticide Effects on Wildlife 68
3.2 PUGET SOUND PESTICIDE MONITORING PROGRAMS 69
4.0 INFORMATION GAPS 71
4.1 USAGE 71
4.1.1 Agriculture 71
4.1.2 Federal Agencies 74
4.1.3 U.S. Forest Service 74
4.1.4 Urban Use 75
iv
-------
4.1.5 Private Timber Companies 77
4.1.6 Railways 77
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 77
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 78
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR PUGET SOUND PESTICIDES 80
5.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 80
5.1.1 Media Identification 80
5.1.2 Analytical Concerns 81
5.1.3 Geographical Locations 81
5.1.4 Temporal Considerations 82
5.1.5 Sampling of Biota 82
5.2 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 83
6.0 REFERENCES 88
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. PESTICIDE INFORMATION SOURCES
APPENDIX B. PESTICIDE USES AND CHEMICAL/TRADE NAMES
APPENDIX C. COUNTY-WIDE PESTICIDE USAGE DATA
APPENDIX D. TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USES IN THE PUGET SOUND BASIN
APPENDIX E. ALGORITHM COMPUTATIONS FOR LEVEL OF CONCERN MATRIX
V
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Washington counties bordering Puget Sound 6
2 Major drainages of the Puget Sound Basin 7
3 Locations of selected bays in greater Puget Sound 65
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Pacie
1 Pesticide use categories 12
2 Pesticide names and classifications 25
3 Pesticide usage in the Puget Sound basin exclusive of major
urban-specific pesticides 29
4 Estimated usage of major urban-specific pesticides in the
Puget Sound basin 32
5 Total estimated pestide usage in the Puget Sound basin 33
6 Estimated total pesticide usage for major use categories 36
7 Estimated total pesticide usage in five watersheds 37
8 Ranking of pesticide usage in five watersheds 39
9 Environmental fate data 45
10 Toxicity data 49
11 Degradation products of pesticides of concern 55
12 Criteria for ranking pesticides of concern 56
13 Threshold values for determining level of concern 58
14 Pesticides of concern in Puget Sound 61
15 Pesticides in Padilla Bay 66
16 Pesticides sold by Whatcom County agricultural chemical
dealers in 1985 73
17 Forest service herbicides use before 1982 in the Pacific
Northwest 76
Al General sources for pesticide usage and environmental
effects information A-2
A2 Government agency sources A-4
A3 Trade and professional associations A-6
vii
-------
A4 Non-profit informational organizations A-7
Bi Pesticide trade name cross index B-i
B2 Pesticide uses B-4
B3 Chemical names and manufacturers B-7
Cl Populations of Puget Sound counties C-2
C2-C13 Estimated pesticide usage in 12 counties C-3 - C-74
El Algorithm scores for determining levels of concern El
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was compiled by Tetra Tech, Inc., for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region X, in partial fulfillment of contract
No. 68-02-4341. This project was funded through the National Estuary
Program under the authorities of the Clean Water Act as amended. Funding
was approved by the U.S. EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection. The
Project Monitor at U.S. EPA Region X was Mr. Michael Rylko; Dr. Donald
Wilson was Project Manager for Tetra Tech, Inc.
The work assignment manager and author of this report was Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe. Drs. James Erckmann, Jean Jacoby, and Les Williams, and Ms. Stacey
Vineberg of Tetra Tech initiated the research phase of this project, and Dr.
Williams served as technical reviewer of the draft report. Dr. Dave Eaton,
University of Washington, provided expert advice during the initial stage of
research. Ms. Marcy Brooks-McAuliffe and Ms. Sue Trevathan coordinated
technical editing and publication.
ix
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Puget Sound basin is delineated by the 12 counties that border the
sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Elwha River, and the Strait of
Georgia to the international border, and the consolidated watersheds that
drain that area. The Puget Sound basin is a demographically complex region
that supports a diversity of economic activities, ranging from agriculture
and forestry in largely rural areas to heavy industry and shipping in largely
populated urban areas. A diverse group of opportunistic organisms that
interferes with human activities is also associated with the economic devel-
opment of the basin. These so-called economic pests are often controlled or
eradicated with chemical substances that are commonly known as pesticides.
As a chemical group, pesticides include a wide range of substances that
vary in their specificity and may be generally toxic to many kinds of
organisms (biocides), or may be targeted for control of specific categories
of pests such as algae (algicides), weeds (herbicides), insects (insecti-
cides), rodents (rodenticides), and snails and slugs (molluscicides). The
numerous and varied types of pests for which control has been sought brought
about the development of similarly numerous chemical substances. These
chemicals exhibit an equally diverse range of effects to the environment and
many are toxic to organisms other than the intended targets. Of these pesti-
cides, the ones that have the potential to migrate from the site of applica-
tion to the waters of Puget Sound or rivers within the watershed basin are
of major concern for their potential to cause harm to aquatic organisms.
This report addresses these concerns over pesticides presently used in
the basin by first determining the amount and distribution of contemporary
pesticides used in the basin and then assessing the potential for these
pesticides to migrate to the aquatic environment and induce toxic effects on
x
-------
aquatic organisms. This task is accomplished by defining categories of
pesticide uses, locating sources of available information, and surveying
these sources to determine quantities of pesticides used on a county-wide
basis. Information collated from a variety of sources is used to charac-
terize the environmental fate and toxicity of pesticides. Finally, a tiered
scoring method, based on annual usage rates, and potential fate and toxicity
in the aquatic environment, is used to rank pesticides and to determine the
level of concern for individual pesticides in the Puget Sound basin.
Throughout the report pesticide ‘usage” indicates pounds of active
ingredients applied over one year. “Active ingredients” are those chemicals
with biocidal activity against intended target organisms. Inert ingredients
in pesticide formulations are not addressed in this report because of the
lack of information on their usage in the Puget Sound basin.
ASSESSMENT OF PESTICIDE USAGE
A comprehensive assessment of pesticide use in the Puget Sound basin
has not been conducted previously. Only a few surveys have been performed,
each one focusing on a specific group of pesticide users, such as the
agricultural sector. In this report, usage of contemporary pesticides by
all major groups of users is estimated for 20 different user categories in
each of the 12 counties of the basin. These categories comprise major
pesticide users in the basin and biocides of particular interest to Puget
Sound. These categories were selected based on availability of pesticide
usage information and suggestions from pesticide suppliers and representa-
tives of state government agencies. The categories are identified as:
• Agriculture
• Federal agencies:
- Department of the Army (Army)
- Department of the Air Force (Air Force)
xi
-------
- Department of the Navy (Navy)
- Department of Agriculture (USDA)
- Department of Interior (USD1)
- Department of Transportation (USD01)
- Department of Energy (DOE)
- Army Corps of Engineers
• State agencies:
- Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
- Department of Transportation (Wool)
- Department of Wildlife (WDOW)
• County road departments
• Urban:
— Cities/school districts
- Commercial applicators
- Private households
• Private timber companies
• Railways
xii
-------
• Wood treatment plants (pentachiorophenol)
• Antifoulant paint applicators (tributyltin).
Usage estimates for pesticides in the Puget Sound basin were compiled
for each of these user categories by the following methods:
• Abstraction from published surveys 0 f pesticide usage in
Puget Sound counties.
• Telephone and letter surveys of current users in the basin.
• Extrapolation from published sources of pesticide usage for
the San Francisco Bay area. These latter data are for urban
pesticide usage only, and supplement data from limited
surveys of local urban users.
These sources and cross-references for pesticide uses and chemical names are
presented in Appendices A and B.
With the exceptions of pentachiorophenol (PCP) and railway pesticide
usage, usage data are compiled by user category in each county in Appendix C.
Estimated usage rates were highest for the major urban industrialized
counties, Pierce and King, followed by the major agricultural counties,
Snohomish, Whatcom, and Skagit.
Results of this usage summary indicate that over 2.8 million lb of
pesticide active ingredients may be used annually throughout the Puget Sound
basin. This estimate is equivalent to approximately 1 lb/person/yr. Over
120 active ingredients make up this total, and significantly more formula-
tions and brand names are manufactured from the active ingredients used in
the basin. This total includes 750,000 lb of PCP that are shipped to the
basin for use in wood treatment plants and saw mills in the area. At present
there are no pesticide manufacturers in the basin.
xiii
-------
Total pesticide usage in the basin for 19 of the user categories
(excluding wood treatment plants) is sorted into the following major
categories:
• Urban - 1,075,800 lb/yr
• Military installations - 428,266 lb/yr
• Agriculture - 326,942 lb/yr
• Right-of-ways - 268,187 lb/yr
• Forestry - 21,037 lb/yr.
Urban use includes city government, commercial, and private household
uses, and is the most diverse of these categories. For example, commercial
uses include applications to nurseries, golf courses, private and commercial
structures, school yards, and private yards and gardens. Military use
includes Fort Lewis Army Base, McChord Air Force Base, and three Navy
installations in the basin; agricultural usage includes private farms and
state wildlife areas; right-of-ways comprise county, state and federal
roadways, utilities, and railroads; and forestry includes private timber
company and state forest lands.
Because data on current urban pesticide usage in the Puget Sound basin
were nonexistent, urban usage estimates were initially attempted by surveys
of local users. However, due to a lack of response to requests for usage
information and the large scope involved in conducting surveys on multiple
categories of urban users, urban usage estimates were derived by a combina-
tion of limited surveys and extrapolation from published usage data from
California urban areas, particularly the San Francisco Bay area. Because of
this method of data estimation, a large degree of uncertainty is inherent in
the urban usage data. Assuming that, at worst, urban usage is overestimated
by a factor of two, the data suggest a high use of pesticides in the urban
sector. In comparison, forest uses are low in the Puget Sound basin. This
xiv
-------
latter finding reflects the temporary injunction issued in 1984 against
pesticide use by the U.S. Forest Service. This injunction is expected to be
lifted after the issue of an environmental impact statement by the U.S.
Forest Service in late 1988. A ten-fold increase in forestry usage, however
unlikely, would be necessary for forestry usage to have a major impact on
total basin-wide pesticide usage.
To assess the spatial effects of potential pesticide migration into the
aquatic systems of the basin and thence to the sound, pesticide usage is
most appropriately presented on a watershed basis. Usages in six major
watersheds (i.e., Nooksack, Skagit, West Sound, Elwha/Dungeness, Island, and
San Juan) are assumed to be roughly approximate to their contiguous counties,
whereas for the remaining watersheds (i.e., Snohomish, Stillaguamish,
Cedar/Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually/Deschutes), data were extrapolated from
county databases to the watershed by estimating the area of county land in
the watershed and the pesticide usage of each user group on that land. Major
watersheds of high pesticide usage (in descending order of usage) are the
urban watersheds, Cedar/Green and Puyallup, the mixed economy watershed,
Nisqually/Deschutes, and the agricultural watersheds of the Snohomish,
Skagit, and Nooksack rivers.
DETERMINATION OF PESTICIDE LEVELS OF CONCERN
Determination of the level of concern for contemporary pesticides
identified in the foregoing usage survey for the Puget Sound basin addition-
ally involves characterization of their likely fate in the environment and
toxicity to aquatic organisms. In general, the fate of most pesticides in
the environment is dependent on their persistence in the soil and water and
their potential to migrate away from the site of application. Persistence
and mobility are dependent on the physical and chemical properties of the
pesticide and the ptiysico-chemical and microbiological environment of the
soil. Hence, soil residence time and half-life, hydrolysis half-life,
photolysis half-life, and vapor pressure are compiled as measures of persis-
tence in the environment. Water solubility and soil adsorption (K 0 ) are
summarized as indices of mobility potential. Measures of bioaccumulation
xv
-------
potential are bioconcentration factors (BCFs) and, when BCFs are not
available, octanol-water partition coefficients (log Ko ). Data are
similarly compiled on pesticide toxicities to freshwater and marine fish,
marine shrimp, and mammals.
The algorithm to determine the level of concern involves assigning
threshold levels for each of these variables, based on U.S. EPA recorunienda-
tions, that delimit the potential for pesticides to persist in the environ-
ment, migrate to aquatic systems, bioaccumulate, and pose a toxic threat to
aquatic organisms. Each pesticide is evaluated by these thresholds and for
their level of usage in the basin. Pesticides are then ranked using these
evaluations, and assigned to one of four levels of concern for Puget Sound:
primary, secondary, low, and uncertain. Those pesticides with high usage,
high mobility, high persistence, and high acute aquatic toxicity are
assigned to the primary level of concern. Pesticides with lower mobility
and/or persistence are placed in the secondary or low level of concern.
These pesticides include those with high toxicity that are of concern
primarily during acute exposures. Those pesticides for which data are
insufficient to evaluate are placed in the uncertain level. Pesticides are
further identified for their potential distribution among water, sediments,
or biota of the basin, and with respect to concern for toxicity and fate of
their identified metabolites.
Pesticides identified as being of primary concern in marine or riverine
waters of the Puget Sound basin are 2,4-D, dicamba, arachlor, tributyltin
(TBT), bromacil, atrazine, triclopyr, carbaryl, and diazinon. Pesticides
with potential concern in sediments of the basin are identified as 2,4-D,
dicamba, pentachiorophenol, prometon, simazirie, tebuthiuron, chiorpyrifos,
TBT, atrazine, diuron, trifluralin, phorate, pronamide, fenvalerate, and
diazinon. Pesticides identified as primary concern for potential accumula-
tion in biological tissues of the marine environment are trifluralin,
chiorpyrifos, pentachlorophenol, fenvalerate, pronamide, diuron, dicamba,
and TBT. An additional 32 pesticide active ingredients are identified as
being 0 f secondary concern in the Puget Sound basin.
xvi
-------
CURRENT RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRAMS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
SURVEYS
A number of research programs are being conducted on pesticides in the
Puget Sound basin that address their aquatic toxicity and/or their potential
for contaminating the estuaries of Puget Sound. However, few programs in
the basin have investigated ambient concentrations or potential nontarget
effects of contemporary pesticides in the sound. A Huxley College (Western
Washington University) program is focusing on pesticide contamination in
Padilla Bay. Of fourteen pesticides known to be used in the vicinity of the
bay, 2,4-0 and dicamba have been detected in the water column and sediments
of the bay after a period of rainfall following the prime application period
of late spring. This sampling schedule was designed as a worst-case
application run-off scenario. Ongoing monitoring programs (e.g., U.S. EPA,
NOAA, Ecology) that sample for pesticide contamination were generally found
to omit contemporary pesticides in their sampling protocol. Because of
heavy usage and potentially high persistence and acute toxicity of certain
pesticides in the basin, a reconnaissance survey is recommended for sampling
the aquatic environments in the basin, to determine the actual extent of
pesticide contamination.
An initial reconnaissance survey in the basin should focus at a minimum
on the pesticides of primary concern that are listed above. Areas of high
urban use, as found in King and Pierce Counties, and high rural use, as
found in Snohomish, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties, should be included in any
reconnaissance sampling plan. In addition, spatiafly localized ‘hot spotsu
(i.e., military installations) and temporary intense periods of high use
should be considered. It is recommended that sampling for specific
pesticides be conducted at the outfalls of the major drainages of agricul-
tural watersheds (Skagit and Snohomish Rivers); major urban areas (Seattle,
Tacoma); the military installations of Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base,
and Whidbey Island Naval Air Station; and of agricultural and right-of-ways
in Mason, King, and Pierce counties. Because of seasonal application
patterns with most pesticide uses, it is recommended that a sampling effort
xvii
-------
be conducted after the primary use season in June, before and after heavy
rainfall to monitor a potential worst-case contamination scenario.
xviii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report synthesizes information on the usage and potential environ-
mental effects of pesticides applied in the Puget Sound basin. The focus
is on identifying potential problem pesticides that may migrate to Puget
Sound and have an adverse effect on the estuarine ecosystem. A variety of
pesticides is used in the Puget Sound basin to control pest organisms. Many
of these pesticides are toxic to marine and freshwater organisms, and their
active ingredients or degradation products may be highly persistent in the
environment. However, little quantitative information is available on
either the extent and distribution of contemporary pesticide use in the
basin or the potential of these chemicals to produce adverse effects on
estuarine ecosystems. Preparation of this document was initiated by
U.S. EPA Region X to begin to address some of these deficiencies. It is
anticipated that the results of this report will form the basis of a
sampling plan for a U.S. EPA reconnaissance survey of potential problem pest-
icides in the estuarine environment of the basin.
1.1 OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of this report are to evaluate the pesticides
used in the Puget Sound basin and assign each pesticide a relative level of
concern for their potential to contaminate aquatic environments. Major
criteria that were used to determine the level of concern for a pesticide
are the extent and locations of its usage, its ability to persist and be
transported to the aquatic environment, and its potential acute and chronic
toxicity to aquatic organisms. Previous assessments of the quantitative and
spatial uses of contemporary pesticides in the Puget Sound basin were found
to be insufficient to meet the stated objectives. Therefore, a secondary
objective of this project has been to estimate the amounts and distribution
of pesticides presently used in each of the 12 counties of the basin.
1
-------
Current regulations and issues in pesticide use in the Puget Sound
basin are briefly reviewed. Pesticides and their major uses are identified
and quantitative usage values for each pesticide are estimated for the basin
by county and watershed. For each of these pesticides, environmental fate
and toxicity data are compiled. Along with usage data, these data form the
basis for an evaluation of the relative potential of each pesticide to
persist and migrate to riverine and marine environments in the basin.
Geographical areas and media of potential contamination around the basin are
identified. Ongoing research and monitoring programs for contemporary
pesticides in the Puget Sound basin are identified and briefly described.
Finally, a sampling strategy is recommended based on the level of concern of
each pesticide and its breakdown products, and on the medium and likely
geographical areas of contamination. Appendices are provided that contain
sources of information on pesticide target organisms, usage, environmental
fate, and toxicity; pesticide chemical names, tradenames, and names of
manufacturers; county-wide pesticide usage data; a brief review of trends in
pesticide uses and issues of environmental concern of select pesticides;
and algorithm scores for the level of concern matrix.
1.2 PESTICIDE DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS
Pesticides are defined as insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides,
fungicides, molluscjcjdes, disinfectants, wood preservatives, repellants, or
any other substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing,
destroying, repelling, or mitigating organisms that are injurious to health
or the environment. Repellants include those chemicals that repel, but do
not kill, insects, birds, and small mammals. Although classified as “inert”
ingredients, additives to pesticide formulations that act as solvents,
thickeners, propellants, stabilizers, etc., include both nontoxic and toxic
substances, ranging from sugar and salt to dioxane and formaldehyde.
However, according to Section 10 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the identity of “inerts” and their percent
composition of pesticide formulations are not required of pesticide
manufacturers. These ‘inert” ingredients are not considered to be pesticides
per se in this study because of the lack of available information on their
use, composition, and environmental fate. It is estimated that of the over
2
-------
1,200 substances classified as inert ingredients by U.S. EPA, two-thirds are
insufficiently evaluated for toxicity [ U.S. General Accounting Office
(U.S. GAO) 1986].
Pesticides are currently regulated by U.S. EPA under FIFRA (Public
Law 80-104). This law was enacted in 1947 to replace the 1910 Insecticide
Act, and requires product labels containing instructions for use and warning
statements about the potential health environmental effects of the product.
FIFRA has been amended several times to include requirements for chronic
health effects data and to create new criteria for pesticide registration.
The amendments of 1972 placed added emphasis on protection of the environment
by requiring the determination that the pesticide would not cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” The burden of proof that
a pesticide meets the standards for registration is on the manufacturer.
The 1972 amendments to FIFRA also directed U.S. EPA, who was assigned
responsibility for pesticide registration in 1970, to reassess and re-
register existing pesticides in accordance with the new criteria. Under the
Registration Standards Program begun in 1978, U.S. EPA began reviewing the
approximately 600 existing pesticide active ingredients by examining five
major areas: product chemistry, residue chemistry, environmental fate,
wildlife effects, and toxicology. Toxicology studies cover mammalian
exposures and chronic effects (e.g., carcinogenicity, reproductive effects).
When new information suggests that a pesticide may pose a significant risk
to human health or the environment, it is subjected to the Special Review
process, begun in 1975, in which U.S. EPA decides to register, cancel,
suspend, or modify the terms of registration. To accelerate the collection
of data needed for reregistration, the Data Call-In Program was created in
1981 to identify chronic toxicity tests missing from the U.S. EPA pesticide
registration files. Of the approximately 600 pesticide active ingredients,
over 400 were still awaiting interim registration standard development as of
March 1985, and 118 were either in the process of registration (89), ready
for final standard review (17), or in Special Review (12) (U.S. EPA 1987c).
The current session of Congress (100th) has been working on a revision of
FIFRA. As of September 1988, noncontroversial areas have been revised, but
3
-------
the sections covering indemnification, storage/disposal, and registration
fees have yet to be adopted.
U.S. EPA priority for reregistration has been given to pesticides used
on food crops. The reregistration process for nonagricultural use pesti-
cides, such as those used in urban areas, is expected to take 20 yr. In the
interim, FIFRA provides that current registrations will remain in effect.
Since the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concentrated on acute human
health effects during the years it was responsible for pesticide registration
(pre-1970), relatively little information is available on acute and chronic
environmental effects of pesticides. It is toward these concerns that
U.S. EPA is focusing its attention during reregistration.
Washington State pesticide laws (RCW 15.58 and RCW 17.21) are ad-
ministered by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) and
include spray adjuvants as pesticides. WSDA restricts certain pesticide
use in the state beyond U.S. EPA restrictions. According to the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC 16-228), pesticides that are not allowed for
distribution to home or garden users, but are allowed to be used by
commercial applicators or government agencies, include dinitro-0-sec-butyl-
phenol (DNOSBP), endothall, EthionhM (26 percent or greater), GuthionlM
(16 percent or greater), hydrogen cyanide, methyl bromide, and strychnine and
its salts. Pesticide dealers are required to keep records of the sales of
any of these pesticides. “State restricted use pesticides” are to be used
only by certified applicators, and include AzodrinhM (monocrotophos),
BidrinlM (dicrotophos), DDT, DDD, DiSystonhM (disulfoton, liquid) endrin,
parathion, methyl parathion, PhosdrinhM (mevinphos), sodium arsenite,
SystoxlM (demeton), TemiklM (aldicarb), TEPP, ThimetlM (phorate, liquid),
2,4-D (liquid formulations, 1 gal or larger, distributed east of the
Cascades, and all dry formulations except those labelled for home and garden
use only), zinophos, and all pesticide formulations labelled for application
to control pests in water, except for use in swimming pools, ornamental
ponds, fountains 1 aquariums, enclosed plumbing systems, enclosed food
processing systems, air conditioners, and cooling towers. Licensed dealers
are required to keep records of all sales of state restricted-use pesticides
4
-------
for 1 yr. Highly volatile esters of 2,4-D are not registered by WSDA for
use in Washington State.
1.3 PERSPECTIVES ON CURRENT AND HISTORICAL PESTICIDE USE IN THE PUGET SOUND
BASIN
Puget Sound is one of the major estuarine systems in the continental
United States, and its watershed basin supports the economic and commercial
center of the Pacific Northwest. For the purposes of this report, the Puget
Sound basin constitutes the 12 counties that border the sound itself, the
Strait of Juan de Fuca up to the Elwha River, and the Strait of Georgia to
the Canadian border (Figure 1). The major drainage basins within greater
Puget Sound are shown in Figure 2.
There is a rich diversity of industries in the basin, and the major
pesticide use categories reflect this division. These categories may be
grouped by economy and geography into 1) major agriculture areas in the
northeastern section of the basin; 2) forestry industry, concentrated in the
southwestern section and along periphery of the basin; and 3) industrialized
and populated urban areas. This diverse economic base results in the use of
many different chemical pest control measures. Agricultural pesticides are
used in preemergence control of unwanted vegetation and in control of crop-
damaging pests. Forestry pesticides, primarily herbicides, are used by
federal, state, and private timberland applicators to manage invading
vegetation. Urban pesticides are used by a broad and diverse group of
public, commercial, and household applicators for an equally diverse set of
purposes. Most of these pesticide user groups (i.e., agricultural, forestry,
urban) may be identified in each of the 12 Puget Sound counties.
The historical use of pesticides in the Puget Sound basin is largely
unknown, and it is assumed that usage patterns followed nationwide trends.
The use of inorganic compounds of relatively low toxicity as pesticides of
choice changed dramatically after World War II with the advent of DDT and
other organochlorine pesticides. However, as their toxicity to certain
wildlife species and long persistence in the environment (measured in years
to decades) became recognized by scientists and the public alike, U.S. EPA
5
-------
PUGET SOUND
COUNTIES
I W-IATCOM
2 SKAGIF
3 SNOHOMISH
4 KING
5 PIERCE
6 LEWIS
7 11-IURSTON
B MASON
9 KITSAP
10 JEFFERSON
11 CLALLAM
12 ISLAND
13 SANJUAN
7 /
PUGET SOUND
WATERSHED
BASINS
BOUNDARY
(
i
— U — U Il_U_ • —; — U —
I
I
/
6
I
0 10 20 30
(
miles
kilometers
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 1. Washington counties bordering Puget Sound.
6
-------
PUGET SOUND
WATERSHED BASINS
NOOKSACK-SLJMAS
SKAGIT-SAMISH
STILLAGUAMISH
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
SNOHOMISH
CEDAR-G EN
PUYALLUP
NISQUALLY-DESCHUTES
WEST SOUND
ELWHA-DUNGENESS
0 10 20 30
1 miles
k Iometers
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 2. Major drainages of the Puget Sound basin.
7
-------
restricted or banned most of their uses in the early 1970s. Although the
actual extent of use of these pesticides in the Puget Sound basin prior to
government restrictions is unknown, the significantly lower concentrations
in sediments of Puget Sound compared with other estuarine environments of
the west coast suggest that their use was probably less widespread in the
Puget Sound basin (Matta et al. 1986). Because these chemicals are no
longer used for pest control in the Puget Sound basin, they are referred to
as “historical pesticides” in this report and are not included in the
evaluation of pesticides of concern. However, because they are on the
U.S. EPA priority pollutant list, they are continually monitored in the
sound by state and federal agencies.
Little is known about contemporary pesticide use in the Puget Sound
basin. As of 1986, there was no comprehensive national database of total
pesticide usage estimates and none were under development (GAO 1986). The
State of Washington does not have any protocols in effect for the compilation
or assembly of pesticide use data by any of the major user groups
(Maxwell, T., 22 January 1988, personal communication), and no individual
organization has compiled information on total pesticide usage in the basin.
Although surveys of pesticide use by federal government agencies and
agriculture in the U.S. and Washington State have been conducted, little
effort has been devoted to assessing the extent of contemporary pesticide
usage by all users in the Puget Sound basin.
The need for this information has recently been emphasized by the
Comittee on Research in Puget Sound (PSWQA 1988), who reports that there is
severely limited quantitative information on the magnitude of nonpoint
sources of contamination, such as agriculture and forestry, in the Puget
Sound basin. Also, although the extent of “historical pesticide” contribu-
tion to point source pollution is being identified by sampling of urban
enibayments by U.S. EPA and Ecology, a better understanding of the potential
contribution of contemporary pesticides to chemical contamination in Puget
Sound is needed. This report contributes to that understanding by providing
information on estimates of current pesticide usage in the Puget Sound
basin, and by evaluating the relative concern for contamination of aquatic
environments in the basin by these pesticides.
8
-------
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF PESTICIDES OF CONCERN
2.1 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH
The major objectives of this project are to ascertain the extent and
general locations of pesticide usage throughout the Puget Sound basin and to
develop a rank-ordered list of pesticides of concern in the basin. These
objectives were accomplished by first defining categories of pesticide uses,
sources of available information, and, where information was not available,
indirect methods for estimating pesticide usage in the Puget Sound basin.
The various sources of pesticide information were surveyed to determine the
kinds and quantities of pesticides used on a county-wide basis and for
major Puget Sound watersheds. Information was then collated from a variety
of sources to characterize the environmental fate and toxicity of pesticides
and certain pesticide metabolites. Finally, a tiered scoring method, which
was based on usage, fate, and toxicity.information, was used to rank pesti-
cides and to determine the level of concern for pesticides in the Puget
Sound basin.
The meaning of the term “usage” in this report is restricted to
pesticide application rates; all usage data are for the active ingredients
of the pesticide formulation. Pesticide “use” refers not to rates but to
the types of applications, targets, and other dimensions of pesticide
application.
2.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Published pesticide usage surveys, telephone surveys, letter surveys,
and data extrapolated from sources outside the geographical area were used
to estimate pesticide usage in the basin. Sources of information on
pesticide usage, environmental fate, and toxicity are listed in Tables A1-A4
of Appendix A. These lists include the literature, government agencies, and
nongovernment organizations that were consulted. An initial attempt was
9
-------
made to contact the major distributors of pesticides in the Puget Sound
area. Assuming that all pesticides sold in a given area are used and/or
disposed of in that area, this information would have provided an accurate
database on actual pesticide usage rates and locations in the basin with a
relatively minimal extension of effort. However, because of their declina-
tion to participate in this project, this approach was not successful in
acquiring usage information. In fact, one of the major vendors of pesticides
to Washington State agencies estimated that the final usage values presented
in this study may represent only one-half the actual total pesticide usage
in the area (Huisenga, F., 5 January 1988, personal communication).
Compiled data on relative pesticide usage throughout the basin are
lacking, since many pesticide user groups in the basin have not been
surveyed previously for usage data. Additionally the few surveys that have
been conducted are either 12 yr old and contain data for pesticides no
longer in use, or lack quantitative data on a county-wide basis. These
surveys include the household use surveys (von Rumker et al. 1972; Savage et
al. 1980; Ridgley 1982) and a survey of commercial applicator use (Waddell et
al. 1984). Compilations of pesticide usage by federal government agencies
and agriculture are current (Freimark 1985; Gianessi 1986), except that
local government agency use has not been surveyed. Because of deficiencies
in data, a number of approaches for assessing pesticide usage in the Puget
Sound basin were used. In general, the following data collection methods
were used;
• Published surveys for federal government and agriculture
pesticide usage
• Telephone and letter requests for usage information from most
of the remaining user groups, when appropriate within the
scope of the project
• For certain urban users, extrapolation from usage data
available for comparable areas outside the Puget Sound
basin.
10
-------
These approaches and the sources of information are described in detail for
each major pesticide user category identified in the Puget Sound area.
Information on current patterns and projected trends in pesticide uses is
presented in Appendix D.
The major pesticide user categories for which pesticide usage informa-
tion is provided in this report are listed in Table 1. These categories
comprise major pesticide users in the basin and biocides of particular
interest to Puget Sound. Identification of the 20 user categories was based
on suggestions from pesticide suppliers and representatives in state
government agencies. Since the most readily available usage information was
provided on a county-wide basis, this is the primary system for presentation
of usage data herein.
2.2.1 Agriculture
Most data on pesticide usage by the agricultural sector of the Puget
Sound basin were abstracted from a database compiled by Resources for the
Future (RFF) (Gianessi 1986). RFF conducted a survey of national agricul-
tural pesticide usage as a project for U.S. EPA, U.S. USDA, and the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The REF database contains the most current
information available on amounts and distributions of 20 pesticides used in
agriculture throughout the country, on a county-wide basis. The database
lists by common names the active ingredients of pesticides and omits
solvents and banned chemicals.
The primary sources of data for REF were various state, regional, and
national surveys conducted by the Economic Research Service (ERS) of USDA
(covering pesticide usage on 13 crops in 33 states). However, the State of
Washington was not covered in the ERS survey. For data on crop acreage and
estimated types of pesticides applied to each crop on a county-wide basis,
the RFF database relied instead on a survey of pesticide contamination of
vulnerable groundwater conducted for the U.S. EPA Office of Puget Sound
(Sacha et a]. 1986). Coefficients of pounds of pesticide applied per acre
of crop per year (ib/ac/yr) and the percentage of crop acreage treated were
provided by county Cooperative Extension agents and local farmers. Multiply-
11
-------
TABLE 1. PESTICIDE USER CATEGORIES
Agriculture
Federal government agencies
Department of the Army
Department of the Air Force
Department of the Navy
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Department of Energy
Army Corps of Engineers
State agencies
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Transportation
Department of Wildlife
County road departments
Urban users
Cities/school districts
Commercial applicators
Private households
Private tiniber companies
Railways
Wood treatment plants (PCP)
Antifoulant paint applicators (tributyltin)
12
-------
ing the reported harvested acreage of Washington counties by the pesticide
application coefficient provided an estimate of pesticide usage in lb/yr for
14 crops and 20 pesticides. This algorithm may be expressed as:
Annual harvested Application Amount applied
acreage in Washington x coefficient = per year
(ac/yr) (lb/ac) (lb/yr)
The total number of pesticides (20) reported by RFF for agricultural
usage in the Puget Sound basin was considerably less than that estimated by
U.S. EPA (Sacha et al. 1986). RFF chose pesticides to be representative of
multiple chemical classes with a variety of applications, and for comparison
with pesticide usage data nationwide. Therefore, RFF data were supplemented
with pesticide usage data from the U.S. EPA database (Sacha et al. 1986).
Application coefficients for these additional pesticides were derived from
the California Annual Pesticide Report [ California Department of Food and
Agriculture (CDFA) 1986] by the following algorithm:
Amount applied to California crop (lb ) = California application
Acreage of application (ac) coefficient (lb/ac)
Application Percent of Total Amount applied
coefficient x ac treated x ac planted = per yr
(lb/ac) (percent) (ac/yr) (ib/yr)
Usage coefficients were calculated from data on the same crops used in the
Puget Sound basin. Percentage of crop acreage treated with a particular
pesticide was taken from either the RFF database or the Annual Pesticide
Report (CDFA 1986).
2.2.2 Federal Agencies
Data on pesticide usage by the federal government was compiled from a
U.S. EPA Region X survey (Freimark 1985). Most data are available by county
or by specific site location. The survey concentrated on “. . . federal
agencies most likely to use large quantities and/or potent types of
pesticides. Agencies for which data were not provided by county were
13
-------
contacted by telephone and asked to provide county-wide information. Data
cover the years 1982 to 1986 and were converted to pound of active ingre-
dient per year. Pesticide active ingredients used in quantities less than
10 lb/yr were not included in the survey. For pesticide usage at military
installations, all data were verified as actually used at each installation
over a 1-yr period. U.S. Forest Service herbicide uses are discussed in
Section 4.1.3. U.S. Department of Energy pesticide use primarily consists
of applications to right-of-ways managed by the Bonneville Power Administra-
tion.
2.2.3 State Agencies
Washington State government contains a number of agencies that use
pesticides either routinely or on a limited basis. There are no available
surveys of pesticide use by the various state agencies, nor does the state
government compile data on its agency-wide usage. Therefore, estimates of
state agency usage were compiled from telephone interviews with authorities
within the agencies.
Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT) does not maintain
compiled records of pesticide usage, but retains only daily work records
(3,500-5,000 annually). A search through these records was beyond the scope
of this project. However, estimates of WDOT annual pesticide usage were
obtained through the state Purchasing Division, Department of General
Administration, which issues an invitation to bid to pesticide vendors for
the sale of pesticides to WDOT on a 12-mo basis. The 1987 invitation to bid
specified WDOT state locations for deliverables and quantities of pesticide
formulations. Individual county usage of pesticide active ingredients was
approximated from these state locations. Whether actual usage is reflected
in the quantities in the bid is not known, and there is an uncertainty in
actual spatial use of these pesticides, as highway locations of applica-
tions were not indicated. County WDOT usage data are therefore only
estimates.
Pesticide usage in pounds of active ingredients (primarily herbicides)
for Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in 1987 was provided
14
-------
by the Forest Land Management Division of WDNR on a county basis. These
data include commercial aerial application only. It is estimated that WDNR
crews apply another one-fifth of these quantities to WDNR lands (Belz, D.,
25 January 1988, personal communication). Records of these in-house applica-
tions are not compiled by WDNR and data were not included in usage estimates.
Pesticide usage for the Washington Department of Wildlife (WDOW)
wildlife areas was provided by the area managers during telephone interviews.
2.2.4 County Road Departments
Pesticide usage on right-of-ways in each of the counties was provided
by each county department of public works, with the exception of Snohomish
County, for which usages were estimated by comparison with neighboring
counties. Jefferson, Mason, and San Juan counties do not use pesticides on
county roads.
2.2.5 Urban Users
At present, there are no compilations of data on pesticide usage in
Puget Sound urban environs, nor have national surveys been conducted with
sufficient depth to adequately assess urban pesticide usage. The few
published surveys addressing specific sectors of urban pesticide uses are
discussed in each of the respective sections. Sources contacted for
information include those listed in Tables A2-A4, and agencies, distributors,
and retail outlets described below. For the purposes of this report, urban
use has been divided into three categories: cities/school districts,
commercial applicators, and private households. The urban land/vegetation
and miscellaneous urban categories comprise all urban uses by certified
commercial applicators.
2.2.5.1 Cities/School Districts--
Cities and school districts apply pesticides primarily to right-of-
ways, parks, and school grounds. The availability of compiled data on
pesticide usage by cities and school districts varied considerably among the
15
-------
municipalities of the Puget Sound basin. Some medium to large cities,
notably Seattle, Olympia, Kirkland, Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup, were able to
comply with requests for information for their pesticide usage. Most medium
to small cities had difficulty abstracting this data from their records.
Because so few cities responded to requests for information, and because
the patterns of pesticides use was observed to differ greatly between large
and small cities that did respond, it was necessary to base pesticide usage
for the latter cities on data extrapolated from six cities and school
districts in the San Francisco Bay area (Dreistadt et al. 1984; Bush 1986;
Bush and Sweet 1987). Rationale and assumptions are discussed below.
Average pesticide usage coefficients (ib/person/yr) were calculated using
1980 population statistics for the Puget Sound cities listed above and 1984
population statistics for the various cities in the San Francisco Bay area.
These usage coefficients were multiplied by the population for each county
in the Puget Sound area (see Table Cl in Appendix C) to estimate pesticide
usage rates (ib/yr) for cities and school districts on a county-wide basis.
The algorithms may be expressed as:
Amount applied per yr in
Puget Sound Basin and in
S.F. Bay area cities (lb/yr ) = Usage coefficient
Population base (persons) (lb/person/yr)
Usage Population of Amount
coefficient x Puget Sound county = applied per yr
(lb/person/yr) (persons) per county
(ib/yr)
Data from the San Francisco Bay area were chosen as a source for
extrapolation to the Puget Sound basin primarily because both of these areas
surround a major estuarine system. Data were largely not available from
other sources. Extrapolation from the San Francisco Bay area to the Puget
Sound basin assumes that the pesticide usage rates, methods and purposes of
application, and climate-specific pests are similar for the two metropolitan
areas. To establish the accuracy and limitations of these assumptions,
usage rates of pesticides for Puget Sound cities that responded to requests
were compared with those from the San Francisco Bay area. The usage
coefficients (lb/yr/person) were identical for some pesticides, within
20-50 percent of each other for two-thirds of the pesticides (randomly dis-
16
-------
tributed), and different by a factor of 2-5 for a minority of pesticides.
This latter difference is reflective of the high variability in usage data
for the few cities of the Puget Sound basin for which pesticide usage data
were available. Based on these findings, extrapolation from the San
Francisco Bay area seems to be a reasonable approach for approximating
pesticide usage for cities of the Puget Sound basin.
2.2.5.2 Commercial Applicators--
Commercial applicators are a diverse group of urban pesticide users.
In the State of Washington, there are 23 different application license types
(a total of 16,000 individual licenses in the state), ranging from landscape
and golf course applications to building fumigation and water treatment. Of
600 licensed companies in the state, 231 are located within the 12 Puget
Sound counties. These applicators have not been surveyed in the past for
their pesticide usage, and a recent national survey by U.S. EPA on pesticide
usage by commercial applicators (Waddell et al. 1984) focused on a few
regions of the country rather than individual counties. These regions did
not include the Puget Sound basin.
Pesticide usage by urban commercial applicators were estimated by a
combination of Puget Sound usage coefficients and California usage coeffi-
cients. California commercial applicator pesticide usage data are available
for 10 use categories (COFA 1986); these categories were grouped into the
urban land/vegetation or miscellaneous urban categories in the present
report. Pesticide usage data in these two categories were calculated by
slightly different methods. The urban land/vegetation category includes
three State of Washington license types for applications to landscapes,
yards, and nurseries. These licensed applicators are represented by the
International Pesticide Applicators Association (IPAA) (Tovoli, P.,
4 February 1988, personal communication). IPAA provided Puget Sound usage
coefficients based on an average applicator license (lb/year/license) for
10 of the most commonly used urban pesticides in the Puget Sound basin, and
names of nine pesticides of less use. Since the number of each type of
license is not available from WSDA on a county-wide basis, usage coefficients
based on population (lb/yr/person) were used in the calculations of usage.
17
-------
These usage coefficients were calculated in two steps. First, an “initial
usage coefficient’ was derived from California data (CDFA 1986) for the
pesticide of highest use in the basin (diazinon). Proportional usage
coefficients per population for the remaining nine IPAA pesticides were then
calculated from the California-based coefficients. The algorithms used in
these calculations are as follows:
Amount of highest use
pesticide (diazinon) applied
in urban land/vegetation categories
in California per yr “Initial usage coefficient”
( ib/yr ) = or highest use pesticide
Population of California (ib/person/yr)
(persons)
Individual usage coefficient
by license in Puget Sound basin
(supplied by IPAA) Proportional usage of
( lb/license/yr ) = each pesticide
Highest usage coefficient (unitless ratio)
by license (from IPAA list)
(lb/i icense/yr)
Individual usage
“Initial usage coefficient” Proportional coefficient by
for highest use pesticide x usage of each = person in
(lb/person/yr) pesticide Puget Sound basin
(ib/person/yr)
For the additional nine pesticides for which no license-based usage
coefficients were provided, population-based usage coefficients were
calculated from California data (CDFA 1986) as described in Section 2.2.5.1.
The sum of usage values for pesticides for which IPAA provided licensed-based
coefficients was estimated by IPAA (Tovoli, p., 4 February 1988, personal
communication) to account for 75 percent of total pesticide usage in the
urban land/vegetation category. Their usage coefficients were multiplied by
0.75 to reflect this difference. The usage coefficients for the remaining
low-use pesticides, which lacked license-based coefficients, were multiplied
by 0.25. Thus each pesticide was assigned a usage coefficient that
reflected its proportional use by a representative IPAA member license. Each
pesticide usage coefficient was then multiplied by the Puget Sound county
populations to arrive at county-wide usage rates by the following algorithm:
18
-------
Individual usage Population of Usage in
coefficient by person x Puget Sound county = each county
(ib/person/yr) (persons) (lb/yr)
Commercial pesticide applicators in the second category (miscellaneous
urban) are not represented by the IPAA, and usage information was not readily
available from local commercial applicator companies. This category
includes structural pest control, open urban area applications, golf course
maintenance, and fumigation of stored commodity. Difficulties in obtaining
usage information from the large structural pesticide applicator companies
have been described by U.S. EPA (Waddell et al. 1984). In that study,
personal contacts and interviews with industry leaders were necessary to
acquire the desired usage information. Since telephone and letter requests
failed to bring satisfactory information in the present study, usage data
for this category were estimated by extrapolation from California pesticide
usage data for equivalent categories (CDFA 1986). Pesticide usage coeffi-
cients (lb/yr/person) were calculated from California usage data (COFA
1986), and these coefficients were multiplied by the Puget Sound county
populations to arrive at pesticide Usages per county. The following
algorithms were used:
Amount used in California State
in miscellaneous urban categories (ib/yr ) = Usage coefficient
Population of California State (lb/person/yr)
(persons)
Usage coefficient Population of each Usage in
(lb/person/yr) x Puget Sound county = each county
(persons) (lb/yr)
Usages of less than 10 lb/yr for a particular pesticide were omitted from
the data in both commercial applicator categories.
The final estimated usage rates for the commercial application
categories in the Puget Sound basin entail certain limitations. Principally,
extrapolation of data from California to the Puget Sound basin assumes that
the number and sizes of application sites are similar between the two
geographical areas. However, since the data were compiled from statewide
19
-------
usage data rather than a strictly urban population base, an accurate
representation of urban usage in this category cannot be assumed. IPPA has
also emphasized (Walter, E., 4 March 1988, personal communication) that
certain pesticides may be substituted for one another by commercial
applicators to control the same pest. In spite of these uncertainties, this
method of usage estimation represents the best available within the scope of
this project.
2.2.5.3 Private Households--
Private home usage includes total household usage as performed by the
resident, including indoor use and outdoor yard and garden applications.
Published surveys of household pesticide use do not provide adequate
information for the determination of current household pesticide usage
practices in the Puget Sound basin. This type of use is difficult to assess
for two main reasons: 1) use is typically not reported and 2) manufacturers
change products and product names so frequently that accurate recordkeeping
is extremely difficult (Environmental Assessment Team 1978). von Rumker et
al. (1972) established national household usage rates, but the pesticides
surveyed in 1972 were a much different group of chemicals than those used in
households today and included some pesticides that have since been restricted
in use. Those usage rates (von Rumker et a]. 1972) were not used in this
study. Instead, a method of extrapolation from California household usage
data was used to estimate household usage in the Puget Sound basin.
This extrapolation method is described as follows. First, contemporary
household pesticides were identified by surveying a local retail outlet
(Ernst Home and Nursery). Pesticide active ingredients were then rank-
ordered for relative usage. The rank ordering was based on a comparison of
three recent qualitative surveys of household pesticide uses (Savage et
al. 1980; Ridgley 1982; Dewell 1987) and a conference with a specialist in
retail pesticide sales in the Seattle area (Lou, L., 9 February 1988,
personal communication). Usage coefficients (lb/person) were then calculated
for each pesticide from California data (CDFA 1980) as described above for
the miscellaneous urban sector of commercial applicators (see Section
2.2.5.2), using the most recent report (1980) in which pesticide manufac-
20
-------
turers separated household pesticide usage data from other pesticide data
(Hall, T., 1 March 1988, personal communication). Finally, usage coeffi-
cients were adjusted where necessary to fit the qualitative pesticide
rankings and multiplied by county populations in the Puget Sound basin as
described above to give estimates of county-wide household pesticide usage
data. The final values for household pesticide usage therefore reflect the
current rankings of sales by volume at a Seattle retail outlet and as
reported for Seattle in 1982 (Ridgley 1982) and are as accurate as possible
given the uncertainties of the methods. The assumptions concerning
comparisons between two different urban populations that were discussed in
previous sections apply to these estimations also. Further discussion of
the extent of household use of pesticides nationwide and potential factors
involved in household pesticide migration to the aquatic environment is
provided in Appendix 0.
2.2.6 Private Timber ComDanies
Timberlands in the Puget Sound basin are managed by three major
groups. Two of these groups (U.S. Forest Service and WDNR) are discussed
above. The remaining timberlands are held primarily by private timber
companies. Their pesticide usage has not been surveyed, nor is their usage
recorded by any government agency. Telephone interviews and letters of
request were therefore initiated. Thirteen timber companies with holdings
in the basin were solicited for information, but most declined to participate
in the project. The five that responded with county-wide usage information
included the two firms estimated to have the largest holdings, Weyerhaeuser
Forest Products Co., and Champion International Corp. Data presented in the
private timber category are for only those companies that participated in the
study. For the remaining companies, the extent of their holdings in the
basin and the percentage of these acres treated each year are not readily
estimable. For these reasons, the data presented reflect substantial
underestimates of actual usage.
21
-------
2.2.7 Railways
Railroads have large right-of-way holdings throughout the Puget Sound
basin, with niost acreage concentrated in the east side of the sound in the
urban/industrial counties, Pierce and King, and less acreage in Thurston
County and the agricultural counties of the north basin. Only herbicides
are applied to these areas.
Although approximately eight private and public railroad companies have
right-of-ways in the basin (Harder, G., 18 May 1988, personal communication),
95-99 percent of herbicide application is by two companies, Burlington
Northern (BN) and Union Pacific (UP) (Johnston, 0., 25 May 1988, personal
communication). Of these, BN holds most of the right-of-ways. Herbicide
applications by these two companies are contracted to out-of-state commercial
applicators. Records of these applications are not compiled by the railroad
companies, and are only available from the applicators on a region-wide
basis that encompasses most of the western U.S. (Ostrander, V., 6 June 1988,
personal communication). Herbicide usage data for BN (Telesz, G., 8 August
1988, personal communication) and for UP (Johnston, 0., 25 May 1988,
personal communication) right-of-ways are included in Table 3 under the
heading “basin-wide” but are not included in the county data tables
(Appendix C).
2.2.8 Wood Treatment Plants
In this report, the wood treatment use category consists solely of
pentachlorophenol (PCP), although creosote and inorganic arsenicals
(primarily chromated copper arsenate) are also widely used. According to the
sole manufacturer of pentachiorophenol in the U.S., approximately 720,000 lb
of PCP were sold in the Puget Sound basin in 1987 (Lindsay, 0., 8 February
1988, personal comunication). A brief review of PCP users in the Puget
Sound basin and trends in nationwide use is provided in Appendix D.
22
-------
2.2.9 Antifoulant Paint Applicators
Tributyltin (TBT) is the major organotin compound in marine antifouling
paints. However, cuprous oxide, in general, accounts for 90 percent of
marine antifouling compounds. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
(Metro) reported TBT and cuprous oxide usage estimates for the Seattle area
(King County) in a survey of major distributors of marine paints
(Gamponia, V., 13 December 1985, personal communication). Buying agents for
these distributors indicated that 1,200-2,000 gal of organotin-based
antifouling paints were sold in Seattle in 1985. These figures were
confirmed for 1987 by telephone survey (Haafs, D., 2 February 1988, personal
communication).
The U.S. Navy is a major user of marine paints in Puget Sound, with a
major shipbuilding facility in Seattle and a ship maintenance facility in
Bremerton (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard). The former facility contracts with
private paint applicators, and the latter facility uses U.S. Navy personnel
for maintenance painting (Caps, J., 25 January 1988, persona] communication).
However, since the U.S. Navy is not at present using organotin-based marine
paints during shipbuilding (Keiffer, R., 25 January 1988, personal communica-
tion) or during maintenance (Samford, J., 18 March 1988, personal communica-
tion), these sales figures are considered to be accurate reflections of
total quantities of tin-based paints sold in 1985 in King County.
By using a conversion factor for content of TBT in these paints, which
was supplied by one of the major manufacturers of TBT-based marine paints
(Haafs, D., 2 February 1988, personal communication), these usage figures
were converted to pounds of TBT. Usage estimates for the counties in the
Puget Sound basin were extrapolated from the population base of King County,
assuming the same volume of use of marine-based paints on a solely per
capita basis. A brief review of the use of TBT and cuprous oxide as
antifoulants in marine paints and the September 1988 regulatory status of
TBT in U.S. EPA and the State of Washington is provided in Appendix D.
23
-------
2.3 PESTICIDE USAGE
A wide variety of pesticides were identified as potentially used in the
Puget Sound basin, and the active ingredients, trade names, and uses are
listed in Table 2. The status of each pesticide in the Special Review
process, where known, is also included in Table 2. The Special Review
process is explained above in Section 1.2. A cross-index of tradenames is
provided in Table Bi (Appendix B) for easy reference purposes. More
detailed information on uses and intended targets of each pesticide is
presented in Table B2 (Appendix B). Pesticides are listed by chemical
classification for comparability of pesticidal activities between similar
chemicals. Chemical names, chemical identification numbers (CAS numbers),
and manufacturers names are provided in Table 83 (Appendix B). Sources for
this information are listed in Table Al (Appendix A) under Pesticide
Compendia.
The previous section of this report identified pesticide user categories
in the basin and methods for arriving at estimates of pesticide usage for
each category. The present section compiles the results of those imputations
for 12 counties and 9 major watersheds in the Puget Sound basin.
2.3.1 Estimated Usage of Pesticides in Puget Sound Counties
Compilation of county-wide data on pesticide usage by the user
categories described above reveals that 122 pesticide active ingredients may
be in current use in the Puget Sound basin. The data on the individual user
categories (except wood treatment plants and railways) are shown by county
in Tables C2-C13 (Appendix C). These tables present amounts that are
estimated to be used, or surveyed as actually used, over a given 12-mo
period in each of the defined use categories. As described in the previous
section and later in the report (see Section 4.1), because of the limitations
in data availability, pesticide usage data presented herein should be
considered estimates of the lower bound of actual use. For example, total
number of pesticides used in the basin is probably higher than reported due
to the routine elimination of less frequently used pesticides (generally
those used at less than 10 ib/yr) from published surveys (Gianessi 1986) and
24
-------
TABLE 2. PESTICIDE NAMES AND CLASSFICATIONS
Active Ingredient Uses Classification Synonyms*/Trade Names
Esteron,
several
I
24,5-T
Herbicide
Phenoxyaliphatic Acids
Weeder,
2
2,4-0
Herbicide
Phenoxyaliphatic Acids
Severa l
3
4
Acephate
Acroleina
Insecticide
Herbicide
Organophosphates
Miscellaneous Orqanics
Orthene
Aqualin
S
AlachlorL
Herbicide
Anilides
Lasso
6
7
Aldicarbd
AldrinLt )
Insecticide/Acaracide
Insecticide
Carbainates
Chlorinated Cyclodienes
Tenik
Octalene
8
Alirinum Phosphide
Insecticide
Inorga nics
Al-Phos, Celphine, several
9
10
Aminopyridine
AmitroleC
Avicide
Herbicide
Pyridines
Triazoles
Avitrol*
Several, Mlitrole_T*
11
12
Annionium Sulfaniate
Atrazinea
Herbicide
Herbicide
Inorganics
Triazines
Annate
Aatrex, Drexel
13
14
Azinphos_methyla
Bacillus Thuringiensisa
Insecticide
Insecticide
Organophosphates
Microbial
Guthion
Biotrol K, Dipel. Thuricide
15
Bendiocarb
Insecticide
Carbamates
Ficam, Tattoo
16
17
Benfluraljfa
Bencxnyldt J
Pesticide
Fungicide/Bactericide
Anilines
Benzimidazoles
Benefin*, Balan
Benlate, Tersan
18
Bensulide
Herbicide
Organophosphates
Betasan, Prefar
19
Boric Acid
Insecticide
Inorganics
Boracic acid*
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Brunacfl
Bromoxynild
Butylatea
Cacodylic O da c
Captafola .
CarbarylC
Cartjofurand.C
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Fungicide/Bactericide
Insecticide/karacide
Nernaticide/Insecticide
t lrac i ls
Nitriles
Thiocarbainates
Organic Arsenicals
Dicarboximides
Carbainates
Carba nates
?lyvar
Brominal, Buctril, Mu-Lawn
Sutan
Balls-Eye, Broadside, Dimethylarsinic
Difolatan
Sevin
Furadan
Acid*
2?
Carbon OI 5 Olf d€a
Insecticide/Acaracide
Miscellaneous Organics
Carbon Bisulfide*
28
29
Chlcramhen
ChlordaneLt )
Herbicide
Insecticide
Benzoic Acids
Chlorinated Cyclodienes
Arniben, Vegiber
Octachlor, Terinide
3D
Chlorflurenol
Herbicide
Carboxylic Acids
Chlorflurecol t , Maintain, Multiprop
31
32
33
34
36
36
37
38
s9
40
41
Chloropicrin
Chlarothalonila
Chiorpyrifosa
Chlorsulfuron
Copper Naphthenatea
Cuprous Oxidea
Dalagond
DCPA
oiazinona 4
Dicambaa
Dichlobenila
Insecticide/Fungicide
Fungicide/Bactericide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Pesticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Miscellaneous Organics
Nitriles
Organophosphates
Triaziries
Inorganic-organics
Inorganics
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Benzoic Acids
Organophcsphates
Benzoic Acids
Nitriles
Several, and with methyl bromide
Daconil, Bravo
Dursban, Lorsban
Glean, Telar
Cupri nol, Troysan
Copper Nordox*
Dowpon
Dacthal, Chlorthal-Diniethyl
Knox-Out, Spectracide
Banvel , Banex, Bush Buster
Casoron
42
43
44
45
46
Dichloropropenea.c
Dichlor osô .
Dicofol ’
DieldrinaI .e
Dinoseba,d
Insecticide/Acaracide
Insecticide
Acaricide
Insecticide
-lerbicide
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Organophosphates
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Chlorinated Cyclodienes
Phenols
0-0, Telone
ODVP*, Vapona
Keithane
Alvit, Oieldrex
ONBP*, Dinitro, Vertac
47
Dioxathion
Insecticide/Acaracide
Miscellaneous Organics
Delnav, Deltic
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Active lngredent Uses Classihcation Synonyms*/Trade Names
48 Diphenamidd Herbicide Substituted Amides D)inid, Enide
49 Diquat Herbicide Bipyridyliums Reglone, Weedol
50 Disulfoton Insecticide/Acaracide Organophosphates O -Syston
51 Diuron Herbicide Uracils Karmex, Krovar
52 Dormant qua Insecticide/Acaracide Miscellaneous Organics Volck Oils
53 DSMA . ’ Herbicide Organic Arsenicals Dimethylarsonic Acid*, Ansar 8100, Arrhenal
54 Endosulfan Insecticide Chlorinated Cyclodienes Thiodan
55 Endothal Herbicide Miscellaneuos Organics Accelerate. Desi-cate
56 Endrina, ,e Insecticide Chlorinated Cyclodienes Endrex
57 Fenamiphos Nematicide Organophosphates Nemacur
58 Fenthion Insecticide Organophosphates Baytex, Entex, Tiguvon
59 Fenvalerated Insecticide Pyrethrins Pydrin
60 Ferbama Fungicide/Bactericide Carbamates Fermate
61 Fosamine Herbicide Organophosphates Krenite
62 Glyphosated Herbicide Organophosphates Roundup
63 Heptachlorab.e Insecticide Chlorinated Cyclodienes Orinox, Termide
64 Hexazinone Herbicide Triazines Velpar
65 lprodionea.e Fungicide/Bactericide Dicarboximides Chipco 26019, Rovral
66 Lime Sulf r Fungicide/Bactericide Inorganics
67 Lindanea Insecticide/Acaracide Halogenated Hydrocarbons Game HCH*, several
68 LinuronC Herbicide Uracils Lorox
N.) 69 Malathiona Insecticide/Acaracide Organophosphates Cythion
70 Maleic H dra;idea .c Herbicide Heterocyclic Nitrogens MH (WSSA)*, MH-30
71 Mancozeb C Fungicide/Bactericide Thiocarbamates Dithane M-45, Karamate
72 Maneb C Fungicide/Bactericide Thiocarbamates Dithane M-22, Manzate
73 MCPP Herbicide Phenoxyaliphatic Acids Mecoprop*, Propal
74 Mefluididea Herbicide Miscellaneous Organics Embark
75 Metaldehy e Molluscicide Miscellaneous Organics Antimilace, Ilalizan, Metason
76 Metam&C Fungicide/Herbicide Thiocarbamates Vapani, Metam_Sodium*, Metham*
77 Methamidophos Insecticide Organophosphates Monitor, Tamanox
78 Methomyl Insecticide Carbamates Lannate
79 Methoprenee Hormone Alfosid, several
80 Methyl Bromidea Insecticide/Acaracide Halogenated Hydrocarbons Bromo-Gas, Terr-O-Gas
81 Methyl Parathion 8 Insecticide Organophosphates Folidol , Metacide
82 Methylene Chloride Insecticide/Acaracide Halogenated Hydrocarbons
83 MetiramC Fungicide/Bactericide Thiocarbamates Polyram—Cmnbi, Polyram
84 Metolachlor Herbicide Anilides Dual
85 Metribuzina Herbicide Triazines Lexone, Sencor
86 Mevinphosa Insecticide/Acaracide Organophosphates Phosdrin
87 Monocro ophosa InsecticidefAcaracide Organophosphates Azodrin
88 Monuron Herbicide Uracils Telvar
89 MSMAa.c.d Herbicide Organic Arsenicals Methylarsonic Acid*, Ansar 529, Syeno
90 Naleda Insecticide Organophosphates Dibrom
91 Napropamidea Herbicide Substituted Amides Devrinol
92 Octyl bicycloheptene-
carboximide Synergist Dicarboximides Van Dyke 264
93 Oryzalina Herbicide Substituted Amides Surfian
-------
TABLE 2. (ContInued)
Active Ingredient Uses Classification Synonyms*/Trade Names
94 Oxadiazond Herbicide Heterocyclic Nitrogens Ronstar
95 Oxycarboxin Fungicide/Bactericide Benzimidazoles Plantvax
96 Oxydemeton_nlethyla Insect icide/Acaracide Organophosphates Metasystox-R
97 Oxyfluorfenl Herbicide Miscellaneous Organics Goal
98 Paraquata Herbicide Bipyridiliunis Several, Weedol
99 Parathona Insecticide Organophosphates Niran, Penncap-E, several
100 PCNB (Quintozene)u Fungicide/Bactericide Phenols Quintozene*, Terraclor
101 Pentachiorophenola. .d Herbicide/Molluscicide Phenols Penta*, PCP’ ’
102 Permethrina Insecticide Pyrethrins Aithush, Ectiban, Pounce, Pramex
103 Phenothrin Insecticide/Acaracide Pyrethrins Multicide, Suniithrin
104 Phoratea Insecticide Organophosphates Thin t
105 Piclorama Herbicide Pyridine-Carboxylic Acids Tordon
106 Piperonyl Butoxidea Synergist Miscellaneous Organics Butacide
107 PrometonB , Herbicide Triazines Pramitol
108 PronamideB Herbicide Miscellaneous Organics Propyzamide*, Kerb
109 Propetamphos Insecticide Organophosphates Safrotin
110 Prophama Herbicide Anilines IPC, Chem-Hoe
111 Propoxur Insecticide Carbamates Baygon
112 Pyrethrinsd Insecticide Pyrethrins Pyrethrum , Pyrenone, Pyrocide
113 Resmethrin Insecticide Pyrethrins Cross Fire, Synthrin, SBP—1382
114 Rotenoneac Insecticide Botanicals Cube*, Derris, Nox Fish, Chem Fish
115 Sethoxydim 8 Herbicide Miscellaneous Organics Nabu, Fervinal, Poast
116 SimazineB Herbicide Triazines Princep, Aquazine
117 Sodium Chlorate Herbicide Inorganics Several
118 Sodium Metaborate Herbicide Inorganics Monoborchiorate, Ureabor, Borax*
119 Sulforneturon—methyl Herbicide Pyrimidines Oust
120 Sul fotepe Insecticide/Acaracide Organophosphates Bladafum
121 Sulfur Fungicide/Bactericide Inorga nics Several
122 Sulfuryl Fluoride Insecticide/Acaracide Inorganics Vikane
123 Tebuthiurona Herbicide Uracils Spike
124 Teiiephos Insecticide Organophosphates Abate
125 Terbacil Herbicide Uracils Sinbar
126 Thirama Fungicide/Bactericide Thiocarbamates Several, Aatack
127 TriButylTin C Pesticide Inorganic-organics Several
128 Trichlorfon C Insecticide/Acaracide Organophosphates Oipterex, Dylox, Neguvon, Proxol
129 Triclopyr A Herbicide Pyridine-Carboxylic Acids Garlon 3A, Garlon 4
130 Trifluralinu Herbicide Nitroanilines Treflan, Terbalin
131 Vernolatea Herbicide Thiocarbamates Vernam
132 Warfarin Rodenticide Coumarins Coumaferie, Zoocoumarin
133 Xylene Additive Miscellaneous Organics Xylol
134 Zinebae d Insecticide/Acaracide Carbarnates Aspor, Zineb, Dithane
135 Zirama.c. Fungicide Thiocarbamates Ziram Tech.
Use-specific “Data Call-In” decision reached: data complete or being generated.
b Cancelled (voluntarily or by Notice of Intent) for all or most uses.
Currently in Special Review or returned to registration process.
Special Review completed.
e Usage in Puget Sound basin not known.
-------
from extrapolated data reported herein. Furthermore, pesticide usage may be
expected to ‘increase in the basin after termination of the injunction
against U.S. Forest Service usage (see Section 4.1.3).
Summarized data on nonurban pesticide usage (pounds of each pesticide
used per year) are presented for each of the 12 Puget Sound counties in
Table 3. Major urban use pesticides for which usage data were derived
largely by extrapolation from other geographical areas are listed in
Table 4. Pesticides are ranked by total usage in the basin, beginning with
the pesticides of highest estimated usage. Total estimated pesticide usage
in each county is presented in Table 5. These data are the summation of
pesticide usage data from the 18 user categories in Appendix C (see Tables 3
and 4) and the data reported in a basin-wide basis in Table 3. It is
estimated that more than 2.8 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients
are used per year in the Puget Sound basin. This value is equivalent to
approximately 1 lb/person. In comparison, total reported pesticide usage in
California is more than 3 lb/person (CDFA 1986). This difference presumably
reflects the extensive agricultural application in that state.
Estimated urban pesticide usage data in the Puget Sound basin, as noted
in Tables 4 and C2-C13 (Appendix C), are based on a combination of Puget
Sound data and extrapolation ‘from California data. Because of this, there
are major uncertainties about the usage rates for pesticides used in this
category. Specifically, usage data for methyl bromide, sulfuryl fluoride,
metaldehyde, and chlordane should be considered estimates only. In
California, methyl bromide is used primarily as a fumigant in buildings,
ranging from industrial sites to schools (Olkowski et al. 1980), sulfuryl
fluoride is used solely against structural insects, chiordane is used
primarily against building termites, and metaldehyde is a home pesticide for
use on slugs and snails. Because these pesticide uses and targets may be
more prevalent in California than in Puget Sound, their assigned level of
concern presented in Section 2.5 reflects a high usage uncertainty. IPAA
(Walter, E., 4 March 1988, personal communication) and other user groups
have cautioned that these uncertain data by themselves should not be used
for regulatory purposes by governmental agencies or for public decision-
making.
28
-------
TABLE 3. PESTICIDE USAGE IN THE PUGET SOUND BASIN EXCLUSIVE OF MAJOR URBAN-SPECIFIC pESTICIDESa (POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT PER YEAR)
BASIN
ACTIVE INGREDIENT CLALLAM ISLAND JEFFERSON KING KITSAP MASON PIERCE SAN JUAN SKAGIT SNOI-IOMISFI THURSTON WHATCOM WIDED TOTAL
Pentachiorophenol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 720,000 720,000
2,4-D SpeciesC 5,249 2,397 3,717 25,219 4,342 3,583 214,313 1,917 11,340 18,106 6,329 11,574 3,320 311,406
Ma athionC 1,562 2,028 476 38,010 4,354 936 136,935 240 1,912 10,048 3,672 3,153 0 203,326
Proineton 90 80 30 28,324 281 13,023 20,382 15 6,581 7,107 235 32,596 0 108,744
S imazineC 144 188 42 19,708 868 50,083 11,494 13 1,184 9,681 1,266 2,612 0 97,283
DiazinonC 1,666 1,416 512 39,647 4,607 1,004 14,874 245 2,123 9,538 3,967 3,528 0 83,127
D cambaC 225 1,387 68 19,246 1,640 2,325 15,106 25 5,096 6,089 637 3,602 0 55,446
Triclopyr 766 285 79 7,845 871 170 36,356 25 600 4,543 1,573 720 800 54,633
AtrazineC 17 396 0 18,328 2.000 80 3,387 0 4.389 3,101 1,651 3,582 7,460 44,391
Brornacil 0 14,397 240 323 321 28 15,097 0 174 140 10,014 83 0 40,817
CarbarylC 773 564 242 14,150 1,589 394 5,484 87 4,991 4,550 1,412 3,061 0 37,297
Diuron’ 113 13,758 400 5,374 1,045 1,095 3,478 0 803 2,712 1,167 305 6,870 37,120
GlyphosateC 782 481 422 11,889 1,267 299 9,209 59 1,089 5,722 1,583 2,286 0 35,088
Tebuthiuron 0 0 0 8,272 0 4,130 6,192 0 2,064 2,064 0 10,321 0 33,043
Vernolate 0 7 0 1,370 0 0 450 0 4,653 4,092 704 4,923 0 16,199
Cuprous Oxide 312 273 93 7,840 200 200 2,940 47 400 1,960 780 700 0 15,745
Dichloropropene 0 0 0 169 20 0 65 0 0 45 17 15,014 0 15,330
Parathion 290 105 96 1,366 99 70 621 2 6,968 2,108 131 1,890 0 13,746
Sodium Metaborate 14 12 0 334 39 0 13,123 0 17 89 33 28 0 13,689
0inoseb 112 55 17 1,500 164 34 922 0 4,828 1,219 201 3,340 0 12,392
Butylate 0 0 0 0 0 0. 400 0 7,000 4,600 0 0 0 12,000
Alachior 0 6 0 788 0 72 395 0 3,430 1,761 387 2,563 0 9,402
Phorate 0 0 0 450 3 18 27 0 3,316 1,425 174 2,743 0 8,156
Methyl Parathion 99 10 0 65 0 0 0 0 5,155 1,235 0 1,292 0 7,856
Lime SulfurC 46 5,088 15 1,100 130 28 440 10 60 300 100 100 0 7,417
Disulfoton° 75 62 25 1,942 200 45 2,096 10 1,803 509 175 398 0 7,340
Methamidophos 0 0 0 21 3 0 0 0 3,917 80 3 1,952 0 5,976
Pronamide 0 3 0 352 0 4,000 620 0 500 200 0 175 0 5,850
Trifluralin 31 14 0 414 41 10 183 0 3,658 142 38 1,016 0 5,547
OryzalinC 76 68 22 3,300 223 45 933 10 60 300 190 170 0 5.397
Metolachlor 0 0 0 334 2 9 22 0 2,257 776 94 1,807 0 5,301
Boric Acidc 80 69 25 1,975 229 49 1,151 12 100 525 614 166 0 4,995
Sulfometuron-methyl 176 64 30 1,218 153 103 863 0 305 1,212 146 442 210 4,922
AcroleinC 90 77 28 2,206 256 54 844 111 111 587 216 185 0 4,765
Fenvalerate 0 0 0 56 0 0 4,682 0 0 15 0 0 0 4.753
BenfluralinC 100 90 30 2,411 300 lOB 100 16 130 700 250 200 0 4.435
DiguatC 75 65 20 1,971 231 44 754 11 97 523 194 167 0 4,152
Propham 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 1,800 2,300 0 0 0 4,128
Methomyl 17 14 0 419 118 10 428 0 2,321 610 41 35 0 4,013
TriButyllin 134 117 40 0 385 85 1,260 20 170 840 335 300 0 3,686
Fosamine Aainoni .zn 0 0 80 1,760 320 400 880 0 240 0 0 0 0 3,680
Hexazinone 0 0 0 0 320 0 2,012 0 0 0 0 260 0 2,592
Diphenamid 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 2,400
Pyrethrins 37 22 8 863 106 16 443 4 43 240 86 72 0 1,940
-------
TABLE 3. (Continued)
Terbaci 1
MSMA
Carbofu ran
Teniephos
Fenami phos
Bendi ocarb
Unknown Herbicide
Picloram
Oxadi azon
P1 peronyl Butoxide
Captafol
Captan
Del apon
Paraquat
Bensulide
Bacillus Thuringiensis
Di cofol
Cacodylic Acid
Phenothri n
Copper Naphthenate
Warfari n
Metirani
Chlorflurenol
Rotenone
Octyl bicycloheptenedi
carboximi de
Naproparni de
Monuron
Methyl ene Chloride
Nal ed
Metribuzin
Monoc rotophos
Thi rain
Permethri n
Mevi nphos
Bron i exynil
Mefluidide
Resmethri n
Chi oramben
Chi orsul furon
Fenthion
PCNB (Quintozene)
Dioxathion
Amnonium Sulfamate
13 11 0 315
20 10 0 219
0 0 0 400
0 0 0 188
0 0 0 179
0 100 0 0
0 0 0 174
0 0 0 38
0 0 0 151
0 0 0 141
0 0 0 136
0 0 0 125
0 0 0 124
0 0 0 74
0 2 1 0
0 0 0 89
0 0 0 85
0 0 0 80
0 0 0 67
BASI J
ACTIVE INGREDIENT CLALLAM ISLAND JEFFERSON KING KITSAP MASON PIERCE SAN JUAN SKAGIT SNOHOMISH THURST0N WHATCOM WIDE° TOTAL
O 0
35 31
149 86
0 0
0 0
22 18
0 0
439 30
20 20
23 20
O 0
20 18
O 0
18 15
O 0
o 464
15 13
17 15
0 0
15 12
0 0
O 0
15 13
10 10
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
450
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
869
435
18
100
631
0
16
500
564
2
507
0
447
6
202
405
400
0
357
0
2
300
280
O 0 500
101 13 330
51 30 558
0 0 0
0 0 600
62 13 388
O 0 1,400
150 200 0
60 10 200
65 14 216
O 0 9
60 12 190
900 40 0
52 11 171
O 0 11
23 0 57
45 11 160
50 10 160
0 0 753
41 0 137
0 0 735
0 0 7
40 9 150
30 7 200
0 1,100
0 42
6 95
0 0
0 250
0 27
0 0
O 0
0 30
0 29
0 636
0 25
O 0
0 23
0 864
0 10
3 20
0 20
0 0
0 18
0 0
0 418
0 20
2 15
270 0 0
230 83 73
132 57 106
0 0 1,700
650 0 0
141 230 45
0 0 0
0 0 0
260 50 50
150 55 47
16 0 443
135 50 40
0 0 0
119 44 38
0 0 0
54 20 35
110 40 30
100 40 35
0 0 0
95 35 30
0 0 0
11 0 290
100 30 30
75 30 25
0 1,870
0 1,807
0 1,719
0 1,718
O 1,600
O 1,577
0 1,400
0 1,285
O 1,200
0 1,183
0 1,106
0 1,05/
0 940
0 938
0 881
0 865
0 857
O 84/
0 753
0 740
0 735
0 728
0 107
O 688
37 0 12 0 16 84 31 26 0 545
20 5 100 0 10 50 20 50 0 504
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400
22 0 72 0 10 50 18 16 0 376
21 0 68 0 0 48 1/ 15 0 348
0 0 0 0 110 40 0 90 0 340
20 0 67 0 0 46 17 15 0 339
O 0 254 0 0 10 0 0 0 302
16 0 54 0 0 38 14 12 0 285
16 0 54 0 0 38 14 12 0 275
16 0 53 0 0 37 13 12 0 267
15 3 50 0 0 30 12 10 0 245
14 0 47 0 0 33 12 10 0 240
O 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 174
0 0 0 0 13 0 3 7 140 166
10 0 34 0 0 24 0 0 0 157
10 0 32 0 0 23 0 0 0 150
O 0 32 0 0 21 0 0 0 133
0 0 26 0 0 18 0 0 0 111
-------
[ ABLE 3. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT
CLALLAM
ISLAND
JEFFERSON
KING
KITSAP
MASON
PIERCE
SAN JUAN
SKAGIT
SNOHOMISH
THURSTON
WHATCOM
BASI ,
WIDE
TOTAL
MaleicHydrazide
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
100
0
0
0
0
106
Aldicarb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
100
Mancozeb
0
0
0
47
0
0
18
0
0
13
0
0
0
78
Maneb
0
0
0
47
0
0
18
0
0
13
0
0
0
78
DSMA
0
0
0
19
0
9
14
0
5
5
0
23
0
75
Aluminum Phosphide
0
0
0
45
0
0
17
0
0
12
0
0
0
74
Uxydemeton-methyl
Oxyfluorfen
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
28
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
39
Metam
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
15
0
0
0
37
.Aminopyridine
Ferbam
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
DCPA
0
13,982
0
44,484
0
7231
19
279,470
0
28,704
0
82,947
0
537,984
0
2,890
0
99,591
0
116,590
0
39,350
0
120,776
0 19
738,800 2,112,799
a Usage rates were determined primarily from national and local surveys.
b County-specific usage not determinable. Includes use by wood treatment plants (PCP) and railways.
C Usage values include moderate urban use. Indicated only for those pesticides with total usage > 2,000 lb/yr and not listed in Table 4. Urban usage
data were estimated by extrapolation from out-of-state data supplemented with local survey data. County-wide usage rates are provided for four urban
categories in Appendix C.
: •
-------
TABLE 4. ESTIMATED USAGE OF MAJOR URBAN-SPECIFIC PESTICIDES IN TIlE PUGET SOUND BASINa (POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENI PER YEAR)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT CLALLAM ISLAND JEFFERSON KING KITSAP MASON PIERCE SAN JUAN SKAGIT SNOHOMISH THURSTON WHATCOM TOTAL
Methyl Bromide 5,300 4,500 1,600 130,600 15,100 3,200 50,00o 800 6,600 34,700 12,800 11,000 276200
Sulfuryl Fluoride 2,300 2,000 700 57100 6,600 1,400 21,900 400 2,900 15,200 5,600 4,800 120,900
Metaldehyde 1,000 900 300 26,100 2,900 600 9,400 200 1,300 6,800 2,500 2,200 54,200
Chiordane 1,000 800 300 23500 2,700 600 9,000 100 1,200 6,300 2,300 2,000 49,800
Chlorpyrifos 800 700 200 18,500 2,200 500 7,200 100 900 4,900 1,800 1,600 39,400
Sulfur 700 600 200 16,400 1,900 400 6,300 100 800 4,400 1,600 1,400 34,800
Xylene 400 400 100 10,200 1,200 200 3,900 100 500 2,700 1,000 900 21,600
Acephate 300 300 100 10,100 1,000 200 3,200 100 400 2,200 800 700 19,400
Ziram 300 300 100 8,300 1,000 200 3,200 100 400 2,200 800 700 17,500
Endosulfan 300 200 80 6,600 800 200 2,500 40 300 1,800 600 600 14,020
MCPP 200 200 60 5,400 600 100 2,000 30 300 1,400 500 500 11,290
Heptachior 200 200 60 5,200 600 100 2,000 30 300 1,400 500 400 10,990
Amitrole 200 200 60 4,800 600 100 1,800 10 200 1,300 500 400 10,170
Azinphos-methyl 200 100 50 3,800 400 100 1,500 20 200 1,000 400 300 8,070
Propoxur 100 100 30 3,300 400 100 1,800 10 200 900 300 300 7,540
Dichiobenil 100 100 50 3,500 400 100 1,200 20 200 800 300 300 7,070
Benmiiyl 100 100 40 3,100 400 100 1,200 20 200 800 300 300 6,660
Chlorothalonil 100 100 40 3,000 100 100 1,100 10 200 800 300 300 6,150
Chicropicrin 100 50 20 1,800 200 40 700 0 100 500 200 100 3,810
Lindane 50 40 20 1,300 100 30 500 0 100 300 100 100 2,640
Dichiorvos 50 40 10 1,100 200 30 500 10 100 300 100 50 2,490
Propetamphos 50 40 10 1,100 100 30 400 0 50 300 100 100 2,280
13,850 11,970 4,130 344,800 39,500 8,430 131,300 2,200 17,450 91,000 33,400 29,050 727,080
primarily, if not solely, in the urban sector, and above 2000 lb/yr. Usage rages were estimated by
area, supplemented with data from local surveys as described in Section 2.2.5.
d Includes those pesticides used
usage data for a comparable urban
extrapolation from
-------
TABLE 5. TOTAL ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE IN THE PUGET SOUND BASINa
Active Ingredients
County (ib/yr)
Clallam 27,832
Island 56,454
Jefferson 11,361
King 624,270
Kitsap 68,204
Mason 91,377
Pierce 669,284
San Juan 5,090
Skagit 117,041
Snohomish 207,590
Thurston 72,750
Whatcom 149,826
Basin-wide 738,800
Total 2,839,879
a Estimated county-wide annual usage rates are the sums of usage rates from
surveys (Table 3) and rates that were estimated for urban usage (Table 4).
33
-------
2.3.2 Pesticide Usage By Watershed
The Puget Sound basin is bounded by the ridges along the eastern
(Cascade Mountains), southern (southern highlands), and western (Olympic
Mountains) borders. The numerous drainages contained therein can be
consolidated into nine major watersheds plus the San Juan Islands and
Whidbey Island, as depicted in Figure 2. The sizes and natures of the major
rivers differ markedly. The Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish rivers
drain 50 percent of the basin and contribute 60 percent of the freshwater
flow into Puget Sound (PSWQA 1986b). This water enters the sound in the
Whidbey basin east of Whidbey Island. In contrast, the southern portion of
the basin receives only 10 percent of the fresh water entering Puget Sound.
Although pesticide usage data in Appendix C (Tables C2-C13) and in the
summary tables (see Tables 3 and 4) are presented on a county-wide basis, a
more appropriate presentation of the data, for the purpose of designing a
sampling program for these pesticides, is on a watershed basis. This type of
presentation allows the identification .and localization of streams, rivers,
and their outfalls in the basin that may be of concern for potential
pesticide contamination. By visual inspection of county and watershed
boundaries (see Figures 1 and 2), county pesticide usage data can be
transferred as estimates of watershed usage directly from each of the
following eight counties of the basin to their respective watersheds:
County Watershed
Whatcom Nooksack
Skagit Skagit
Mason/Kitsap/Jefferson West Sound
Clallum Elwha/Dungeness
Island Island
San Juan San Juan
However the boundaries of the remaining four counties (i.e., Snohomish,
King, Pierce, and Thurston) have significant overlaps with Snohomish, Stilla-
guamish, Cedar/Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually/Deschutes watershed boundaries.
34
-------
At present, there is no readily available map system designed for the direct
transfer of these county data to a watershed basis in the Puget Sound basin
(Reinhard, C., 15 January 1988, personal communication). To identify and
quantify pesticide use in these watersheds, county pesticide usage data were
reorganized by types of land uses and transferred to the respective
watersheds draining those lands by the following approach.
Five major categories of pesticide usage were identified in the Puget
Sound basin by regrouping and consolidating the 20 user categories originally
identified in Table 1. These major categories are agriculture, forestry,
urban use, military installations, and right-of—ways, and the original user
categories that make up each of these are listed in the legend to Table 6.
Based on this regrouping of user categories, pesticide usage data for each
county in Tables C2-C13 were transferred to these five major categories, as
presented in Table 6. Note that urban usage data in Table 6 include all
urban data from Tables C2-C13, as compared with Table 4, which includes
data for only major urban pesticides.
Four of these major categories, agriculture, forestry, urban, and
military installations, represent localized uses and their approximate
geographical locations of use were identified on Puget Sound basin “land use”
naps (Environment Canada 1973). The fifth major category, right-of-ways, is
widespread throughout the basin and nonlocalized, and therefore not
identified on land-use maps.
In the four counties of interest, each 36-mi 2 township was located to
its approximate watershed drainage using a “hydrologic unit” map of the
Puget Sound basin (USGS 1974). The pesticide usage data of four of the major
use categories (Table 6) that corresponded to each of these county land use
parcels were then transferred to the same watershed as the land use parcel.
For the right-of-ways category, usage data were transferred to watersheds as
a percentage of total county land in each watershed.
These final usage data for the major use categories are presented for
the five watersheds in Table 7. Because specific locations of pesticide
usage cannot be identified from the data in Tables C2-C13, usage rates for
35
-------
TABLE 6. ESTIMATED TOTAL PESTICIDE USAGE FOR MAJOR USE CATEGORIESa
(P JNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIEMTS PER YEAR)
Coufly
b
Agriculture
ForestryC
Urband
Right of Wayse
Military
InstalLati ons 1
Cla lLani
4,075
2,181
20,700
985
0
IsLand
Jefferson
3,582
1,718
50
3,172
17,600
6,200
637
405
34,468
0
King
30,698
4,827
509,700
79,478
23
Kitsap
4,655
112
59,000
3,907
523
I ason
57,693
120
12,500
21,141
0
Pierce
27,302
6,156
194,100
48,545
393,252
San Juan
1,866
0
3,100
0
0
Skagit
76,682
582
25,600
14,017
0
nohomish
44,656
2,662
134,600
25,814
0
Thurston
18,283
1,175
49,900
3,459
0
%1 atcan
55,732
0
42,800
50,999
0
Basin-wide
- -
- -
- -
18,800
- -
326,942
21,037
1,075,800
268,187
428,266
Data were summed from cotrity-wide usage data for individual pesticides presented in Appendix C and include
basin-wide railway usage. PentachLoro enol usage is not included. Urban usage includes all urban usage date
fr i Tables C2-C13. Values are substantiaLLy higher than those for major urban pesticides presented in Table 4.
b Agriculture, IA)OW.
Private Tither.
d Cities/school districts, urban Land/vegetation, miscelLaneous urban, private households, and ertifoulants
categories. Estimated by a cothination of Local surveys and extrapolation from primarily out-of-state data,
rouided off to the nearest hi.ndred.
e , ty Roads, )OT, U.S. DOT, U.S. DOE, USD1, Army Corps of Engineers, railways.
Army, Air Force, Navy.
36
-------
TABLE 7. ESTIMATED TOTAL PESTICIDE USAGE
IN FIVE WATERSHEDS (POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS PER YEAR)a
a Estimated pesticide usage for the remaining major
presented in the text (see Section 2.3.2).
b For identification of major use categories, see legend to Table 6.
C Estimated by local surveys and extrapolation from out-of-state data.
d These figures do not include estimated railway right-of-way usage (18,800 lb
basinwide), the majority of which is applied to the Cedar/Green and Puyallup
watersheds (Johnston, D., 25 May 1988, personal communication). Exact figures
for county or watershed usage rates are unavailable.
watersheds of the basin are
Major Uses ’
Snohomish
Cedar/Green
Puyallup
Ni squal ly/
Deschutes
Stillaguamish
Agriculture
44,962
21,014
19,111
17,333
8,931
Forestry
4,272
1,593
4,617
2,009
612
UrbanC
114,500
527,000
194,000
50,000
2,700
Rights_of_wayd
50,458
45,282
35,923
14,524
4,647
Military
installations
0
0
235,951
157,301
0
214,192
594,889
489,602
241,167
16,890
37
-------
individual pesticides cannot be accurately located to a particular watershed.
However, county usage data can be used to rank-order pesticides in the five
watersheds based on their estimated relative usage in the counties that
contain these watersheds. Since urban pesticide usage in each county is
based on extrapolation from a common urban pesticide usage base, no
differences in relative ranking can be made among these pesticides in either
counties or watersheds. An estimated ranking by usage of pesticides in the
five watersheds is presented in Table 8.
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND TOXICITIES OF PESTICIDES
Environmental fate and toxicity data are included as criteria to
evaluate the relative level of concern for pesticides used in the Puget
Sound basin. Criteria for evaluating relative fate and toxicity are
described, and data on these are presented for each of the pesticides
estimated to be used in the basin. Pesticides and pesticide degradation
products with greatest persistence and toxicity to aquatic organisms are
noted.
2.4.1 Criteria for Fate and Toxicity Evaluation
The pesticides used in the Puget Sound basin represent diverse classes
of chemicals, and their fate and toxicity in the environment reflect this
diversity. Because of significant concern over leaching of pesticides into
groundwater, much information has recently become available on the fate of
pesticides -in the environment, particularly those used in agriculture. Much
less is known about pesticides used primarily in urban areas and households.
The potential for a particular pesticide to be transported to the
aquatic environment is largely determined by its chemical and physical
properties. These properties have been quantified previously by others to
predict the fate of chemicals in the environment (Kenaga and Goring 1980).
The values presented in this report for these properties were used to
estimate potential migration and bloaccumulation for the purpose of ranking
only, and are not intended to represent actual effects in the Puget Sound
environment. These physical and chemical properties have been grouped into
38
-------
TABLE 8. RANKING OF PESTICIDE
USAGE IN FIVE WATERSHEDS
Snohomish
Use Categorya Stillagua
and
mish Cedar/Green
Nisquafly!
Puyallup Deschutes
Agriculture 2,4-0 Dicamba Dicamba 2,4-0
Dicantha 2,4-0 2,4-D Dicamba
Vernolate Vernolate Simazine Bromacil
Parathion Parathion Disulfoton Simazine
Atrazine Simazine Diphenamid Vernolate
Alachior Carbaryl Disulfoton
Butylate Atrazine Atrazine
Propham Alachlor Diphenamid
Simazine Boric Acid
Carbaryl Alachior
Phorate
Methyl parathion
Forestry 2,4-U Triclopyr Triclopyr Triclopyr
Triclopyr Fosamine ammonium Glyphosate 2,4-D
Glyphosate 2,4-0 Glyphosate
Fosarnine ammonium Glyphosate
Di c amb a
Right-of-Ways Prometon Prometon Prometon Atrazine
Atrazine Atrazine Tebuthiuron Diuron
Simazine Siniazine Simazine Prometon
Tebuthiuron Tebuthiuron Atrazine Tebuthiuron
Glyphosate 2,4-0 2,4-D Glyphosate
2,4-U Diuron Triclopyr Atrazine
Triclopyr Dicaniba Diuron Triclopyr
Dicamba Fenvalerate 2,4-D
Diuron
Military 2,4-0 2,4-0
installations Malathion Malathion
Triclopyr Triclopyr
Bromacil Bromacil
Sodium Sodium
metaborate metaborate
39
-------
TABLE 8. (Continued)
Urban - All Watersheds
Methyl Bromide
Sulfuryl Fluoride
Diazinon
Malathion
Metal dehyde
Chiordane
Chiorpyri fos
Endosulfan
Ziram
Acephate
Glyphos ate
Tricl opyr
Azinphos—methyl
Dichlobeni 1
a For identification of use categories, see legend to Table 6.
40
-------
three major characteristics that are then used to identify the potential
environmental fate of each pesticide. Although field-derived degradation
coefficients would be more applicable for assessing pesticide persistence in
the soil, they are not generally available. These major characteristics are
briefly defined as:
• Persistence - the potential for a pesticide to resist
chemical, physical, and biological degradation
• Mobility - the potential for a pesticide to migrate from the
source of application into aquatic environments, including
riverine and marine environments
• Bioaccumulation potential - the potential for a pesticide to
concentrate in biological tissue, which may indicate a
potential to move up the food chain.
Potential persistence and mobility of chemicals in the environment are
also determined by environmental factors such as soil characteristics at the
site of application. These characteristics include cation exchange
capacity, grain size distribution, pH, organic content, moisture content,
and other soil properties (Wauchope and Leonard 1980; Khan 1980). For
example, 2,4-D free acid forms hydrogen bonds with both silica and organic
matter in soil. Although it is highly water soluble, its potential to leach
from soils is dependent on the availability of bonding sites on soil
constituents. To adequately predict potential migration of a particular
pesticide from a site of application, physical and chemical properties of
the soils would have to be well-characterized at that site. In a limited
analysis of a geographically diverse environment such as the Puget Sound
basin, specific soil characteristics at each site of application cannot be
adequately described.
The remainder of this section presents a very general description of
the criteria used to evaluate each pesticide. The applicability of each
criteria to each pesticide is only assumed, and is not discussed at length.
41
-------
Pesticide persistence can be estimated from the following quantifiable
characteristics (Spencer and Cliath 1975; Khan 1980; Kenaga and Goring 1980).
• Soil residence time (soil T) - Total time of detection in
soil. Experimentally derived values were used for this
variable, except when only field values were available. This
characteristic includes microbial and chemical degradation,
and is affected by properties of the soil described above.
Consequently, these values may be highly variable.
• Soil half-life (soil t 1/2) - Time required for one-half the
measured quantity of pesticide in soil to disappear.
Experimentally derived values were used, and may be highly
variable for reasons described above.
• Hydrolysis half-life (hydrolysis t 1/2) - Time required for
one-half the measured quantity of pesticide in water to
disappear because of reaction with the water.
• Photolysis half-life (photolysis t 1/2) - Time required for
one-half the measured quantity of pesticide to disappear
because of breakdown by exposure to light.
• Vapor Pressure (mm Hg) - A relative measure of potential
volatility from the soil, which can be expressed as a
function of vapor pressure, aqueous solubility, and soil
adsorption (Lyman et al. 1982). Volatility from water also
depends on gas- and liquid-phase exchange coefficients. High
vapor pressure may indicate high dispersion potential. It is
not reliable as a measure of persistence for pesticides
injected into the soil, and may be inaccurate when pesticides
are present in water.
Potential mobility of a pesticide can be estimated from the following
characteristics (U.S. EPA 1986a):
42
-------
• Soil adsorption (K 0 ) - Propensity of a pesticide to adhere to
soil particles. Soil adsorption is largely dependent on the
hydrophobicity of the compound and type of soil, and in
general is a function of the content of organic material in
soil. Koc is the concentration of a chemical sorbed by the
soil, expressed on a soil organic carbon basis, divided by
the concentration of chemical in the soil water. Numerous
other measures of soil adsorption exist, but are less
frequently reported (Hague 1975).
• Water solubility (ppm) - The propensity for a pesticide to
dissolve in water. Water solubility is the most frequently
reported and useful measure of the potential for a pesticide
to migrate to aquatic environments.
Potential bloaccumulation can be estimated from the following charac-
teristics (Kenaga and Goring 1980):
• Bioconcentration factor (BCF) - The ratio of concentration of
pesticide in biological tissue to that in surrounding aqueous
environment. BCE is a major variable for estimating the
potential of a chemical to accumulate in organisms, and is
generally calculated from K 0 values or water solubility
(Kenaga and Goring 1980; Lyman et al. 1982). Since BCFs are
frequently not available in the data sources, log Ko values
are presented as a secondary measure of bioaccumulation
potential. Where BCF and log Ko values are not in agreement
with respect to their relation to threshold values, BCFs are
given greater weight.
• Octanol/water partition coefficient (log K 0 ) - An empirical
measure of the solubility of a pesticide in fat vs. its
solubility in water (the ratio of concentration in 1-octanol
to that in water). The log of the Ko ratio is used in
numerous mathematical formulas to estimate the bioconcentra-
tion factors.
43
-------
Acute toxicity data (96-h exposures except where indicated) are
provided for freshwater and marine fishes. The two freshwater species are
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and rainbow trout (Sairno gairdneri). The two
marine species are brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) and killifish (Oryzeas
latipes). Acute toxicity data are also supplied for mallard duck (Anus
platyrhynchos) and the laboratory rat (Ratus ratus). Toxicity data on
bivalves and other marine and freshwater species were not used in the
evaluations because of insufficient data.
TBT toxicity data were abstracted from studies in which free concentra-
tions of TBT were measured in the aqueous medium (U.S. EPA 1985a). This
precaution is necessary to avoid inaccuracies in the reported concentrations
of TBT due to adherence of the compound to experimental apparatus (M & I
Chemical Co. 1976, 1977, 1978).
Chronic toxicity data are presented as oncogenicity (0), mutagenicity
(M), and teratogenicity (1). The numbers 2, 1, and 0 are used to represent
demonstrated effect (2), potential or suspected effect (1), and demonstrated
absence of effect (0), respectively.
2.4.2 Pesticide Fate and Toxicity Data
Values for nine environmental fate variables are provided in Table 9
and for the toxicity criteria in Table 10 for each pesticide estimated to be
used in the Puget Sound basin. The chemical classification of each
pesticide may be found in Table 2. These data are from the most readily
available sources, listed in Table Al (Appendix A) under the headings
“Pesticide Databases”, “Pesticide Compendia”, and “Pesticide Reviews”.
Material Safety Data Sheets and pesticide labels filed with U.S. EPA as part
of the registration process were generally insufficient sources of data on
these variables. Where values for a specified variable were different in
the databases, compendia, and reviews, priority was given to the following
sources:
. First, U.S EPA-originated databases (AQUIRE and OHM/TADS)
44
-------
TABLE 9. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE DATA
CLASSIFICATION
PESTICIDE
SOIL
I
(days)
SOIL
tl/2
(days)
PERSISTENCE
HYDROLYSIS
tl/2
(days)
PHOTOLYSIS
t112
(days)
VAPOR
PRESSURE
(mHg)
MOBILITY
SOIL WATER
ADSORPTION SOLUBJLITY
(Koc) (ppm)
BIOACCUMULAT ION
POTENTIAL
LOG OCTANOL BIOCONCEN-
WATER PARTITION TRATION
COEFFICIENT FACTOR
(LOG K 0 ) (BCF)
Anilides
90-360
stable
190
2.92 0
2.20E-D5
1 .30E-05
Alachlor
Metol achl or
Anilines
Benfluralin 30
low
10100
1.71
2.53
2.32
4.15
3.67
-8.29
Propham (IPC) 28
2-50
14
51
Benziniidazoles
Benmnyl 112-280
Oxycarboxin
90-365
Benzoic Acids
Bipyridiliums
Chioramben
DCPA
Dicainba 365
Paraquat
Diquat 365
14
21
15-150
500-4745
stable
> 7
stable
> 30
2-3
< 2
stable
7.OOE-03
3.75E-03
1.OOE-07
Botanicals
Rotenone
unstable
Carbamates
Aldicarb
Bendiocarb
Carbofuran
Ferbam
Propoxur
Carbaryl 21
Methomyl
14
4
200
7-10
40
70-4550
10
100-350
unstable
7
7
5.OOE-02
5.0OE-06
2.OOE-05
1.OOE-01
5.OOE-05
5.00E-05
Carboxylic Acids
Chlorflurenol
Chlorinated Cyclodienes
Aidrin
Chiordane
Dieldrin
Endosul fan sulfate 280
Endosulfan - alpha 119
Endosul fan — beta 119
Endrin
Heptachlor
> 1095
1095
> 1095
60
> 730
365
400
> 200
178
30
30
7
2.30E-05
1. OOE—05
1.OOE-05
Coumarins
Warfarin
Dicarboximides
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Heterocyclic Nitrogens
Captan
Captafol
Octyl bicycloheptene-
carboximide
Oalapon 30-90
Dichloropropene
Oicofol (Kelthane)
Lindane
Methyl Bromide < 30
Maleic Hydrazide < 30
4
15
3-37
151-266
< 14
14-100
0.5
30
unstable
168
20
stable
stable
6. O OE-05
2.701+01
1.25E+03
0.001+00
low
911
insoluble
502000,0
1000,0
1.2
0.2
13000.0
6000.0
3.87
25.00
5.56
2.80
-1.19
-3.67
245.0
530.0
1.0
245.0
2.0
1000.0
low 700.0
5-5000.0
2 6500.0
15473 1000000.0
700000.0
15.0
36 6000.0
40.0
120 700.0
130.0
2000.0
390 120,0
160 10000.0
18.0
410 < 0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
44500 0.5
44500 0.3
0.1
0.1
insoluble
224 3.3
1.4
2.26
0.14
0.14
-3.56
0
42
200-400
0
146
<1
3140
8260-11400
4420- 5800
600
1360-4050
2 150-17400
0
3
32 5-560
3.30
3.70
3.68
3.55
3.62
5.34
3.80
2.35
-------
TABLE 9. (Continued)
Nit riles
Nitroanilines
Organic Arsenicals
Oxadi azon
Aluminum Phosphide
Anmonium Sulfamate
Boric Acid
Cuprous Oxide
Lime Sulfur
Sodium Chlorate
Sodium Metaborate
Sulfur
Sulfuryl Fluoride
Copper Naphthenate
TriButyllin
Acrol ei n
Chloropicrin
Dioxathion
Mefluldide
Metal dehyde
Oxyf 1 uorfen
P1 peronyl Butoxi de
Pronami de
Bromexyni 1
Chlorothaloni 1
Dichi obeni 1
Trifluralin
Cacodylic Acid
DSMA
MSMA
Acephate
Azi nphos-methyl
Bensulide
Chi orpyri fos
Diazinon
Di chl orvos
Disulfoton
Fenami phos
Fenthion
Fosamine Anm nium
Gi yphos ate
Malathion
stable
10—120 > 40
1—30 28-72
730 30
4 5-100
12 0-360
112
84
high
stable
6-13 50
0.5
120-180 4.8
45-180
10
40
7 <1
8.50E-05
168 1.OOE-O2
5.50E-04
1. 1 OE-04
stable low
1.70E-06
1.87E-O5
1 40E-04
3.206-02
1 .80E+OO
7.50E-O7
0.7
insoluble
2160000.0
20000.0
insoluble
soluble
790000.0
13000.0
insoluble
50000.0
insoluble
insoluble
180.0
200.0
0.1
200 15.0
130.0
0.6
16.0
0.6
660000.0
280000.0
1400000.0
650000.0
33.0
25.0
6100 2.0
40.0
10000.0
1603 25.0
700. 0
2.0
high 1790000.0
2600 10000
1797 145.0
3.18
1.32
55
5.34 926-4570
low
-3.10 20-1600
0
16
5.11
1.92
1.40
1 .93
-3.2
2.36 0
CLASSIFICATION
PESTICIDE
SOIL
T
(days)
SOIL
t l/2
(days)
PERSISTENCE
HYDROLYSIS
t l/2
(days)
PHOTOLYSIS
tl/2
(days)
VAPOR
PRESSURE
(rmnHg)
MOBILITY
SOIL WATER
ADSORPTION SOLUBILITY
(Koc) (pps)
BIOACCUMULAT ION
POTENTIAL
LOG OCTANOL BIOCONCEN-
WATER PARTITION TRATION
COEFFICIENT FACTOR
(LOG K 0 ) (BCF)
9 0-180
Heterocyci ic Ni trogens
Iriorganics
Inorganic-organ ics
Miscellaneous Organics
30
150
700
30
60- 270
30
14
7
stable
I .696+01
Organophosphates
2270.0 2.32-2.42
9167
30
30
< 30
1.98
26
235
13700
high
63
32-48
<1
9 0-180
1.5
stable
70
<1
32 0-450
35
41 4.OOE-O5
-------
TABLE 9. (Continued)
B IOACCUMULAT ION
PERSISTENCE
MOBILITY
POTENTIAL
LOG OCTANOL BIOCONCEN-
SOIL
SOIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
VAPOR
SOIL
WATER
WATER PARTITION TRATION
CLASSIFICATION
PESTICIDE
I
(days)
t l/2
(days)
tI/2
(days)
t112
(days)
PRESSURE
(riinHg)
ADSORPTION
(Koc)
SOLIJBILITY
(pps)
COEFFICIENT FACTOR
(LOG K 0 ) (BCF)
Organophosphates
1-21
3.OOE-04
Phenols
Phenoxyal iphatic Acids
Pyrethri ns
Pyridines
Pyridine-Carboxylic Acids
Pyriniidi nes
Substituted Ajoides
Thi ocarbamates
Metharnidophos
2000000.0
Methyl Parathion
15
3
unstable
9800
57.0
Mevinphos
35-120
soluble
Monocrotophos
1000000.0
Naled
2.OOE-04
500.0
Oxydemeton-n thyl
0.3
330.0
Parathion
90
18
18
5.70E-06
4800
20.0
Phorate
20-100
3
B.4 0E- 04
3225
50.0
Propeta n hos
355
stable
110.0
Tanephos
stable
,
insoluble
Dinoseb
< 30
> 30
0.6
1
< 5
500.0
PCNB ( uintozene)
1000
insoluble
Pentachiorophenol
72
20-100
1.1OE-04
900
80.0
2,4,5-1
45-270
16
2-4
3.OOE÷01
53
6000.0
2,4-D Acid
30-180
variable
low
4,00E-O1
20
900.0
2 ,4—D Amine Salts
C 30
unstable
109
> 750000.0
2,4—D Esters
< 30
unstable
slow
variable
slight
2.4—D Sodium
30
150000.0
MCPP
90
46.0
Fenvalerate
high
stable
< 1.0
Permethrin
0.2
Phenothrin
2.0
Pyrethrins
unstable
1.0
Resmethrin
unstable
< 1.0
Anilnopyridine
83000.0
Piclorani
28-300
stable
unstable
6.20E—07
17
430.0
Triclopyr
46
stable
0.5
1.26E-06
2/
43000.0
Sulfometuron-methyl
28
14
10.0
Diphenamid
90-180
45-180
stable
stable
260.0
Napropamide
< 30
680
73.0
Oryzalin
90-365
3141
0.7
Butylate
21-91
7-70
1.301—03
46.0
Mancozeb
insoluble
Maneb
unstable
insoluble
Metam
14
unstable
720000.0
Metiran
insolub’e
Thiram
> 40
30.0
Vernolate
30-90
15-45
90.0
Ziram
low
unstable
65.0
3.11
-0.6
3.81
1.93
3.69
5.01
0.60
1.59-2.0
2.87
0.30
0.47
2.29
1.00
95
335
16- 130
25
0
200
73
<1
0.02
33
-------
TABLE 9. (Continued)
PERSISTENCE
MOBILITY
BIOACCUMULA1 ION
POTENTIAL
LOG OCTANOL BIOCONCEN-
SOIL
SOIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
VAPOR
SOIL
WATER
WATER PARTITION TRATION
CLASSIFICATION
PESTICIDE
T
(days)
t112
(days)
t112
(days)
t112
(days)
PRESSURE
(innHg)
ADSORPTION
(Koc)
SOLUBILITY
(p xii)
COEFFICIENT FACTOR
(LOG K ) (BCF)
Triazines
Triazoles
Atrazine
Chlorsulfuron
Hexazinone
Metribuzin
Prometon
Simazirie
Axnitrole
90-360
365
30
28-399
175
35-63
459-1123
28—112
5-45
70
> 56
28
stable
56-210
50
37
15
> 14
insignificant
3.OOE-07
1,00E-05
2.3OE-O6
3.60E-O8
149
low
95
350
138
high
70.0
27900.0
33000.0
1200.0
750.0
5.0
280000.0
2.68 17
-4.40 1.8
-5.00
-1.06
2.19 1
Uracils
Bromacil
Diuron
Monuron
Tebuthiuron
Terbacil
360
180-700
365
140-182
328
> 336
175
> 60
> 42
15
> 28
8.OOE-O4
3.1OE-O6
10
310
100
620
51
815.0
42.0
230.0
2500.0
710.0
2.00
2.69
1.50
-1.41
All sources of information are listed in Table Al.
-------
TABLE 10. TOXICITY DATA
CLASSIFICATION
PESTICIDE
BLUEGILL
(ppm)
EXP.
(hr)
FRESHWATER
LC5O
TROUT
(ppm)
ACUTE
EXP. SHRIMP
(hr) (ppm)
MARINE
LC5O
EXP. KILLIFISHa
(hr) (ppm)
EXP.
(hr)
ANIMAL
LO5O
RAT
(mg/kg)
WATERFOWL
(mg/kg)
CHRONIC
ANIMAL
0 M
RESPO b
T
Anfl ides
Alachlor 3.2
96
1.4
96
1800
Metolachior 15
96
2
96
2780
2
0
0
Anilines
Benfluralin 0.37
96
>10000
>2000
Propham (IPC) 32
48
4 - 14
96
5000
2000
1
1
2
Benzimidazoles
Benc*nyl 0.91 - 1.6
Oxycarboxin 28.1
96
96
0.26
- 0.51
19.9
96
96
>10000
2000
>500
4640
Benzoic Acids
Bipyridiliums
Chioramben
DCPA 700
Dicamba 135
Paraquat 8.5 - 19
Diquat 175 - 342
96
96
96
96
50
2 - 19
11.2
96
96
96
1.0 48
>100 96
10 48
(>180
96)
5620
>10000
1040
150
231
>10000
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
Botanicals
Rotenone 0.020 - 0.025
96
0.032 -
0.057
24
132 - 1500
2000
0
Carbamates
Carboxylic Acids
Aldicarb
Bendiocarb 1.45
Carbofuran 0.19 - 0.31
Ferbam 3.6
Propoxur 4.8
Carbaryl 2 - 6.76
Methomyl 0.428 - 1.05
Chlorflurenol 0.022
96
24
96
96
96
96
96
96
0.56
0.27
1.07
0.764
0.88
1.55
- 0.53
2.0
8.2
- 1.5
- 7.5
0.044
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
0.01
— 0.04 24
(0.39
0,8
1.75
96)
48
24
7
40 - 120
11
>17000
95 - 104
505
17 - 24
12500
4.44
2179
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Chlorinated Cyclodienes
Coumarins
Aidrin 0.052 - 0.077
Ch ordane 0.040 - 0.081
Dieldrin 0.009 - 0.013
Endosul fan sulfate
Endosulfan - alpha 0.0012
Endosulfan - beta
Endrin 0.0005 - 0.0007
Heptachior 0.004 - 0.019
Warfarin
96
96
96
96
96
96
0.023 -
0.037 -
0.0009 -
0.0012 -
0.0006 -
0.007 -
0.029
0.048
0.008
0.0016
0.0008
0.025
>10000
96
96
48
96
96
96
96
0.008 96
0.11 96
0.0004 - 0.05 96
0.01 48
0.7 - 2.3 96
0.008 - 0.44 96
0.017
0.012
0.007
0.001
0.3
0.003
96
96
96
96
96
96
40 - 60
367 — 515
40 - 60
70
240
7 15
147 - 220
3 — 8.7
800
205
>120
2
0
2
2
0
o
2
0
0
0
0
2
Dicarboximides
Captafol 0.049 - 0.070
Captan 0.12 - 0.17
Octyl bicycloheptene-
carboximide
96
96
0.013 -
0.032
0.32
96
72
0.03
48
5000 - 6200
8400
3640
5000
1
1
0
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Heterocyclic Nitrogens
Dalapon 105 - 440
Dichloropropene 0.7 - 1.1
Dicofol (Keithane) 0.042 - 0.642
Lindane 0.060 - 0.078
Methyl Brctnide 11
Maleic Hydrazide 1608
Oxadiazon
96
96
96
96
96
96
100
0.11
0.001 -
- 340
- 0.32
100
0.032
1435
1 - 9
96
96
48
96
96
96
100 48
0.5 96
0.005 - 0.010 96
1.0
0.028
24
96
970
250 - 500
684- 1100
88 - 125
200
3900 - 6950
>5000
1700
>2000
-1900
>1000
0
2
1
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
-------
TABLE 10. (Continued)
Nitroanil ines
Organic Arsenicals
Aluminum Phosphide
Mmonium Sulfamate
Boric Acid
Cuprous Oxide
Lime Sulfur
Sodium Chlorate
Sodium I4etaborate
Sulfuryl Fluoride
Copper Naphthenate
TriButyllin Oxide
Acrolei n
Chl oropi cr1 n
Di oxathi on
Mefluidide
Metal dehyde
Oxyf luorf en low
Piperonyl Butoxide 0.004 0.005
Pronami de
Bron xyni 1
Chlorothaloni 1
Diclilobenil
Trifluralin
Cacodylic Acid
DSMA
MSMA
Acephate
Azi nphos-n thy1
Bensulide
Ch lorpyrifos
Diazi non
Di chi orvos
Di sul foton
Fenami phos
Fenthi on
Fosamine Mimonium
61 yphosate
Malathion
Methami dophos
Methy’ Parathion
Mevi nphos
20
0.026 - 0.062
48
96 100
96 100 - 1100
96 0.0032 0.02
96 0.7
24 0.003
96 0.38
24 0.187
96 1.85
0.11
96 1.3 - 2.0
96 >1000
96 7.0 - 156
96 0.087 - 0.310
51
96 2.75 - 5.3
96 0.011 - 0.013
96
96
48
48
0.008 96
24 0.100 — 0.190 96
96
96 0.285 24
96
96
0.33 - 1.0 48
0.001 24
0.013 24
3900
2660
470
4950
4500 - 6500
>6
(0.003 96) >10000
0.28 48 46
250
0.0005 24 45
>4000
630
>5000
‘7500
8350
260
>10000
500 - 2700
>10000
1350
1800
700 - 900
85 96 700
17.5
339 - 770
0. 0006 96 145
(1.47 96) 300 - 400
2.4 24 56 - 108
(0.74 24) 2 - 12
8.1 - 9.6
0.45 96 255 - 298
24000
4300 - 4900
0.014 96 1000 - 1375
18 - 21
0.79 96 14
0.075 24 2.2 - 4.15
>10000
11
201
200
>2000 0 1 1
>10000
>4600
ACUTE
CHRONIC
RESPONSEb
T
CLASSIFICATION
PESTICIDE
BLUEGILL
(ppm)
EXP.
(hr)
FRESHWATER
LC5O
TROUT
(ppm)
EXP.
(hr)
SHRIMP
(ppm)
MARINE
LC5O
EXP. KILLIFISHa
(hr) (ppm)
EXP.
(hr)
ANIMAL
LD5O
RAT
(mg/kg)
WATERFOWL
(mg/kg)
ANIMAL
0
N
Inorganics
96
44-53 96
Inorgani c-organics
Miscellaneous Organics
Nitriles
100
0.105
0.03 - 0.06
>100
1 - 10
0.6
1939
8
7.3
1800
96 46-183
96 0.017
96 0.059 - 0.081
96 >100
96 0.003 - 0.004
0.15 48
48
96
Organophosphates
>10000
14.7 - 20
0.047 - 0.070
>1000
12 - 95.8
‘1000
0.022
0.8
0.004
0.022
1.0
0.3
48
96 0.25 - 1.2 48
96 >1.0 96
96 3.8-10 96
96 0.00003 48
96
96 0.0028 24
24 20 24
96 0.004 96
96 50—58 48
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
1.1 - 1.7
670
4.2 - 7.5
0.087 - 0.122
2.0 - 5.7
0.020 - 0.026
350
136
110
0
3.54 0 0 0
020
000
01 1
022
-------
TABLE 10. (Continued)
Ilonocrotophos
Nal ed
Oxydemeton-methyl
Parathi on
Phorate
Propetamphos
Temephos
Di noseb
PCNB (Quintozene)
Pentachi orophenol
2,4,5—1
2,4-D Acid
2,4—D Amine Salts
2 ,4—D Esters
2,4-D Sodium
MCPP
Fenval erate
Permethri n
Phenothri n
Pyrethri ns
Resmethri n
Mu nopyri dine
Acids Picloram
In ci opyr
Sul fometuron—methyl
Di phenami d
Nap ropami de
Oryzalin
Butyl ate
Mancozeb
Maneb
Metam
Met irain
Thi ram
Vernol ate
Ziram
Atrazi ne
Chi orsul furon
Hexazinone
Metribuzi n
Prometon
23
2.2
10
0.1 - 0.71
0.005
0.8 - 30.5
105
0.29
0.023 - 0.044
42 - 47
1.5 - 2.5
188 - 416
0.6 - 1.3
168
0.018
0.4
0.0003 - 0.0009
2.8 - 11.8
18 - 30
148
0.23 96
1.7 - 3.7 96
116
>250
370 - 420
80
40
12
0.053 - 0.302
10
2.0
0.011 0.016
0.1 - 6,77
179
0.31
0.05
0.53 - 0.77
1.5 - 2.2
250
0.8 - 1.1
>100
115
0.036
0.001 - 0.008
0.017
0.030 - 0.057
0.001 - 0.003
(10
0.8 - 16.5
117
3.3 24
>1.0 96
895 96
58 48
3.5 - 10 48
0.24 1.9 48
10 - 33 48
(100 96
8 - 23
0.5 96 430
47 — 180
0.02 48 4 - 13
0.0004 48 1,6 - 3.7
119
96 8600
2.3 96 4700
12000
(0.329 96) 50 - 140
300 - 1700
5.0 48 375
5.0 48 350 - 700
660 - 805
930
>3200
4000
>10000
584 900
4240
20
8200
630
>5000
1000
0.13 24 500 - >5000
>10000
3500 - 6431
11200
7990
1700 - 1800
10000
780
1200 - 1470
1400
1780
5545
1690
1100 - 2300
2980
53.9
2.34
0.6 - 2.55
>5000 0 0 2
122
021
>4650 1 1 2
1000 0 2 2
2025 0 2 2
<10 1 2
011
000
000
222
>10000
>500
>10000
220
>5000 0 0 0
10000 0 0 0
000
0
CLASSIFICATION
PESTICIDE
BLUEGILL
(ppm)
EXP.
(hr)
FRESHWATER
LC5O
TROUT
(ppm)
ACUTE
EXP. SHRIMP
(hr) (ppm)
MARINE
LC5O
EXP. KILLIFISHa
(hr) (ppm)
EXP.
(hr)
ANIMAL
LD5O
RAT
(mg/kg)
WATERFOWL
(mg/kg)
CHRONIC
ANIMAL
0 M
RESPONSEb
T
Organophosphates
96
96
96
96
48
96
96
96
96
96
24
24
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
0.43 24
5.1 96
3.3 66
2.0 96
2.0 96
96
96
96
24
96
96
48
96
96
96
48
24
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
1 22
01
Phenols
Phenoxyal Iphatic Acids
Pyrethri ns
Pyri dines
Pyridine—Carboxyl Ic
Pyrimidines
Substituted Axnides
Thi ocarbamates
Tn az I nes
5.90
0.13 96
3.9 - 4.1 96
96 4.5 - 8.8 96
96 >250 96
96 320 - 420 96
96 76 96
96 12 96
-------
TABLE 10. (Continued)
ACUTE
CHRONIC
PONSEb
FRESHWATER
MARINE
ANIMAL
ANIMAL
RES
LCSO
LC5O
LD5O
CLASSIFICATION
PESTICIDE
BLUEGILL
(ppm)
[ XP.
(hr)
TROUT
(ppm)
[ XP.
(hr)
SHRIMP EXP. KILLIFISHa
(ppm) (hr) (ppm)
EXP.
(hr)
RAT
(mg/kg)
WATERFOWL
(mg/kg)
0
M
T
Triannes
Sunanne
>100
48
5 - 60
48
>100 48
‘5000
>5000
1
1
0
Triazoles
Amitrole
70
96
1000 - 3300 48
25000
2
Uracils
Bromacil
Diuron
Monuron
Tebuthiuran
Terbacil
71
7.4 - 9.1
47
112
48
96
96
96
75
2.4 - 23
100 - 180
144
48
96
24
96
0.038 0.285 96 0.015
96
5200
3400
3600
664
5000 - 7000
10000
>5000
500
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
All sources of information are listed in Table Al.
a Values in parentheses are for unknown species of marine fish.
b 0=Oncogenici ty, M=Mutagenicity, T=Teratogenicity
2=positive. 1=potential, 0=negative
U,
N)
-------
• Second, the US. EPA (1987a) compendium and review (Ghassemi
et al. 1981).
• Third, the remaining compendia
• Finally, the remaining reviews.
U.S. EPA databases in general do not specify source of data derivation
(U.S. EPA 1986b). Consequently, quality of the original data from these
sources has not been assessed and is not reflected in the ranking above.
Pesticides are listed in Tables 9 and 10 by chemical classification to
facilitate comparison of data between related compounds. For some pes-
ticides, selected data are not available. The reader is cautioned not to
fill in data blanks by extrapolation from compounds in the same class because
of the high within—classification variance in the data. As an example of
this lack of behavioral similarity between chemicals of the same class, the
persistence of triazines in the sofl can range from 63 to more than
1,000 days. These constraints in comparing pesticide persistence have been
described for other pesticide classes as well (Khan 1980).
Data compiled in Table 9 indicate that the most persistent pesticides
include those of both high and low usage in the basin (see Tables 3 and 4).
In descending order of persistence, these are the chlorinated cyclodienes
(aidrin and chiordane), paraquat, PCNB, dichiobenil, sodium metaborate,
benomyl, the uracils (bromacil and diuron), the triazines (prometon,
simazine, and atrazine), oryzalin, bensulide, dicamba, diquat, and alachlor.
Of these pesticides, prometon, simazine, dicamba, bromacil, atrazine, and
diuron are among the 20 pesticides of highest use in the basin (see Table 3).
Based on freshwater fish toxicity data presented in Table 10, the most
toxic pesticides among the 20 pesticides of highest use in the basin (see
Tables 3 and 4) are, in descending order of toxicity, chiordane (a chlor-
inated cyclodiene, one of the more persistent pesticides in the environment),
the organophosphates (diazinon, chiorpyrifos, glyphosate, and malathion),
53
-------
pentachlorophenol, and 2,4-D acid. However, a number of these compounds,
particularly the organophosphates, have low persistence in the aquatic
environment because of rapid hydrolysis (see Table 9).
2.4.3 Persistence and Toxicities of Pesticide Degradation Products
Although the degradation process generally renders compounds less
toxic and persistent, the degradation products of many pesticides are at
least as persistent as the parent compound, and may show greater toxicity.
Degradation products for many pesticides used in the basin are listed in
Table 11. Very little is known about actual fate and toxicity of these
byproducts that would allow an evaluation of their concern as potential
contaminants of the sound. Where fate and toxicity information appear to be
adequate, these byproducts are included in the evaluation of the pesticides
of concern in Puget Sound in the following section.
2.5 DETERMINATION OF LEVEL OF CONCERN
A major objective of this report is to present a ranking of the
pesticides used in the Puget Sound basin by relative “level of concern” for
potential contamination and harmful effects to the aquatic environment. The
alternative levels of concern are primary, secondary, low, and uncertain.
The scoring system used to rank the pesticides is based on usage (Sec-
tion 2.3) and on the measurements of fate and toxicity described in Section
2.4. The scoring criteria, arranged by tier, are shown in Table 12. Tier I
criteria are usage, fate, and toxicity. Tier II criteria for fate are
persistence, mobility, and bioaccumulation potential. Tier II criteria for
toxicity are acute freshwater toxicity, acute marine toxicity, and chronic
toxicity. The acute marine toxicity threshold value was set for shrimp data
only. Killifish toxicity values were not included in the evaluation because
of data inadequacies. Waterfowl toxicity data were included in the
evaluation for those pesticides with LC 50 < 10 mg/kg. There are no Tier II
criteria for usage. Tier III criteria comprise the 14 variables by which
Tier II criteria are measured.
54
-------
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
Tables 9, 10
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
198th
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
0KM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1 986b
OHM/TAOS arxl RTECS;
U.S. EPA 1986b
Reference
Sassrnan et aL 1986
Murty 1986
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
19 86b
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
OHM/TAOS; U.S. EPA
1986b
Pest ic idea
Methyl bromide
Malathion
S inezi ne
Triclo ’r
Carbaryt
Glyphosate
Diuron
Diazinon
Phorate
Disulfoton
ChiorothaLonit
Fenami p ios
At dr in
Cacoc±ytic acid
MSM.A/DMSA
Aldicarb
Endosut fan
Captan
TABLE 11. DEGRADATION PR UCTS OF PESflCIDES OF CONCERN
Prodocts Relative Toxicity/Persistence
Bromide ion Much less persistent in soil;
teaches
Diethyl fw rate Greater toxicity to fathead minnow
2-Chloro-4-ethylanino- Unknown
6- ani no- s- tn azi ne
2-Chloro-4 ,6-bis(amino)-
s-triazirie
3,5.6-TrichLoro-2- ’ridinoI Soil. t 1/2 = 90 days; low to
intermediate mobility
1-Na thol Nontoxic to terrestrial organisms;
greater toxicity to molluscs;
2 tines as toxic to rivenjne fish
Aminomethylphosphonic acid Unknown
(AI4PA)
3-(3,4-Dichtoropheny l)- Less mobile
1-nethyLurea (DCPMU)
3- (3,4-dicht orophermyl)
urea (DCPtI)
2- Isopro it-4-mnethyl-6- Unknown
hydrox .pyrmidine (JMHP)
Oxidized to sulfoxide Greater persistence; 2 times as
toxic
Oxidized to sutfoxide - -
Oxidized to sutfcne Less mobile; persistence exceeds
290 days
De mneton-S AnimaL toxicity is ccmparable
but may be nutagenic
4-Hydroxy-2,5,6-trichloro- More stabLe
isophthatonitrile (69%)
Oxidized to sutfoxide More potent inhibitor of
chol inesterase
Ofeldrin More persistent; more toxic
Arsines, methylarsines, Toxic; low mobility; persistent;
and inorganic arsenate soil t 1/2 6 yr
Inorganic arsenate Toxic; low mobility; persistent;
soil t 1/2 6 yr
Oxidized to sutfoxide 76 times as potent as a
and sulfone cholinesterase inhibitor.
StabiLity in soil and water unknown
Endosulfan sutfate Greater persistence in soils; tower
water solubility; greater toxicity
4-Cyc tohexene-1,2- Enibryotoxic; possibly teratogerlic.
dicarboximide
listed in general order of usage in the Puget Sound basin.
a Pesticides are
55
-------
TABLE 12. CRITERIA FOR RANKING PESTICIDES OF CONCERN
Tier I Criteria
Tier II Criteria
Tier III Criteria
Usage
-
-
Environmental
fate
Persistence
Soil residence
Soil half-Life
Hydrolysis
Photolysi s
Vapor pressure
Mobility
Soil adsorption
Water solubility
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Log K 0
Bioconcentration
factor
Toxicity
Freshwater
Marine
Bl uegil 1/trout
Shrimp
Chronic
Oncogenicity
Mutageni city
Teratogeni city
56
-------
Scoring involves the following steps:
1. Identify threshold values for the 15 basic criteria (i.e.,
the 14 in Tier III plus usage). The range of values and
threshold value for each variable are listed in Table 13.
Threshold values for fate and acute toxicity approximate
those identified by U.S. EPA (1986a).
2. For each pesticide, assign a “high or “low” rating to each
basic criterion, based on comparison with the threshold.
Usage criterion has an additional rating of “very low” for
those pesticides with usage less than 1,000 lb/yr.
3. For each pesticide, assign a “high” or “low” rating to each
Tier II criterion, based on the number of “high° ratings in
the corresponding Tier III criteria, and the following
gui dance:
Persistence - “High” if two Tier III values are available and
one has a high rating, OR if there are three values
available and two have high ratings, OR if at least
three variables have high ratings.
Mobility - “High” if the Tier III BCF value has a high
rating, or if a BCF value is not available, the log Ko
value has a high rating.
Bioaccumulation Potential - “High” if the Tier III BCF value
has a high rating, or if a BCF value is not available,
the log Ko value has a high rating.
Freshwater Toxicity (acute) - “High” if the one corresponding
Tier III value has a high rating.
Marine Toxicity (acute) - “High” if the one corresponding
Tier III value has a high rating.
57
-------
TABLE 13. THRESHOLD VALUES FOR DETERMINING LEVEL OF CONCERN FOR PESTICIDES IN THE PUGET SOUND BASIN
a Units are lb of active ingredients per year.
b Any one of two values, two of three values, or three values exceeded is assigned “High.”
C Any one value exceeded is assigned “High.”
U,
Usagea
Env ronnienta1 Fate
Toxicity
Variable
Range
Threshold
Range
Threshold
Variable
Range
Threshold
19-311,000
>4,000
Acute (ppm)
Soil 1 (days)
Soil t 1/2 (days)
Hydrolysis (days)
Photolysis (days)
Vapor pressure (niiiHg)
•
7-700
2-4,800
2-4,550
2-s ab1
1O -10
>150
>45
>50
>30
>10-1
Freshwater
Marine (shrimp)
Chronic
Sum of Values
0.005-1,800
0.00003-895
0-6
<10
<5
>1
Mobil it y
Soil adsorption (K 00 )
Water solubility
Bioaccuniulati on
ootenti alt ’
2-44,500
0.1-2,160,000
<200
>200
Log K 0
BCF
-8.0-25.0
0-17,000
>2.5
>100
-------
Chronic Toxicity - “High’ if the sum of values in the
corresponding Tier III criteria equals 2 or more.
4. Rate Tier I criteria (except usage), using results of Step 3,
and the following guidelines:
Fate - “High” if two or more corresponding Tier II criteria
have high ratings.
Toxicity - LiHighil if one of two available criteria has a high
rating, OR if two of three available criteria have high
ratings, OR if waterfowl were found to be particularly
sensitive.
5. Classify each pesticide as “primary,” ‘secondary,” “low,” or
“uncertain,” using results of Steps 2—4 and the following
guidelines:
Primary - High Tier I ratings in usage, fate, and
toxicity.
High Tier I rating in usage plus high Tier II
rating in persistence plus low Tier III rating
for soil adsorption (K 0 > 200). (These
pesticides are listed separately for their
potential to adhere to soils and translocate to
sediments or suspended particulates in
riverine and marine environments.)
High tier I rating in usage and degradation
products with high persistence or toxicity
(Table 11).
Secondary - High Tier I rating in usage plus low Tier I
ratings in fate and/or toxicity.
59
-------
Low Tier I rating in usage plus high Tier I
rating in either fate or toxicity.
Low - Very low Tier I rating in usage (usage
<1,500 lb/yr).
Low Tier I rating in usage plus low Tier I
ratings in both fate and toxicity.
Uncertain - Significant lack of data in either Tier II
persistence or mobility.
Significant lack of data in all three Tier II
toxicity criteria.
6. Within each of the four levels of concern, rank pesticides in
order of usage, starting with highest usage.
The algorithm computations (scorings of “high” or “low”) for each
criterion used to determine pesticide ranking in the level of concern matrix
are presented in Appendix E, with adjustments to scoring described in the
legend to Table El. The final ranking of pesticides by the level of concern
in Puget Sound is presented in Table 14. Pesticides are ranked by primary,
secondary, low, or uncertain level of concern, and are grouped into three
media most likely subject to contamination: marine and riverine waters,
sediments/organic particulates, and biological tissue.
Individual pesticides of interest are discussed in the following
sections. The following observations are noted:
. Nineteen pesticides are listed for primary concern: 9 in
waters of the basin, 15 in sediments or suspended particu-
lates, and 8 in biological tissue, with substantial overlap
among the three groups.
60
-------
TABLE 14. PESTICIDES OF CONCERN IN PUGET SOUNDa
Marine and Sedinients/ Bio1ogic 1
Level of Concern Riverine Watersb Organic particulatesC Tissue°
Priniarye 2,4-D 2,4-D 1 ’ Tributyltin
Dicamba Oicamba Trifluralin
Al achi or Pentachi orophenol Chi orpyri los
Tn butyl Prorneton 9 Pentachi orophenol
Bromacjlg sirnazineg Ferivalerate
Atrazine Tebuthjuron 9 Pronamidek
Triclopy ,9,h Ch1orpyrifo Diuronk
Carbaryl 1 Tributyltin’ Dicambak
Diazinon Atrazi e
Di uron”
Triflur l in
Phorate°
Pronamide 9
Fenval erate
Di azi non
Secondary 1 Malathion 1 Methyl brQmideJ Parathion
Dinoseb ChlordaneJ Lindane
,4rnitrole -Glyphosate Di chi orppropenek
Methamidophos Parathion DinosebK
Di chioropropene Di sul foton 1 Chi ordaneJ
Acephate Vernol ate
Diquat Methyl parathion
Propham Butyl ate 9
Methomyl Dichiobenil
Diphenamid Endosulfanh
Chi oropi cr1 n Benfi ural in
Hexazinone Azinphos-methyl
Dichiorvos Benomyl
Terbacil Lindane
MSMA Bendiocarb
Fenaini phosh
Uncertain Sulfuryl fli orideJ
Metal dehydeJ
Sodium rn taborate
Propoxur ’
MC PP
Metolachior
Boric acid
61
-------
TABLE 14. (Continued)
Acrolei n
Chl orothal oni 1
Oryzal in
Propetamphos
Pyrethri ns
Sul fmeturon -methyl
Ziram
Temephos
Low Remaining pesticides listed in Tables 3 and 4.
a Pesticides are listed in approximate order of concern.
b Moderate to high mobility.
C Moderate to high soil adsorption, low mobility.
d High bioconcentration factor (BCF).
e High usage, persistence, and toxicity.
‘ Detected in Puget Sound (see Section 3.1).
g Low or uncertain toxicity.
h Parent compound and degradation products (see Table 11).
1 Degradation products only.
1 High uncertainty in usage estimate.
k BCF not readily available; high log K 0 .
1 Low to high usage; low persistence or mobility.
62
-------
. Thirty-one pesticides are listed for secondary concern in the
basin.
Sixteen pesticides were assigned an uncertain level of
concern because of substantial deficiencies in environmental
fate or toxicity information.
63
-------
3.0 ONGOING RESEARCH, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
3.1 PESTICIDE RESEARCH IN THE PUGET SOUND AREA
The major research programs underway in the Puget Sound area that
address pesticide use and effects in the Sound are described in this
section.
3.1.1 AQricultural Pesticides in Padilla Bay
Western Washington University (WWU) and Ecology are collaborating on a
project to quantify pesticide runoff in surface waters from agricultural
areas in Skagit Valley. The research group, directed by Dr. Richard Mayer of
WWU’s Huxley College of Environmental Sciences, is focusing on 14 pesticides
presently used by the local agricultural industry around Padilla Bay
(Figure 3). Pesticide usage in the area was identified by personal
interviews with local agricultural representatives, including farmers and
local pesticide suppliers. A list of these pesticides with their detection
limits for analysis in water samples is provided in Table 15.
The research group has collected samples from the integrated water
column (i.e., water from the bay that has not been filtered to remove
suspended particles) and from bay sediments, and analyzed the samples for
14 pesticides. Preliminary results indicate that two of these pesticides,
2,4—D and dicamba, are detectable in water and sediments after a period of
rainfall closely following the prime application period of late spring
(Mayer, R., 29 February 1988, personal communication). No pesticides were
detected in either media immediately prior to rainfall. This sampling
schedule was designed for a worst-case scenario, with maximum probability
for contaminant detection. Both pesticides are heavily used in Whatcom
County (see Tables 16 and C13) and are highly water soluble (see Table 9).
It is not clear why the other 12 pesticides, some of which also have high
usage in that area, have not been detected.
64
-------
BELLINGIIAM
PORT ANGELES
Bay
EVERETT
Can
a
C 10 20
miles
0
20
kilometers
40
Bay
OLYMPIA
Figure 3. Location of selected bays in greater Puget Sound.
65
-------
TABLE 15. PESTICIDES IN PADILLA BAY
Detection Limita
Pesticide ug/L (ppb)
Trifluralin 0.019
Simazine 0.63
Atrazine 0.49
Diazinon 0.18
Chiorthalonil 0.15
Methamidophos 10.8
Methyl parathion 0.028
Parathipn 0.063
Dicam a° 6.10
0.048
PCNB 0.009
Dinoseb 0.113
Metribuzin 0.013
Terbutryn 5.76
a Water samples only. Detection limits for sediment samples were in ppm
(Mayer 1987).
b The phenoxyacid herbicides are analyzed as the methyl esters but reported
in terms of the free acid.
66
-------
3.1.2 Parathion in Skagit Valley
A second study by Dr. Mayer focuses on the potential for surface water
contamination following aerial application of parathion in Skagit Valley
agricultural lands. The intent of this study is to actively monitor for
the presence of parathion in the integrated water column and suspended
solids. It is anticipated that parathion will be detected at very low
concentrations because of soil adsorption and rapid hydrolysis (Mayer, R.,
29 February 1988, personal communication).
3.1.3 Ethylene Dibromide in Skaoit Valley
Ethylene dibromide (EDB) was a popular crop fumigant in the Skagit
Valley agricultural industry until its suspension 5 yr ago. U.S. EPA concern
about its potential carcinogenicity led to the suspension. A third study
by Dr. Mayer monitors groundwater concentrations of EDB in Whatcom County.
By calculating decay curves of EDB in soil, this study will determine its
“real world soil half-life.” EDB has not been detected in surface waters of
Puget Sound (Mayer, R., 29 February 1988, personal communication).
3.1.4 Groundwater Contamination in Whatcom County
In response to the detection of EDB in residential wells in agricultural
areas of Whatcon County, the Water Quality Investigation Section of Ecology
has recently proposed to monitor residential wells in those areas for
pesticide contamination. The study will focus on 21 contemporary agricul-
tural pesticides that are used in the county. These pesticides are
discussed further in Section 4.1.1.
3.1.5 Sea Surface Microlayer
Although past research has focused primarily on contaminant concen-
trations in the water column, sediments, and biota of Puget Sound, recent
work has indicated a potential for major problems with contaminants in the
surface inicrolayer. The microlayer is a highly productive, metabolically
67
-------
active interface and a vital biological habitat, and is important as a
nursery ground for pelagic eggs and larvae. This thin (50 urn thick).
relatively stable layer of water is the entrance point for pollutants
passing into the water column and an area of concentration for hydrophobic
pollutants. Consequently, the microlayer can serve as an indicator of more
recent pollution in the sound (Hardy, J., 1 March 1988, personal communica-
tion).
Dr. John Hardy, of the Battelle Marine Research Laboratory, recently
completed a series of projects revealing the presence of pesticides, other
organic compounds, and metals in the microlayer of Puget Sound (Hardy et
al. in press a,b). Pesticide concentrations, primarily gamma-HCH (lindane),
aidrin, and DOT, were reported at greater than 40 ug/L in the microlayers of
Elliott Bay and Commencement Bay (see Figure 3). Pesticides were also
present in the microlayer of central Puget Sound, indicating that contami-
nation of the water surface is widespread. Since these pesticides are not
currently reported as used in the Puget Sound basin (see Table 3), their
presence in the microlayer is presumably due to transfer from other media or
nonreported sources.
Research on the microlayer of Puget Sound has ceased, but similar
projects continue in the Chesapeake Bay and the Southern California Bight,
where significantly greater contamination of the microlayer has been observed
(Hardy, J., 1 March 1988, personal communication).
3.1.6 Pesticide Effects on Wildlife
In collaboration with WWU ’s Huxley College, Dr. Peter Haug of WOOW is
conducting a project to ‘... evaluate the relationship between known
contamination in the Puget Sound basin and uptake of contaminants (or
metabolites) and their biological impacts in wildlife” (Haug, P., 27 October
1987, personal communication). This project consists of abstracting data
from the literature on chemical contamination in Puget Sound and in wildlife,
and then synthesizing these data into a relational, computerized informa-
tion system. Based on the data, correlative trends in contamination of the
sound (including pesticides) and of indigenous wildlife will be sought.
68
-------
3.2 PUGET SOUND PESTICIDE MONITORING PROGRAMS
Although many agencies monitor water, sediment, and biological resources
of Puget Sound, there is no operational monitoring plan for contemporary
pesticides in the Puget Sound basin (Boese, J., 30 December 1987, personal
communication; Frandsen, L., 1 March 1988, personal communication; Crecelius,
E., 1 March 1988, personal communication).
In a recent review by PSWQA (1986a), monitoring programs throughout the
Puget Sound basin were identified. A number of programs sponsored by
U.S. EPA, NOAA (the National Status and Trends Program), and Ecology monitor
the sound and biota for the presence of historical pesticides, such as DOT
and occasionally other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (e.g., aidrin,
dieldrin). These pesticides have been detected, usually at <50 ppb, in
sediments of Commencement Bay, Elliott Bay, and Everett Harbor (PSWQA 1986a;
Tetra Tech 1985, 1988a, 1988b), and DOT has been detected in fishes, crabs,
marine birds, (glaucous-winged gull and great blue heron), and marine
mammals (Gahier et al. 1982; Riley et al. 1983; Landolt et a]. 1987; Norman
et al. 1988; Calambokidis et a]. 1988). However, neither point nor nonpoint
source monitoring programs include contemporary pesticides (PSWQA 1986a).
Pesticide contaminants in the sound come primarily if not solely from
nonpoint sources, which include forestry and agricultural use, and urban
runoff.
The need for a comprehensive monitoring program in the Puget Sound
basin was emphasized by PSWQA (1986a), and suggestions and proposals have
been made for the implementation of such a plan (Tetra Tech 1986; PSWQA
1987). The present plan for comprehensive monitoring of the sound (as of
September 1988) is under review by PSWQA and will be included in some form in
the 1989 Water Quality Management Plan to be submitted to the Washington
State Legislature for funding in July 1989 (Copping, A. 17 March 1988,
personal communication). In this monitoring plan, the list of organic
chemicals to be monitored in sediments and fish tissue will include some
pesticides in current use. Sponsoring agencies are expected to include the
Washington Departments of Ecology, Wildlife, Fisheries, Natural Resources,
69
-------
and Social and Health Services; Metro; local governments; tribes; and
federal agencies, including NOAA, U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Interior, and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
70
-------
4.0 INFORMATION GAPS
As described in Sections 1.3, 2.2, and 2.4, many assumptions and
uncertainties are associated with the usage and environmental effects data
presented in this report. These weaknesses are summarized below.
4.1 USAGE
Usage data were compiled by a combination of methods depending on the
availability of data for each use category. The quality of these data may
vary considerably between these categories.
4.1.1 Agriculture
Agricultural usage data in this document are based largely on surveys
by U.S. EPA (Sacha et a]. 1986) and REF (Gianessi 1986). The following
uncertainties are inherent in the agricultural usage data:
u Values for the number of acres in production by crop and the
percentage of each crop that is treated with each pesticide
were assumed and not actually tabulated by Sacha et al.
(1986). For example, corn acreage is believed to have been
overestimated (Sacha et a]. 1986). If these assumptions were
inaccurate, then some of the usage data presented in
Section 2.3 are inaccurate. It should also be noted that
these values may change from year to year and county to county
(Sacha et al. 1986).
71
-------
• Several pesticides used for agricultural purposes in the Puget
Sound watershed were identified but excluded from the
database of Sacha et a). (1986) and subsequently Gianessi
(1986). These pesticides are paraquat, napropramide,
oryzalin, and glyphosate use on fruit trees; nietribuzin and
pronamide uses on hay; and EPIC use on corn. Usage data for
these pesticides are riot readily available.
• Two major agricultural pesticides, identified through
interviews with local farmers as being used in the Skagit
Valley {DCNB (Terrachior) and terbutryn (Mayer 1987)], are not
reported in Sacha et al. (1986) or Gianessi (1986) for
Whatcom County. Furthermore, no user group in the 12-county
watershed reported use of terbutryn. Some of the reasons for
the differences between these studies are that Sacha et al.
(1986) gathered data through questionnaires of county
extension agents from the Cooperative Extension, whereas
Mayer (1987) interviewed local pesticide sales agents, local
cooperative extension agents, and farmers in the area of the
field studies.
• As part of a proposal to monitor groundwater wells in
Whatcom County for agricultural pesticides (see Section
3.1.4), Ecology compiled a list of pesticides sold in the
county for agricultural uses (Norton, 0., 13 April 1987,
personal communication). Table 16 lists these pesticides and
indicates those that were not included in the databases
compiled by RFF (Gianessi 1986) or Sacha et al. (1986) from
surveys of Whatcom County. Reasons for this discrepancy lie
in the indirect survey methods used to compile the databases
in contrast to Norton’s reliance on pesticide sales informa-
tion from interviews with local county pesticide distributors.
It is apparent after comparison of Table 16 with REF and Sacha
data on Whatcom County in Table C13 (Appendix C) that these
different methods of usage surveys resulted in large
differences in data.
72
-------
TABLE 16. PESTICIDES SOLD BY WHATCOM COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL DEALERS IN 1985
Lb of Active
Pesticide Ingredient
Alachior 360
Aldicarb 210
Atrazine 13,176
Carbofuran 1,180
Dacthala 48
Dicamba 2,212
Dichioropropane 5,330
Disulfoton 40
Diurona 940
Fenamiphosa 1,560
Hexazinone 76
Methomyla 392
Metolachior 5,550
Metribuzin 400
Prometona 1,930
Pronamide 453
Simazine 2,602
Terbacila 25
a Not listed in the RFF (Gianessi 1986) or Sacha et al.
(1986) databases as used by Whatcom County agriculture.
Source: Norton, 0., 13 April 1987, personal communica-
tion.
73
-------
4.1.2 Federal Aciencies
Usage data in this category, which are based largely on a recent survey
(Freimark 1985), are considered to be fairly accurate, with the following
caveats:
• Certain agencies reportedly did not have precise recordkeeping
systems for pesticide usage and USDA Agricultural Research
Service did not cooperate fully with the investigators.
• Some of the agencies tracked actual usage (e.g., U.S. Depart-
ment of Army) while others tracked proposed maximum usage
(e.g., U.S. Departments of Energy and Interior).
• National park usage was reported by the U.S. Department of the
Interior for 1982 only. In a few cases, pesticides were
reported as used, but use was not quantified (e.g., chlor-
pyrifos at Olympic National Park and glyphosate and phenothrin
at Mt. Rainier National Park). These data were not included
in the usage tables.
• Justice Department data were not included in the usage
tables. The primary pesticide user (i.e., the Drug Enforce-
ment Agency) did not disclose use locations in Washington,
although they indicated that paraquat, their major pesticide,
was not used in the Puget Sound basin in 1986 and 1987
(Burne, 1., 22 January 1988, personal communication).
4.1.3 U.S. Forest Service
The U.S. Forest Service is not included on the usage tabulations as a
user, having been enjoined from herbicide application by the U.S. District
Court in 1984. Prior to the 1984 injunction, the Forest Service used no
herbicides for silviculture purposes on the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie National
Forest, and only minor amounts in the Olympic National Forest (Schafer, M.,
74
-------
28 June 1988, personal communication). Most silviculture herbicide
applications in the Northwest Region of the U.S. Forest Service are
conducted in forests of the South Cascades of Washington, the Oregon
Cascades, and the forested mountain regions of southern Oregon. The forests
around Puget Sound (Olympic and Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie National Forests on the
west side of the North Cascades) receive considerably less herbicide
treatment compared to the more southern forests because of the different
precipitation patterns (shorter dry period in summer in the North Cascades
forests) and different species of competing vegetation (i.e., less aggressive
species in more northern forests) (Schafer, M., 28 June 1988, personal
communication).
Most herbicide use in the national forests around Puget Sound prior to
the injunction was for logging road right-of-ways. This resulted in
herbicide treatment to about 500 ac in Olympic National Forest and 556 ac in
Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest. However, herbicide usage data were not
compiled by individual national forests prior to the injunction, nor have
surveys of usage been conducted. Data are contained only in individual
spray records for the 19 forests in the northwest region, and are not
readily available. Newly available pesticides as well as those used prior
to 1982 (listed in Table 17) could be used in the future, pending approval
of a final environmental impact statement tentatively scheduled for
September 1988 (USDA 1987).
4.1.4 Urban Use
It is estimated that the urban sector has the highest rate of pesticide
usage in the basin (see Table 6). Basin-wide urban usage is approximately
one-half total pesticide usage for all categories, and 3 times agricultural
use. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty in these data. Urban
pesticide usage data in the basin are not compiled by WSDA, the agency
responsible for maintaining pesticide registrations in the state, nor are
they compiled by any other governmental agency. Furthermore, no surveys,
local, state, or national, have been conducted on urban pesticide use during
the past 10 yr.
75
-------
TABLE 17. FOREST SERVICE HERBICIDES USE BEFORE 1982 IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Approximate
Herbicide
Percent of
Treated Acreage
Major use
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Picloram
Triclopyr
38
31
8
7
Minor use:
Dalapon
< 5
(In order of
Atrazine
< 5
approximate
usage)
2,4-OP
Hexazinone
Fosamine
Dicamba
Asulam
Tebuthiuron
Diuron
Simazine
Bromacil
Amitrole
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
Source: U.S. Forest Service Draft Environmental Impact Statement (USDA
1987).
76
-------
Because of the lack of current surveys of urban pesticide usage in the
Puget Sound basin, much of the data were extrapolated from sources that were
outside the basin. This method of estimation assumes that the pesticide
usage rates and methods and purposes of application are similar for the two
geographical areas and remain fairly constant over time. These assumptions
have been detailed in Section 2.2.5. The latter assumption in particular
may be invalid since household pesticide usage is a rapidly changing market
compared to other pesticide uses (Ridgley 1982).
4.1.5 Private Timber Companies
Private timber company usage of pesticides has not been surveyed in the
Puget Sound region, nor do government agencies compile records of usage in
this sector (Wurm, D., 5 January 1988, personal communication). For this
document, private timber company usage was assessed via telephone and letter
requests. Approximately one-half of the small to mid-sized companies
believed to hold timberland in the 12-county basin did not respond to the
survey, but most of the larger timber companies responded readily. Because
the data record is incomplete, the reported absence of pesticide usage on
timberland may be misleading.
4.1.6 Railways
As discussed in Section 2.2.7, pesticide usage on railway right-of-ways
was not quantifiable on a county-wide basis. Therefore, locations of
potential entry of railway pesticides into the estuarine environment cannot
be estimated. However, most of the usage of railway pesticides occurs in
King, Pierce, and Thurston Counties (Johnston, D., 25 May 1988, personal
communication).
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Major concerns of the public and regulatory agencies over the persis-
tence and damage to the environment by “historical pesticides” led to
increased pesticide regulations and increased activity in research to design
safer yet effective pesticides. However, it has been estimated by the
77
-------
National Academy of Sciences (U.S. GAO 1986) that only 10 percent of present
pesticides have been adequately tested for their environmental fate and
toxicity, and that no toxicity data exists for 38 percent of all pesticides
(which includes older pre-FIFRA pesticides). U.S. EPA is aware of these
data gaps and has made a major effort recently to determine the environmental
effects of these newer pesticides in the reregistration process.
Numerous environmental fate and toxicity data for pesticides in the
Puget Sound basin were not available (Tables 9 and 10). For certain
pesticides of high estimated usage in the basin (i.e., metaldehyde, sodium
metaborate, butylate), the lack of data placed them in the uncertain level
of concern (Table 14). A major shortcoming of the secondary sources of data
used in this report (see Table Al in Appendix A) is the lack of control over
quality at the database sources. Nonetheless, these data sources adequately
serve the present purpose of estimating the relative levels of concern for
the pesticides used in the Puget Sound basin.
In addition, as discussed in Section 2.4.1, pesticide persistence and
mobility are determined in part by characteristics of soil at the site of
application, as well as application and irrigation practices and soil
drainage characteristics (Spencer et al. 1985). An accurate prediction of
the fate of a pesticide would need to account for local characteristics at
the site of application and the physical and chemical characteristics of the
pesticide. This has only been done for limited agricultural pesticides in
Whatcom County (see Section 3.1).
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Substantial difficulties were encountered in estimating pesticide usage
in the Puget Sound basin and it is recommended that a more accurate account
of the total usage of pesticides in the basin be conducted. Specifically,
because of the potentially major contribution to total pesticide usage in
the Puget Sound basin by the urban sector, an accurate description of real
urban pesticide usage should be available to regulatory agencies and the
public. At present, only pesticide manufacturers and local distributors
have ready access to real usage information. A survey may be considered to
78
-------
remedy this information deficiency and should follow the approach and design
that were described in previous surveys by U.S. EPA of select subpopulations
of urban pesticide usage (von Rumker et al. 1972; Savage et al. 1980;
Waddell et al. 1984). Drawbacks to this approach are that thorough surveys
can become prohibitively labor intensive, are fraught with problems because
of the large scope and frequently reluctant participants, and are usually
supplemented with multiple in-depth personal interviews with representative
users of each subgroup (Waddell et al. 1984).
An alternative method for tracking pesticide usage that is highly
accurate and much easier to conduct than the standard survey method is for
the State of Washington to require either all users or all suppliers
(distributors or manufacturers) of pesticides to provide data to WSDA on
pesticide usage for each major user group. Although potentially difficult
to institute politically and difficult for users to comply with, this method
has been used for several years by CDFA for both crop and non-crop com-
modities (COFA 1986).
Lastly, the numerous monitoring and sampling programs in the Puget
Sound basin are deficient in data on the potential contamination by
contemporary pesticides (as compared with “historical pesticides” such as
DDT) in the basin environment (see Section 3.2). Considering the widespread
usage of pesticides in the basin, a substantially more extensive reconnais-
sance survey is recommended for contemporary pesticides. This recommenda-
tion is addressed in the following section.
79
-------
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR PUGET SOUND PESTICIDES
The final objective of this report is to recommend items for consider-
ation in designing a sampling strategy for pesticides of concern in the
Puget Sound basin. As discussed in the previous section, there are no
ongoing monitoring programs that sample for contemporary pesticides. The
recommendations presented herein are intended to help fill this large data
gap with respect to ambient pesticide concentrations. The considerations
recommended below are based on pesticide usage patterns, both spatial and
temporal, and the potential for pesticide migration from the source of
application to the aquatic environments of the basin. Where quantitative
data on pesticide contamination of the sound are available, they are
presented for reference purposes only.
Pesticide usage throughout the Puget Sound basin has been identified and
estimated herein by various methods, with varying degrees of accuracy. For
pesticides with documented data on location and rate of usage, specific
considerations in designing a sampling strategy can be readily recommended.
For the remaining pesticides, more general recommendations are presented.
5.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1.1 Media Identification
The medium in which a pesticide is most likely to occur can guide
sampling strategies. For example, pesticides of primary concern that are
highly persistent and are expected to bind tightly to particulate matter
should be sampled in sediments or particulates suspended in the water
column. Such pesticides are listed under the primary concern category in
Table 14 as “Sediments/Organic Particulates”. These pesticides are more
likely to occur bound to fine particulates after a heavy rainfall accompanied
by significant soil translocation. Pesticides with high usage, high water
solubility, and low persistence, should be sampled only in riverine systems
80
-------
and drainages proximal to the site of application since they would not be
expected to migrate far from the site of application before degradation.
Pesticides indicated in Table 11 as having persistent degradation products
should also be considered during the development of a sampling plan.
5.1.2 Analytical Concerns
For many pesticides, analytical protocols for environmental samples are
not readily available. Customized analytical methods may be available
through private laboratories for some pesticides not included in the US. EPA
test methods (U.S. EPA 1988). The following rationale may be useful as a
preliminary screening of analytical methods based on sensitivity of
detection. According to U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA 1986c), pesticides that result
in residues in either freshwater or estuarine/marine environments exceeding
one-tenth the LC 50 value for nontarget organisms will be candidates for
restricted use. Acceptable nontarget organisms include, but are not
restricted to, those organisms listed in Table 10 under “Freshwater LC 50 ’ and
“Marine LC 50 .” It is recommended that detection limits for pesticides
considered in a reconnaissance survey Qf the sound be at most one-tenth the
LC 50 values listed in Table 10.
5.1.3 Geographical Locations
Sampling station locations should be selected on the basis of spatial
usage patterns (see Section 2.3). Heaviest usage of the major pesticides
occurs in the major urban and agricultural counties of Pierce, King,
Snohomish, Whatcom, and Skagit, in descending order. The remaining counties
of the Puget Sound basin are either heavily forested or primarily rural
environments and contribute to total usage primarily as “hot spots” of
certain pesticides. Pesticide sampling plans should focus on areas of Puget
Sound near major drainages of the two urban counties, King and Pierce, and
on riverine and marine environments of the three agricultural counties,
Whatcom, Skagit, and Snohomish (see Section D.1 for discussion of urban
pesticide sources and transport to the natural environment). Since a major
portion of the watershed drains into the Whidbey basin (Section 2.3), an
overall sampling program should include several stations adjacent to Skagit
81
-------
Bay, Port Susan, and Possession Sound, and samples collected there should be
analyzed for pesticides used in the agricultural counties.
The reference site should be located in an area having the least
potential for contamination based on pesticide usage patterns. Potential
reference sites (i.e., ones that are removed from agricultural, urban, and
major forestry pesticide uses, and drain small watershed basins) are
Discovery and Dabob bays (see Figure 3).
5.1.4 TemDoral Considerations
Ambient pesticide concentrations are likely to vary seasonally. The
range of concentrations can be identified by sampling during periods of
minimum and maximum use. Where possible, sampling for minimum use should be
delayed after the last application period to allow for pesticide degradation.
Urban and agricultural uses occur primarily during May and June, and
continue through summer. Certain timberland pesticides are applied in the
fall, and preemergent herbicides are applied by commercial applicators and
agriculture in March (see Table B2 in Appendix B for identification of these
pesticides). To determine background concentrations of pesticides, it is
recommended that sampling take place in February, after a relatively dry
period. This timing will avoid the fall applications of timberland
herbicides and the March herbicide applications. A major sampling effort
should then occur in June or July, both before a rainfall and immediately
after a heavy rainfall with anticipated soil translocation (to detect soil-
bound pesticides). This sampling schedule is designed to monitor a “worst
case” release of pesticides to the aquatic environment.
5.1.5 Sampling of Biota
Samples of biological tissue from Puget Sound have generally not been
analyzed for pesticides currently in use in the Puget Sound basin. Animal
species that could bioaccumulate these pesticides have not been identified,
although mussels offshore California have been found to bioaccumulate TBT
(Beaumont and Budd 1984). It is recommended that biological sampling follow
the monitoring strategy proposed in the U.S. EPA monitoring plan for Puget
82
-------
Sound (Tetra Tech 1986). Several species are recommended for sampling in
this plan, including one bottomfish species, two recreational fishes, and
shellfish. A sampling strategy for freshwater fish should follow the
guidelines outlined by Ecology (Hopkins et a]. 1985) (i.e., at least one
grazer and one higher order predator). Sampling should be scheduled during
the period of heavy pesticide usage and the period of maximum fat accumula-
tion in fish. Fish tissue samples should be analyzed for primary concern
pesticides having the greatest potential to bioaccumulate. These pesticides
have been listed in Table 14 under “Biological Tissue.”
It is recommended that biological sampling include marine birds and
mammals since they represent higher trophic levels with the greatest
potential for bloaccumulation of chemicals. Although they are difficult to
capture, great blue herons (Ardeci herodias) have been suggested because of
past accumulation of DDT in their tissues (Norman et a]. 1988). Populations
known to feed near the watershed drainages of agricultural counties and
Pierce County may be considered. Another potential target species is harbor
seals (Phoca vitulina), which are relatively nonmigratory and, in certain
populations in southern Puget Sound, have detectable levels of DDE (the
major persistent metabolite of DDT) in their tissue (Calambokidis et
al. 1988). As recommended in the proposed monitoring plan for Puget Sound
(Tetra Tech 1986), public resentment against the sacrifice of marine birds
and mammals should be considered before selecting them as monitoring species.
5.2 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific locations of high pesticide usage are identifiable in the basin
and should be accounted for in designing a sampling strategy. The following
are pesticides, media, and geographical locations that may be considered.
. TBT is expected to concentrate in sediments and waters of
those areas with heaviest boating usage, including urban
harbors and the recreational lakes. Since its use in
Washington has recently been restricted (see Section D.6.2),
environmental contamination by TBT is not anticipated to
increase in the future.
83
-------
• 2,4-D is most heavily used in Pierce, King, Skagit, and
Snohomish counties. Although 2,4-D esters and salts make up
the bulk of 2,4-D usage, they are rapidly hydrolyzed in water
to 2,4-D acid. Sampling for 2,4-D acid should be performed in
urban drainages in King and Pierce counties, and rivers and
watershed outlets of the agricultural counties (Skagit,
Snohornish). 2,4-D has been detected in Padilla Bay (Skagit
County) at levels up to 1.3 ug/L in water samples (Mayer
1987). LC 50 values for marine shrimp and fish are 2 and
5 mg/L, respectively (see Table 10).
• Dicamba is expected to be present in waters (riverine and
marine) and sediments in King, Pierce, Skagit, and Snohoinish
counties, It is widely used in urban and rural areas and has
been detected in Padilla Bay at levels up to 170 ug/L in
waters and 17.1 mg/kg in sediments (dry weight) (Mayer 1987).
Dicamba LC 50 for marine shrimp is greater than 100 mg/L (see
Table 10).
• Prometon has low mobility potential, but because it is widely
used and persistent in soils it may be detectable in sediments
off Whatcom, King, Pierce, and Mason counties (primarily
applied by Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department
of Energy).
• Simazine is used largely in Mason, King, and Pierce counties,
and is expected to accumulate in sediments of major drainages.
Its use in Mason County is on agricultural crops and the
specific drainage location (rivers, southern Puget Sound or
Hood Canal, Figure 3) cannot be determined.
• Triclopyr has a low persistence and moderate to low toxicity,
and is not expected to be detectable in Puget Sound,
However, its high mobility and high usage at the Fort Lewis
Army Base are considerations for its potential presence in
84
-------
riverine waters in Pierce County, principally the drainages
of the base (e.g., the Nisqually River).
• Bromacil usage is heavy in Island and Pierce counties, and
may be present in waters of their major drainages. The
sampling location in marine waters of Island County should
lie in proximity to the drainages of the naval installation,
its major user.
• Diuron usage is heavy in Island County at the naval installa-
tion. It has a moderate persistence and binds to soils and
may be present in sediments in proximity to the drainages of
the installation.
• Pronaniide usage is heavy in Mason County. It adheres to
soils, is relatively persistent, and may be present in
sediments of riverine and marine environments in the county.
• Atrazine usage is somewhat greater in King County than other
counties. It has low water solubiuity, but has been detected
in Chesapeake Bay (up to 45 ug/L) after heavy rainfall (Kemp
et al. 1983) and may follow similar transport patterns in
Puget Sound.
• Tebuthiuron usage is heavy in Whatcom and King counties
(Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy)
and, although its toxicity is fairly low, it is water soluble
and relatively persistent, and may be present in aquatic
environments in these counties.
• Malathion has low water solubility and is rapidly hydrolyzed
in water, but it, or its degradation products (Table 11), may
be detectable in urban drainages proximal to its site of
maximal usage (Fort Lewis Army Base) in Pierce County.
85
-------
• Both Skagit and Snohomish counties have high usages of
agricultural-specific pesticides:
- Alachlor and phorate are moderately persistent and would
most likely occur in sediments.
- Dinoseb, methamidophos, and propham are moderately to
highly mobile, but have low persistence and may not
migrate to the aquatic environment. Their potential is
greatest for riverine environments in Skagit County
proximal to sites of agricultural application.
- Trifluralin has low mobility and moderate persistence,
but high bioaccumulation potential and toxicity.
Although not expected to migrate to the aquatic environ-
ment, it may be of concern in sediments of Skagit County
proximal to sites of application.
- Butylate has moderate persistence, low mobility, and
uncertain toxicity, but may be present in aquatic
sediments of Skagit County, proximal to its major
location of use.
• Consideration should be given to including pesticide
degradation products listed in Table 11 as indicators of
pesticide contamination of Puget Sound. However, whether
these compounds are expected to be present and stable in
aquatic environments is not certain since most tend to be
less mobile (i.e, stronger adherence to soils) than the parent
compound. The pesticides whose metabolites may be expected
to persist in soils at the site of application, and then to
be transported into other environments during heavy rainfall,
include triclopyr, diuron, phorate, disulfoton, chloro-
thalonil, aidrin, and endosulfan. Since carbaryl is widely
used in the basin, and its major metabolite is more toxic
86
-------
(see Table 11), consideration should be given to sampling for
that metabolite in both sediments and waters of the basin.
87
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
Beaumont, A.R., and M.D. Budd. 1984. High mortality of the larvae of the
common mussel at low concentrations of tributyltin. Mar. Poll. Bull.
15:402-405.
Belz, D. 25 January 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Olympia, WA.
Belz, 0. 5 January 1988. Personal Communication (letter to Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Olympia, WA.
Best, 0. 1988. Building with borate. Population Sci. March, pp. 84-80.
Birnbaum, L.S., L.A. Couture, and M.R. Elwell. 1987. Subchronic effects of
exposure to octachlorodibenzodioxin (OCDD). National Institute of Environ-
mental Health Sciences. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Boese, J. 30 December 1987. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, Seattle, WA).
Brown, A.W.A. 1978. Ecology of pesticides. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY. 525 pp.
Burne, T.G. 22 January 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). U.S. Department of Justice, Drug
Enforcement Agency, Washington, DC.
Bush, 0., and E. Sweet. 1987. Pest control or poisoned grounds? An
assessment of pesticide use in Contra Costa County’s public schools. CBE
87683. Citizens for a Better Environment, San Francisco, CA. 39 pp.
Bush, D. 1986. Pesticide use in Alameda County’s public school districts.
CBE 86680. Citizens for a Better Environment, San Francisco, CA. 13 pp.
Calambokidis, J., G.H. Steiger, J.C. Cubbage, S. Kort, S. Belcher, and
M. Meehan. 1988. Status of Puget Sound harbor seals: trends in population
size and contaminant concentrations. Presented at the 1988 Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research, 18 March 1988,
Seattle, WA.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. 1980. Report of pesticides
sold in California in 1980. California Department of Food and Agriculture.
Sacramento, CA.
88
-------
California Department of Food and Agriculture. 1986. Pesticide use report.
Annual. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA.
109 pp.
Capazzi, J., G. Fisher, C. Baird, R. Stultz, A. Antonelli, and D. Mayer.
1987. Pacific northwest insect control handbook. Extension Services of
Oregon State University, Washington State University, and the University of
Idaho. Corvallis, OR.
Caps, M. 25 January 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). U.S. Navy, Seattle, WA.
Clark, M.K. 1987. The search for antifoulant alternatives. Sea Tech.
28:37-40.
Cooperative Extension. 1982. Trade name reference guide for master
gardeners. Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
Copping, A. 17 March 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, Seattle, WA.
Crecelius, E., 1 March 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Battelle Marine Research Labora-
tory, Sequim, WA.
Dewell, J. 1987. Survey of urban pesticide use in Missoula, MT. Masters
Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 163 pp.
Dreistadt, S., R. Hirsch, and G. Louis. 1984. Public agency pesticide use
and regulation in Santa Clara County. CBE 84680. Citizens for a Better
Environment, San Francisco, CA. 38 pp.
Eaton, J.G., P.R. Parrish, and A.C. Hendricks. 1980. Aquatic toxicology.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Edwards, C.A. 1970. Persistent pesticides in the environment. CRC Press,
Cleveland, OH.
Environment Canada. 1973. Generalized land use. Strait of Georgia - Puget
Sound basin. Scale 1:500,000. Mines and Resources, Ottowa, Canada.
Environmental Assessment Team. 1978. Home and garden use of pesticides in
California. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA.
Electric Power Research Institute. 1986. New wood preservatives. Technical
Brief No. 75. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
Frandsen, L. 1 March 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticides, Seattle, WA.
89
-------
Frear, D.S. 1976. The benzoic acid herbicides. pp. 541-607. In:
Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of action - Vol. 12. P.C.
Kearney, and D.D. Kaufman (eds). Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.
Freimark, B. 1985. Pesticide use by federal agencies in Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, WA.
Gahier, A.R., J.M. Cummins, J.N. Blazevich, R.H. Rieck, R.L. Arp, C.E.
Gangmark, S.V.W. Pope, and S. Filip. 1982. Chemical contaminants in
edible, non-salinonid fish and crabs from Commencement Bay, Washington.
EPA-910/9-82-O93. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle,
WA.
Gamponia, V.B. 13 December 1985. Personal Communication (memo to file,
regarding tributyltin toxicity and its use in the Seattle area). Munici-
pality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Ghassemi, M., L. Fargo, P. Painter, S. Quinhivan, R. Scofield, and A.
Takata. 1981. Environmental fates and impacts of major forest use pesti-
cides. EPA/68-02-3174. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Gianessi, L.P. 1986. A national pesticide usage database. Resources for
the Future. Washington, DC.
Gunther, F.A., and J.D. Gunther. 1984. Herbicide mutagenicity. Residue
Rev. 91.
Haafs, D. 2 February 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). International Paint Co., Seattle,
WA.
Hague, R. 1975. Role of adsorption in studying the dynamics of pesticides
in a soil environment. pp. 97-114. In: Environmental Dynamics of Pesti-
cides. Hague, R., and V.H. Freed (eds). Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Hague, R., and V.H. Freed. 1975. Environmental dynamics of pesticides.
Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Hall, T. 1 March 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). California Department of Food and
Agriculture, Sacramento, CA.
Harder, G. 18 May 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Utilities and Transportation
Commission, Olympia, WA.
Hardy, J. 1 March 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Oregon State University, General
Science Department, Corvallis, OR.
Hardy, J.T., E.A. Crecelius, L. D. Antrim, V.L. Broadhurst, C.W. Apts, J.M.
Gurtisen, and T.J. Fortman. (In press)a. The sea-surface microlayer of
90
-------
Puget Sound: Part 2. Concentrations of contaminants and relation to
toxicity. Submitted to Marine Environmental Research.
Hardy, J., S. Kiessen, L. Antrim, A. Stubin, R. Kocan, and J. Strand. (In
press)b. The sea-surface microlayer of Puget Sound. Part 1. Toxic
effects on fish eggs and larvae. Submitted to Marine Environmental Research.
Haug, P. 27 October 1987. Personal Communication (letter to Dr. James
Erckmann, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA, with attachments). Western
Washington University, Huxley College of Environmental Studies, Bellingham,
WA.
Hertz, R., K. Christophersen, and R. Webb. 1973. Directory of public
agencies and private groups interested in the water resources of Washington.
State of Washington Water Research Center, Washington State University,
Pullman, WA.
Hopkins, B.S., D.K. Clark, M. Schiender, and M. Stinson. 1985. Basic water
monitoring program. Fish tissue and sediment sampling for 1984. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Huisenga, F. 5 January 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Fran-Cher Chemicals Co., Longview,
WA.
Johnson, W.W., and M.T. Finley. 1980. Handbook of acute toxicity of
chemicals to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Resource Publication 137.
U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC.
Johnston, D. 25 May 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Union Pacific Railroad, Seattle,
WA.
Kakida, T. 1987. Seattle City Light long-range plan for managing hazardous
materials. Draft Report. Seattle City Light, Environmental Affairs
Division, Seattle, WA.
Keiffer, R. 26 Janaury 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). U.S. Navy, Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, Bremerton, WA.
Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, R.R. Twilley, J.C. Stevenson, and J.C. Means.
1983. The decline of submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay:
summary of results concerning possible causes. Mar. Tech. Soc. J. 17:78-89.
Kenaga, E.E., and C.A.I. Goring. 1980. Relationship between water
solubility, soil sorption, octanol-water partitioning, and concentration of
chemicals in biota. pp. 78-115. In: Aquatic Toxicology. Eaton, J.G.,
P.R. Parrish, and A.C. Hendricks (eds). American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Kerkvliet, N.J., and J.A. Brauner. 1987. Mechanisms of 1,2,3,4,6,7,8
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD)-induced humoral immune suppression:
91
-------
evidence of primary defection in T-cell regulation. Toxicol. Appl.
Pharmacol. 87:18-31.
Khan, S.U. 1980. Pesticides in the soil environment. Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Landolt, M., D. Kalman, A. Nevissi, G. van Belle, K. VanNess, and F. Hafer.
1987. Potential toxicant exposure among consumers of recreationally caught
fish from urban embayments of Puget Sound: Final Report. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 13. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Rockville, MD.
Lang, J. 16 February 1988. Personal Communication (letter to Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA, with attachments). U.S. Department
of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, IL.
Lindsay, D. 4 February 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Vulcan Chemicals, Birmingham, AL.
Lindsay, D. 8 February 1988. Personal Comunication (letter to Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Vulcan Chemicals, Birmingham, AL.
Lindsay, D. 4 February 1988. Personal Communication (letter to Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Vulcan Chemicals, Birmingham, AL.
Lou, L. 9 February 1988. Personal Communication (conversation with
Dr. Gary A. Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Ernst Hardware Store,
Seattle, WA.
Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehi, and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of chemical
property estimation methods. Environmental behavior of organic compounds.
McGraw-Hill, NY.
M & T Chemical Co. 1976. Acute toxicity of tri-N-butyltin oxide to
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Unpublished Study. EPA Accession
no. 136471.
M & T Chemical Co. 1977. Letter to Henry Jacoby of U.S. EPA Registration
Division: [ Data referring to the stability of bis(tributyltin)oxide in an
aqueous solution]. EPA accession no. 112780.
M & T Chemical Co. 1978. The toxicity of bis(tri-N-butyltin)oxide (TBTO)
to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Unpublished study. EPA Accession
No. 106966.
Matsurmura, F., and C.R.K. Murti. 1982. Biodegradation of pesticides.
Plenum Press, NY.
Matta, M.B., A.J. Kearns, and M.F. Buchman. 1986. Trends in DOT and PCBs
in U.S. west coast fish and invertebrates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Seattle, WA.
92
-------
Maxwell, T. 22 January 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Washington Department of Agri-
culture, Pesticide Registration, Olympia, WA.
Mayer, F.L., and M.R. Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of acute toxicity:
interpretation and database for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater
animals. Resource Publication 160. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Mayer, J.R. 1987. Agricultural pesticides in Padilla Bay, Washington.
Potential impact on Zostera marina (Eelgrass) communities. Fourth Quarterly
Report. Submitted to Water Quality Management Division, Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Mayer, R. 29 February 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Western Washington University,
Huxley College of Environmental Studies, Bellingham, WA.
Meister, R.T. 1986. Farm chemicals handbook. Meister Publishing Co.,
Willoughby, OH.
Mendoza, E.B. 1987-1988. DFPI: Directory of Forest Products Industry.
Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco, CA.
Murty, A.S. 1986. Toxicity of pesticides to fish. Vols. I and II. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Norman, D., R.J. Kendall, and J. Cobb. 1988. Biological monitoring of
great blue herons in Puget Sound. Presented at the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research, 18 March 1988.
Seattle, WA.
Norton, 0. 13 April 1987. Personal Communication (memo to Dr. Jean Jacoby,
Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,
WA.
Olkowski, W., H. Olkowski, and L. Laub. 1980. Urban integrated pest
management in California. An assessment and action plan. Prepared for the
California Department of Food and Agriculture. John Muir Institute,
Berkeley, CA.
Ostrander, V. 6 June 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Burlington Northern Railroad,
Seattle, WA.
Overcash, M.R., and J.M. Davidson. 1980. Environmental impact of non-point
source pollution. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.
Perivier, H. 15 March 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Greenpeace, Seattle, WA.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986a. Issue paper: comprehensive
monitoring of Puget Sound. PSWQA, Seattle, WA.
93
-------
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986b. The state of the sound 1986.
PSWQA, Seattle, WA.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1987. 1987 Puget Sound water quality
management plan and environmental impact statement. Draft. PSWQA, Seattle,
WA.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1988. Committee on research in Puget
Sound. Final Report. PSWQA, Seattle, WA.
Rajagopal, B.S., G.P. Brahmaprakash, B.R. Reddy, U.D. Singh, and
N. Sethunathan. 1984. Effect and persistence of selected carbamate
pesticides in soil. Residue Rev. 93.
Reinhard, C. 15 January 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). State Cartographer, Washington
Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.
Ridgley, S. 1982. Toxicants in consumer products. Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle and U.S. EPA, Washington Operations Office; Olympia, WA.
Riley, R.G., E.A. Crecelius, R.E. Fitzner, B.L. Thomas, J.M. Gurtiseri, and
N.S. Bloom. 1983. Organic and inorganic toxicants in sediment and marine
birds from Puget Sound. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Seattle, WA.
Sacha, L., D. Fleming, and H. Wysocki. 1986. Use of pesticides in
vulnerable groundwaters of Washington State. U.S. EPA 910/9-87-169.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Samford, J.W. 18 March 1988. Personal Communication (letter to Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,
Bremerton, WA.
Sassaman, J.F., M.M. Jacobs, PH. Chin, S. Hsia, R.J. Pienta, and
J.M. Kelley. 1986. Pesticide background statements. Vol. II. Fungicides
and fumigants. Agricultural Handbook No. 661. U.S. Forest Service,
Washington, DC.
Sassman, J.R., Pienta, M. Jacobs, and J. Cioffi. 1984. Pesticide background
statements. Vol. I. Herbicides. Agricultural Handbook No. 633. U.S. For-
est Service, Washington, DC.
Savage, E.P., T.J. Keefe, H.W. Wheeler, L. Mounce, L. Heiwic, F. Applehaus,
E. Goes, G. Mihian, J. Rench, and D.K. Taylor. 1980. National household
pesticide usage study, 1976-1977. U.S. EPA 540/9-80-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Schafer, M. 28 June 1988. Personal Coinmuication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). U.S. National Forest Service,
Portland, OR.
94
-------
Seiber, J.N. 1987. Principles governing environmental mobility and fate.
In: Pesticides: Minimizing the Risks. Ragsdule, N.N., and R.J. Kuhr (eds).
ACS Symposium Series 336. American Chemical Socity, Washington, DC.
Spencer, W.F., and M.M. Cliath. 1975. Vaporization of chemicals.
pp. 61-78. In: Environmental Dynamics of Pesticides. Hague, R., and
V.H. Freed (eds). Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Spencer, W.F., M.M. Cliath, J.W. Blair, and R.A. LeMert. 1985. Transport
of pesticides from irrigated fields in surface runoff and tile drain waters.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Research Report No. 31,
Washington, DC.
Telesz, G. 8 August 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Mr. Michael
Rylko, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA). SSI Mobley Co.,
Fayette, MO.
Tetra Tech. 1985. Commencement Bay nearshore/tideflats remedial investiga-
tion. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Seattle, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986. Puget Sound monitoring program: a proposed plan.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988a. Elliott Bay revised action program - problem area
identification. Draft Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Estuary Program,
U.S. EPA, Seattle, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988b. Everett Harbor revised action program - problem area
identification. Draft Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Estuary Program.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA.
Tovoli, P. 4 February 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). International Pesticide Applica-
tions Association, Seattle, WA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1987. Managing competing and unwanted
vegetation. Draft environmental impact statement. U.S. Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Tributyltin support document.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986a. Pesticides in groundwater:
Background document. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986b. Superfund risk assessment
information directory. EPA 540/1-86/061. U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986c. Ecological risk assessment.
EPA 540/9-85-001, U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
95
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a. Health advisories for
50 pesticides. PB88-113543. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987b. Aquatic Information Retrieval
(AQUIRE) database. Available through Chemical Information Systems (CIS),
Baltimore, MD.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987c. The status of chemicals in
the special review program, registration standards program, data call-in
program, and other registration activities. U.S. [ PA Office of Pesticide
Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Index to EPA test methods.
EPA 901/3-88-001. U.S. EPA Region I Library, Boston, MA.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1986. Pesticides. U.S. EPA’s formidable
task to assess and regulate their risks. U.S. GAO, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1974. Hydrologic unit map - 1974. State of
Washington. Scale 1:500,000. (code 17080005). USGS, Denver, CO.
Valkirs, A., B. Davidson, and P. Seligman. 1985. Sublethal growth effects
and mortality to marine bivalves and fish from long-term exposure to
tributyltin. Naval Ocean Systems Center Technical Report 1042. NOSC, San
Diego, CA.
von Rumker, R., R.M. Matter, D.P. Clement 1 and F.K. Erickson. 1972. The
use of pesticides in suburban homes and gardens and their impact on the
aquatic environment. U.S. EPA 68/010119. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
Waddell, R.D., F.W. Immerman, D.J. Drummond, and M.B. Woodside. 1984.
National urban pesticide applicator survey. Vol. I. Survey design and
implementation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Walter, E.L. 4 March 1988. Personal Communication (correspondence to
Dr. Gary A. Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). International Pesticide
Applications Association, Seattle, WA.
Ware, G.W. 1978. The pesticide book. W.H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, CA. 197 pp.
Wauchope, R.D., and R.A. Leonard. 1985. Maximum pesticide concentrations
in agricultural runoff: a semiempirical prediction formula. J. Environ.
Qual. 9:665-672.
Worthing, C.A., and S.B. Walker (eds). 1987. The pesticide manual: a
world compendium. Eighth Edition. The British Crop Protection Council,
Croydon, U.K. 1,081 pp.
Wurm, D. 5 January 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Dr. Gary A.
Pascoe, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Washington Friends of Farms and
Forests, Olympia, WA.
96
-------
Yates, R., and C. Yates. 1985. Washington state yearbook. A guide to
government in the Evergreen State. The Information Press, Sisters, OR.
97
-------
APPENDIX A
PESTICIDE INFORMATION SOURCES
-------
APPENDIX A: PESTICIDE INFORMATION SOURCES
The following tables are a compendia of sources that were consulted for
pesticide usage, environmental fate, and toxicity information.
A-i
-------
TABLE Al. GENERAL SOURCES FOR PESTICIDE USAGE
AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS INFORMATION
Pesticide Usage Surveys
Federal government Freimark 1985
Households Dewell 1987
Ridgley 1982
Savage et a]. 1980
von Rumker et al. 1972
Cities/public schools Dreistadt et al. 1984
Public schools Bush 1986
Bush and Sweet 1987
Commercial applicators Waddell et a]. 1984
Pesticide Databases
Agricultural usage Gianessi 1986
Sacha et al. 1986
Environmental fate/toxicity Mayer and Ellersieck 1986
U.S. EPA 1987b
The following databases are described in U.S. EPA 1986b:
u Oil and Hazardous Materials/Technical Assistance Data
System (OHM/TAOS), U.S. EPA
• Chemical Carinogenesis Research Information System
(CCRIS), National Institutes of Health (NIH)
• Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDBL National Library
of Medicine (NLM)
• Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances
(RTECS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH)
• National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS)
Purdue University
• Environmental Fate Databases, Syracuse Research
Corporation
A-2
-------
TABLE Al. (Continued)
Pesticide Compendia
General usage CDFA 1980, 1986
Targeted uses/effects/toxicities Worthing and Walker 1987
Capizzi et al. 1987
U.S. EPA 1987a
Meister 1986
Ware 1978
Cooperative Extension 1982
Sassaman et al. 1986
Sassman et al. 1984
Johnson and Finley 1980
Pesticide Reviews
Chemical properties Lyman et al. 1982
Environmental properties Residue Reviews 1987
Matsurmura and Murti 1982
Ghassemi et al. 1981
Khan 1980
Hague and Freed 1975
Edwards 1970
Overcash and Davidson 1980
Brown 1978
Rajagopal et al. 1984
Seiber 1987
Aquatic toxicity Murty 1986
Eaton et a]. 1980
Johnson and Finley 1980
Gunther and Gunther 1984
Herbicides Frear 1976
Directories
Water resources in Puget Sound Hertz et a]. 1973
Timber companies Mendoza 1987-1988
Washington State agencies Yates and Yates 1985
A-3
-------
TABLE A2. GOVERNMENT AGENCY SOURCESa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA, Department of Commerce)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Region
U.S. Department of Navy
U.S. Air Force
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
U.S. International Trade Commission
State of Washington
Dept. of Agriculture (WSDA)
Dept. of Ecology (Ecology)
Dept. of Transportation (WDOT)
Dept. of Natural Resources (WDNR)
Dept. of Wildlife (WDOW)
Dept. of General Administration
State Purchasing Division
Cooperative Extension Service
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA)
Utilities and Transportation Commission
State of California
Dept. of Food and Agriculture
Pest Management Division
Federal
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Portland,
Seattle,
Bremerton,
McChord AFB,
Seattle,
Washington,
OR
WA
WA
WA
WA
DC
Olympia, WA
Olympia, WA
Olympia, WA
Olympia, WA
Olympia, WA
Olympia, WA
Pullman, WA
Seattle, WA
Olympia, WA
Sacramento, CA
A-4
-------
TABLE A2. (Continued)
County
Local
Dept. of Public Works
Cooperative Extension Service
Puget Sound Counties (x12)
King County, WA
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro)
City Light
Health Dept.
Dept. of Public Works
Dept. of Parks
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Representative
Local Cities
Representative
Local City Parks
a These agencies were contacted for pesticide usage and environmental
effects information.
A-5
-------
TABLE A3. TRADE AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONSa
Washington Forest Protection Assoc.
International Pesticide Applications Assoc.
National Pesticide Control Assoc.
National Agricultural Chemical Assoc.
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Assoc.
Chemical Production and Distribution Assoc.
Washington Railroad Association
Tacoma, WA
Puyallup, WA
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
Seattle, WA
a Contacted for usage and environmental effects information.
A-6
-------
TABLE A4. NON-PROFIT INFORMATIONAL ORGANIZATIONSa
Olympia, WA
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
San Francisco, CA
San Francisco, CA
a Contacted for usage and environmental effects information.
Washington Friends of Farm and Forestry
Greenpeace
Western Washington Toxics Coalition
National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
Resources for the Future (RFF)
National Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides
Citizens for a Better Environment
A- 7
-------
APPENDIX B
PESTICIDE USES AND CHEMICAL/TRADE NAMES
-------
APPENDIX B: PESTICIDE USES AND CHEMICAL/TRADE NAMES
The following tables provide a trade name cross-index and list
pesticide uses, chemical names, and respective basic manufacturers.
B-i
-------
TABLE Bi. PESTICIDE TRADE NA ’1E CROSS INDEX
Thiram
Atrazirie
Temephos
Endothal 1
Methoprene
Dieldrin
Aluminum Phosphide
Permethri n
Chi orant en
Ami t role
fijilnonium Sul farnate
MSMA
DSMA
Metaldehyde
Acrolein
Simazine
DSMA
Zineb
Aminopyridine
Monocrotophos
Benflural in
Dicamba
Dicaniba
Propoxur
Fenthi on
Benfl ural in
Benomyl
Bensulide
Bacillus Thuringiensis
Sul fotep
Cacodylic Acid
Boric Acid
Sodium Metaborate
Chi orothal oni 1
Cacodylic Acid
Broinoxyni 1
Methyl Bromide
Bromoxyni 1
Dicainba
Pi peronyl Butoxi de
MSMA
Carbon Disulfide
Oichlobeni 1
Aluminum Phosphide
Rotenone
Chem Hoe*, IPC
Chipco 26019, Rovral
Chlorflurecol*, Maintain, Multiprop
Chlorthal -Dinethyl , Dacthal
Copper Nordox*
Coumafene, Zoocoumarin
Cross Fire. Synthrin, SBP-1382
Cube*, Derris, Nox Fish, Chem Fish
Cuprinol, Troysan
Cyth ion
Daconil, Bravo
Dacthal, Chi orthal -Dimethyl
DDVP*, Vapona
Delriav, Deltic
Deltic, Delnav
Derris, Nox Fish, Cheui Fish, Cube*
Desi -cate, Accelerate
Devrinol
Dibroni
Dieldrex, Alvit
Di folatan
Dimethylarsonic Acid*, Ansar 8100, Arrhenal
Dimethylarsinic Acid*, Bolls-Eye, Broadside
Dinitro, Vertac, DNBP*
Dipel, Thuricide, Biotrol K
Dipterex, Dylox, Neguvon, Proxol
Dithane M-22, Manzate
Dithane M-45, Karamate
Dithane, Aspor, Zineb
Di -Syston
DNBP*, Dinitro, Vertac
Dowpon
Drexel , Aatrex
Drinox, lermide
Dual
Dursban, Lorsban
Dylox, Neguvon, Proxol, Dipterex
Dymid, Enide
D-D, Telone
Ectiban, Pounce, Prarnex, Ambush
Embark
Endrex
Enide, Dyinid
Entex, Tiguvon, Baytex
Esteron, Several , Weedar
Propham
Iprodi one
Chl orfl urenol
DCPA
Cuprous Oxide
Warfari n
Resmethri n
Rotenone
Copper Naphthenate
Malathion
Ch lorothalonil
DCPA
Di chiorvos
Di oxathi on
Di oxathi on
Rotenone
Endothal 1
Napropami de
Naled
Dieldrin
Captafol
DSMA
Cacodylic Acid
Dinoseb
Bacillus Thuringiensis
Trichlorfon
Maneb
Mancozeb
Zineb
Di sul foton
Dinoseb
Dalapon
Atrazi ne
Heptachl or
Metol achl or
Chl orpyri fos
Tn chl orfon
Di phenami d
Di chl oropropene
Permethri n
Mefluidide
Endrin
Diphenarnid
Fenthi on
2,4,5-T
Synonyll,s*/Trade Names Active Ingredient Synonyms*/Trade Names Active Ingredient
Aatack, Several
Aatrex, Drexel
Abate
Accelerate, Desi -cate
Alfosid, Several
Alvit, Dieldrex
Al-Phos, Celphine, several
Ambush, Ectiban, Pounce, Prarnex
Amiben, Vegiben
Amitrole_T*, Several
Aninate
Ansar 529, Byeno, Methylarsonic Acid*
Ansar 8100, Arrhenal, Dimethylarsonic Acid*
Antimulace, Ilalizan, Metason
Aquàl in
Aquazine, Princep
Arrhenal , Dirnethylarsonic Acid*, Ansar 8100
Aspor, Zineb, Dithane
Avitrol ’
Azodrin
Balan, Benefin*
Banex, Bush Buster, Banvel
Banvel, Banex, Bush Buster, Weed Master
Baygon
Baytex, Entex, Tiguvon
Benefin*, Balan
Benlate, Tersan
Betasan, Prefar
Biotrol K, Dipel, Thuricide
Bl adafum
Bolls—Eye, Broadside, Dimethylarsinic Acid*
Boracic acid*
Borax*, Monoborchlorate, Ureabor
Bravo, Daconil
Broadside, Dimethylarsinic Acid*, Bolls-Eye
Broniinal, Buctril, Mu—Lawn
Bromo-Gas, Terr-0-Gas
Buctnil, Nu—Lawn, Bronuinal
Bush Buster, Banvel, Banex
Butacide
Byeno, Methylarsonic Acid*, Ansar 529
Carbon Bisulfide*
Casoron
Ceiphine, Al-Phos, Several
Chem Fish, Cube*, Dernis, Nox Fish
-------
TAOLE 81. (Continued)
Synonyms*/Trade Names Active Ingredient Synonyms*/Trade Names Active Ingredient
Fermate
Ferbain
Nox Fish, Cheii Fish, Cube*, Derris
Rotenone
Fervinal, Poast, Nabu
Sethoxydim
Nu-Lawn, Brominal, 8uctril
Bromoxynil
Ficam, Tattoo
Bendiocarb
Octachlor, Termide
Chiordane
Folidol, Metacide
Methyl Parathion
Octalene
Aidrin
Furadan
Carbofuran
Orthene
Acephate
Ganisa HCH*, Several
Lindane
Oust
Sulfaiieturon-methyl
Garlon 3A, Garlon 4
Triclopyr
PCP . Penta*
Pentachiorophenol
Garlon 4, Garlon 3A
Glean. lelar
Triclopyr
Chlorsulfuron
Penncap-E, Several, Niran
Penta*, PCP
Parathion
Pentachiorophenol
Goal
Oxyfluorfen
Phosdrin
Mevinphos
Guthion
Azinphos-methyl
Plantvax
Oxycarboxin
1-lalizan, Metason, Antimilace
Metaldehyde
Poast, Nabu, Fervinal
Sethoxydim
Hyvar
Broniacil
Polyram, Polyram-Cmiibi
Metiram
IPC, Chem_Hoe*
Propham
Polyram-Combi, Polyram
Metiram
Karamate, Dithane M-45
Mancozeb
Pounce, Pramex, Ambush, Ectiban
Permethrin
Karmex, Krovar
Diuron
Pramex, Ambush, Ectiban, Pounce
Permethrin
Keithane
Dicofol
Pramitol
Prometon
Kerb, Propyzamide*
Pronamide
Prefar, Betasan
Bensulide
Knox—Out, Spectracide
Diazinon
Princep, Aquazine
Sirnazine
c
“
Krenite
Krovar, Karmex
Lannate
Fosamine Aninonium
Diuron
Methanyl
Propal, Mecoprop*
Propyzamide*, Kerb
Proxol , Dipterex, Dylox, Neguvon
MCPP
Pronajiiide
Trichlorfon
Lasso
Al achl or
Pydrin
Fenvalerate
Lexone, Sencor
Metribuzin
Pyrenone, Pyrocide, Pyrethrum*
Pyrethrins
Lorox
Linuron
Pyrethrum*, Pyrenone, Pyrocide
Pyrethrins
Lorsban, Dursban
Chiorpyrifos
Pyrocide, Pyrethrum*, Pyrenone
Pyrethrins
Maintain, Multiprop, Chlorflurecol*
Chlorflurenol
Quintozene*, Terraclor
PCNB (Quintozene)
Manzate, Dithane M-22
Maneb
Reglone, Weedol
Diquat
Mecoprop*, Propal
MCPP
Ronstar
Oxadiazon
Metacide, Folidol
Metam_Sodium*, Metham*, Vapam
Methyl Parathion
Metam
Roundup
Rovral , Chipco 26019
Glyphosate
Iprodione
Metason, Antimilace, Halizan
Metaldehyde
Safrotin
Propetainphos
Metasystox-R
Oxydameton-methyl
SBP-1382, Cross Fire, Synthrin
Resniethrin
Metham*, Vapani, fretam_Sodiwl*
Metam
Sencor, Lexone
Metribuzin
Methyl Bromide, Several
Chloropicrin
Several
2,4-D
Methylarsonic Acid*, Ansar 529, Byeno
MSMA
Several
Sodium Chlorate
MH (WSSA)*, MH-30
Maleic Hydrazide
Several
Sulfur
MH-30, MH (WSSA)
Maleic Hydrazide
Several
TriButyllin
Monitor, Tamanox
Monoborchlorate, Ureabor, Borax*
Methamidophos
Sodium Metaborate
Sevin
Sinbar
Carbaryl
Terbacil
Multicide, Sunithrin
Phenothrin
Spectracide, Knox-Out
Diazinon
Multiprop, Chlorflurecol*, Maintain
Chlorflurenol
Spike
Tebuthiuron
Nabu, Fervinal, Poast
Sethoxydim
Sumithrin, Multicide
Phenothrin
Neguvon, Proxol, Dipterex, Dylox
Trichlorfon
Surflan
Oryzalin
Nemacur
Fenamiphos
Sutan
Butylate
•
Niran. Penncap—E, Several
Parathion
Synthrin, SBP—1382, Cross Fire
Resmethrin
-------
TABLE 81. (Continued)
Tamanox, Monitor
Tattoo, Ficam
Telar, Glean
Telone, D-D
Telvar
Temik
Terbalin, Treflan
Termide, Drinox
Termide, Octachlor
Terraci or Qui ntozene*
Terr-O-Gas Bramo -Gas
Tersan, Benlate
Thiniet
Thiodan
Thuricide, Biotrol K, Dipel
Tiguvon, Baytex, Entex
To rdon
Treflan, Terbalin
Troysan, Cuprinol
Methanil dophos
Bendiocarb
Chiorsul furon
Di chloropropene
Monuron
Al di carb
Trifluralin
heptachl or
Chl ordane
PCNB (Quintozene)
Methyl Bromide
Benomyl
Phorate
Endosul fan
Bacillus Thuringiensis
Fenthi on
Pi cloram
Trifluralin
Copper Naphthenate
Ureabor, Borax*, Monoborchiorate
Van Dyke 264
Vapam, Metain_Sodiurn*, Metham*
Vapona, DDVP*
Vegiben, Axniben
Vel par
Vernam
Vertac, DNBP*, Dinitro
Vikane
Voick Oils
Weed Master
Weedar, Esteron, Several
Weedol, Reglone
Weedol, Several
Xylol
Zineb, Dithane, Aspor
Ziram Tech.
Zoocoumari n, Coumaferie
Sodium Metaborate
Octyl bicycloheptene-
carbox hi de
Metam
Dichiorvos
Chi oramben
Hexazi none
Vernal ate
Di noseb
Sulfuryl Fluoride
Dormant Oil
Dicamba
2 ,4,5-T
Diquat
Paraquat
Xylene
Zineb
Li ram
Warfari n
Synon mls*/Trade Names Active Ingredient Syr lonyms*/Trade Names Active Ingredient
-------
TABLE B2. PESTICIDE USES
Al achl or
Metolachlor
Benfluralin
Propham
Benomyl
Oxycarboxi n
Chi oran en
OCPA
Dican a
Paraquat
Di gust
Rotenone
Al di carb
Bendi ocarb
Carbofuran
Ferbani
Propoxur
Zineb
Carbaryl
Met hcmiyl
Chi orfl urenol
Aidrin
Chl ordane
Dieldrin
Endosul fan
Endrin
Heptachi or
Warfari n
Octyl bi cyci oheptene-
carboximide
Iprodi one
Captafol
Dalapon
Di chioropropene
Di cofol
Li ndane
Methyl Bromide
Methylene Chloride
Maleic Hydrazide
Oxadiazon
Methoprene
Aluminum Phosphide
Minonium Sul famate
Boric Acid
Cuprous Oxide
Preemergence control of grass, broad-leaf weeds.
Preemergence, preplant in corn, peanuts, soybeans, others.
Annual grasses and broad-leaf weeds.
Pre-, postemergence weed control.
Systemic control of fruit, vegetable, nut, field crop, turf, ornamental diseases.
Systemic control of rusts on greenhouse flowers.
Preemergence weed control in many vegetable, field crops.
Preeinergence control of grass, broad-leaf weeds.
Control of annual, perennial weeds and brush in non-crop areas.
Contact herbicide and desiccant with broad scope of uses.
Industrial and aquatic weed control; seed crop desiccant.
Home gardens, pets; fish control in ponds, lakes.
Systemic insecticide, acaricide and nematicide, soil-applied only.
Control of household insects; turf, ornamentals; soil insects.
Controls wide range of soil and foliar pests.
Apple and tobacco diseases; protectant for other crops.
Household crawling insects, files, mosquitos, lawn insects.
Variety of fruits and vegetables uses.
Great range of controlling pests.
Control of wide range of insects in fruit crops.
Control of broadleaf weeds, vines, and grasses.
Contact, stomach and fisiiigant insecticide.
Exclusively for subterranean termite control applications.
Contact and stomach poison. For control of soil insects, termites.
Nonsystemic contact and stomach insecticide.
Cotton insect control and a few other crops; mouse control in orchards.
Residual control of subterranean termites.
Anticoagulant control of Norway rats and house mice.
Synergist for pyrethroids.
Spring and surmner turf diseases. Experimental for fruits, vegetables.
Many diseases of fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds.
Systemic herbicide for various grasses and rushes in crop, noncrop areas.
Soil-injected fumigant to control nematodes, soil insects.
Wide use as acaricide on fruit, vegetable, field, ornamental crops.
Many uses including seed treatment; moderate fumigant action.
Fumigant to control all living matter.
Postharvest fumigation of strawberries, comodity fumigation of grains.
Retards growth and inhibits sprouting of plants; blocks cell division.
Pre - postemergence weed control in rice; for weeds in turf, ornamentals.
Fumigant in bulk grain and peanuts, processed food and animal feed.
Control of woody plant species.
Cockroach baits and ant poisons, in sheep dressings to prevent blowfly attacks.
Seed treatment and antifouling agent in paints.
Classification Active Ingredient Uses Targets of Use
An ill des
(Ji
Anil ines
Benz imidazoles
Benzoic Acids
Bipyridiliunis
Botanical s
Carbamates
Carboxylic Acids
Chiori nated Cyclodienes
Cournari ns
Dicarboximides
Hal ogenated Hydrocarbons
Heterocyclic Nitrogens
Hormone
Inorgani Cs
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Fungicide/Bactericide
Fungicide/Bactericide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecti ci de/Acaraci de
Insecticide
Nmiiat i ci deli nsect Ic ide
Fungicide/Bactericide
Insecticide
Insecti ci de/Acaraci de
I nsecti ci de/Acaraci de
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Rodenti ci de
Synergi st
Fungicide/Bactericide
Fungicide/Bactericide
Herbicide
Insect i ci de/Acaraci de
Acaricide
Insecti ci de/Acaraci de
Insecti ci de/Acaraci de
Insectici de/Acaraci de
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Pesticide
-------
TABLE 62. (Continued)
Lime Sulfur Fungicide/Bactericide
Sodiijn Chlorate Herbicide
Sodiiin Metaborate Herbicide
Sulfur Fungicide/Bactericide
Sulfuryl Fluoride insecticide/Acaracide
Copper Naphthenate Fungicide
TriButyllin Pesticide
Bacillus Thuringiensis Insecticide
Acrolein Herbicide
Carbon Disulfide Insecticide/Acar acide
Chioropicrin Insecticide/Fungi cide
Dioxathi on Insecticide/Acaraci de
Dormant Oil Insecticide/Acaracide
Mefluidide Herbicide
Metaldehyde Mol luscicide
Oxyfluorfen Herbicide
Piperonyl Butoxide Synergist
Pronamide Herbicide
Sethoxydim Herbicide
Xylerie Additive
Endothal 1 Herbicide
Brcmioxynil Herbicide
Chiorothal oni 1 Fungicide/Bactericide
Dichiobenil Herbicide
Trifluralin Herbicide
Cacodylic Acid Herbicide
DSI4A Herbicide
MSMA Herbicide
Acephate Insecticide
Azinphos-methyl Insecticide
Bensulide Herbicide
Chiorpyri fos Insecticide
Diazinon Insecticide
Dichiorvos Insecticide
Disulfoton Insecti cide/Acaracide
Fenami phos Nemat I ci de
Fenthion Insecticide
Fosaniine Anmonium Herbicide
Glyphosate Herbicide
Malathion lnsecticide/Acaracide
Metharnidophos Insecti dde
Methyl Parathion Insecticide
Mevi nphos Insecticide/Acaracide
Monocrotophos Insecti ci de/Acaraci de
Naled Insecticide
Apple scab, powdery skin irritation inildews.
Soil sterilant herbicide, defoliant, desiccant, harvest aid.
Non-selective herbicide; fire retardant added to sodium chlorate.
Fruit rots, powdery mildews, rusts on vegetables.
Fumigant to control structural pests, especially drywood termites.
Disinfectant wood treatment.
Preservation against molds, yeasts, arid shines; antifouling agent in paints.
Control of caterpillar pests on most food crops.
Aquatic herbicide, biocide, shirnicide.
Widely used fumigants for insect control in stored grain.
Stored grain and soil fumigant.
Control of insects, mites on fruit and nut trees, ornamentals; also for livestock pests.
Control of scale insects, aphid, spider mite eggs; livestock parasiticide.
Plant growth regulator to prevent seedhead formation in turf grasses.
Snail and slug bait.
Pre-, posteniergence control of broad weeds.
Synergist for pyrethrins, synthetic pyrethroids.
Pre-, posteniergence weed control; also on turf, woody ornamentals.
Selective postenergence control of annual and perennial grasses.
Solvent of dieldrin, methyl parathion.
Weed control, turf; aquatic herbicide; cotton defoliant; seedcrop desiccant.
Postmnergence broad-leaf weed control In small grains, noncrop areas.
Variety of vegetable, fruit, turf, ornamental diseases.
Selective weed control in ornanmntals, orchards, vineyards.
Selective preenmrgence incorporated herbicide registered for many crops.
Nonselective herbicide in forestry; cotton defoliant.
Postenergent use in cotton as a directed spray on weeds.
Preplant for cotton, grass weeds in turf, noncropland.
Control of most insects on vegetables, cotton, soybeans.
Control of most foliage-feeding insects on many crops.
Preemergence control of crabgrass, annual bluegrass, broad-leaf weeds.
Household insects, ornamental pests; soil insects, fruit trees; termite control.
Soil insects, pests of fruit, vegetables, field crops, ornamentals, household pets.
Contact, stomach, fumigant for household, public health, livestock.
Systemic insecticide, acaricide on cotton, potatoes, other crops.
Systemic nenaticide for pre- or postamergencee application to soil.
Contact and stcmach insecticide; control of mosquitoes, flies, livestock insect pests.
Fall-applied brush control agent on noncropland areas.
Highly versatile translocated, non-selective herbicide.
Control of broad spectrum of insects in agriculture, public health, livestock, home, garden.
Control of most conmon insect pects on vegetables, cotton, potatoes.
Control of many insects, especially boll weevil control.
Contact and systemic insecticide for use on vegetable, fruit, field, forage crops.
Control of most insect pests of cotton, tobacco, sugarcane, potatoes, others.
Effective against chewing and sucking pests on many crops; fly and mosquito control.
Classification Active Ingredient Uses Targets of Use
Inorganics
Inorganic-organics
Microbial
Miscellaneous Organi cs
Nitriles
Nitroanilines
Organic Arsenicals
Organophosphates
c
-------
TABLE 82. (Continued)
Classification Active ingredient Uses Targets of Use
Organophosphates
Phenols
Phenoxyal iphatic Acids
Pyrethri ns
Pyri dines
Pyridine-Carboxylic
Pyrimidines
Substituted knides
Thi ocarbamates
Tn azi nes
In azoles
Uracils
Oxydemeton—methyl
Insecticide/Acaracide
Control of sucking insects, mites on vegetables, fruit, hops.
Parathion
insecticide
Broad-spectrum insecticide on wide variety of crops.
Phorate
insecticide
Systemic insecticide on cotton, corn, some small grains, vegetables.
Propetamphos
insecticide
Effective against cockroaches, mosquitoes, fleas.
Sulfotep
insecticide/Acaracide
Greenhouse fumiigant for aphids, mites, thrips, whiteflies.
Temephos
insecticide
Aquatic larvicide for mosquitoes, black flies, midges.
Trichlorfon
insecticide/Acaracide
Use on field crops, seed crops, ornanentals; cattle grubs, several fruits, forestry.
Dinoseb
PCNB (Quintozene)
Herbicide
Fungicide/Bactericide
General contact herbicide, desiccant; also as a dormancy spray to control insects, mites.
Many seedlings, vegetable, ornamental, turf diseases.
Pentachlorophenol
Herbicide/Molluscicide
Preharvest defoliant, wood preservative, molluscicide.
2,4,5—1
Herbicide
Woody plant control on industrial sites rangeland.
2,4-D
Herbicide
Selective broad-leaf weed control in monocots.
MCPP
Herbicide
Turf, cereal herbicide for broad-leaf weeds.
Fenvalerate
Insecticide
Broad spectrum of insecticidal activity on many crops. Currently registered only on cotton.
Permethrin
Insecticide
Cotton insects, animal health, greenhouse ornanentals.
Phenothrin
insecticide/Acaracide
Space sprays for homes, industry, aircraft.
Pyreth nins
Insecticide
Fast knockdown natural insecticide; safe for household aerosols, pets, livestock.
Resmethrin
Insecticide
Similar to pyrethrins but longer lasting, mare effective.
Aminopyridine
Avicide
Control of variety of birds.
Acids
Picloram
Herbicide
Brush control on industrial sites, pastures, rangeland.
Triclopyr
Herbicide
Systemic control of woody plants, broad-leaf weeds in rights-of-way.
Sulfcmieturon-methyl
Herbicide
Grasses and broad-leaf weeds in ncncropland areas.
Diphenamid
Herbicide
Preelnergence control of annual, broad-leaf weeds in many crops.
Hapropamide
Herbicide
Selective weed control in orchards, several vegetables, ornarnentals.
Oryzalin
Herbicide
Preemergence control of many weeds in soybeans, fruit, ornamentals.
Butylate
Herbicide
incorporated preplant for controlling grass weeds.
Mancozeb
Fungicide/Bactericide
Wide spectrum of fruit, vegetable, field crop, nut diseases.
Maneb
Fungicide/Bactericide
Many diseases of fruits, vegetables, turf.
Metam
Fungicide/Herbicide
Soil fumigant for weeds, weed seeds, namatodes, fungi.
Metiram
Fungicide/Bactericide
Many diseases of fruits, vegetables ornamentals, turf.
Thiram
Fungicide/Bactericide
Seed treatment; diseases of fruits, vegetables, turf.
Vernolate
Herbicide
For mast cnnon weed grasses in soybeans, peanuts.
Ziram
Fungicide
Protective fungicide on fruit and vegetable crops; repellant.
Atrazine
Herbicide
Season-long weed control mainly in corn, sorghum for grass control
Chlorsulfuron
Herbicide
Selective control of most broadleaf weeds and some annual grasses.
Hexazinone
Herbicide
Contact and residual control of every kind of weed on noncropland areas.
Metribuzin
Herbicide
Control of wide spectrum of weeds in several crops.
Prcmieton
Herbicide
Nonselective pre-postemergence control for mast weeds in noncropland.
Simazine
Herbicide
Annual grasses, broad-leaf weeds, crops, ornamentals, turf; aquatic weed.
Aniitrole
Herbicide
Noncropland use only, for annual, perennial grass, broad-leaf weeds.
Brcnacil
Herbicide
Weed control in noncrop area; selective weed control in citrus, pineapple.
Diuron
Herbicide
Control germinating weeds; soil sterilant.
Linuron
Herbicide
Selective weed control in corn, sorghum, cotton, soybeans, wheat.
Monuron
Herbicide
Complete weed control in noncropland areas.
Tebuthiuron
Herbicide
Total vegetation control in ncncropland areas.
Terbacil
Herbicide
Selective control of annual, some perennial.
-------
TABLE 83. CHEMICAL NAMES AND MANUFACTURERS
Active Ingredient CAS# Chemical Name (JUPAC) Basic Manufacturer
2,4 ,5-1 93-76—5 (2 ,4,5—trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid Dow, Thxnpson-Hayward
2,4-0 94-75-7 (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid. Also as salts, amines, esters. Several
Acephate 30560-19-1 0 S-dimethyl acetylphosphoramidothioate Chevron
Acrolein 107-02—8 2-propenal Shell, discontinued
Alachlor 15972-60-8 2-chloro-2’ ,6 ’-diethyl-N-( nethoxymethyl)acetanilide Monsanto
Aldicarb 116-06-3 2-methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde, 0-(methylcarbameyl)oxime Union Carbide
Aidrin 309-00-2 L2,3 ,4,10,10-hexachloro—1 ,4 ,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-1,4:5,8-dimethanononaphthalene Shell
Aluminum Phosphide 20859-73-8 Al P Excel md. Inventa Corp.
Anilnopyridine 504-24-5 4-aniinopyridine Avitrol Corp.
Aniltrole 61-82-5 3-amino-1.2 ,4-triazole Amer. Cyanamid. Union Carb.
Anmonium Sulfamate 7773-06-0 anmoniuni sulfamate duPont
Atrazine 1912-24-9 2—chloro—4-(ethylami no)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazi ne Several
Azinphos-rnethyl 86-50-0 0,0-dimethyl S- [ [ 4-oxo-1,2,3-benzotriazin-3(4H)-yl]methyl]phosphorodithioate Mobay
Bacillus Thuringiensis microbial insecticide for caterpillars Abbott, Sandoz
Bendi ocarb 2278] -23-3 2, 2-dimetl-iyl -1, 3-benzodi oxol -4-yl -methyl ca rbamate Fi sons
Benfluralin 1861-40-1 N-butyl-N-ethyl-alpha,alpha,alpha—trifluoro-2 ,6-dinitro-p-toluidine Elanco Products Co.
Benmeyl 17804-35-2 methyl—1-(butylcarbamoyl )—2-benzamidazole carbamate El duPont de Nemours & Co.
Bensulide 741—58-2 S—(0 ,0—diisopropyl phosphorodithioate) ester of N-(2-mercaptoethyl) benzenesulfonaniide Stauffer
Boric Acid 10043-35-3
Bromaci 1 314-40-9 5-bromo-3-sec-butyl -6-methyl uraci 1 duPont
Co Bro4lxxynil 1089-84-5 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile Several
Butyl ate 2008—41-5 S—ethyl di sobutylthiocarbamate Stauffer
Cacodylic Acid 75-60-5 hydroxydimethylarsine oxide Crystal, Vineland
Captafol 2425-06-1 cis-N(1 ,1,2,2-tetrachloroethyl )thio-4-cyclohexene-1 ,2-dicarboximide Chevron
Carbaryl 63-25—2 1-naphthyl methylcarbarmate Union Carbide
Carbofuran 1563-65-2 2,3-dlhydro-2 ,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl methylcarbamate FMC
Carbon Disulfide 75—15—0 CS? Stauffer Chemical Co.
Chloramben 133—90—4 3—aminc—2 ,5-dichlorobenzoic acid Union Carbide
Chlordane 12789-03-6 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-octachlor-2,3,3a ,4.7 ,7,7a—hexahydro-4,7-methanoindane Velsicol
Chlorflurenol 2536-31—4 2-chloro-9-hydroxyfluorene-9-carboxylate Celainerck GmbH & Co.
Chi oropicri n 76—06-2 tn chi oroni trcisethane Several
Chlorothaloni l 1897-45-6 tetrachlorcisophthalonitrile Diamond Shamrock
Chlorpyri fos 2921-88-? 0,0-diethyl 0-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl )phosphorothioate Dow
Chi orsul furon 64902-72-3 2-chl oro-N [ 4-methoxy-6—methyl -1,3,5 tn az I n-2-yl] and nocarbonyl] -benzenesul fonanii de d uPont
Copper Naphthenate 1338-02-9 copper salt of naphthenic acid
Cuprous Oxide 1317-39-1 cuprous oxide (Cu20), cupric oxide (CuD) Copper Cheui., Nordox
Dalapon 127-20-8 2,2-dichloropropionic acid (sodium salt) Dow, Diamond Shamrock
DCPA 1861-32-1 dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate Diamond Shamrock
Diazinon 333-41-S 0,0-diethyl O-(2-isopropyl-6-methyl-4-pyrirnidinyl) phosphorothioate Ciba-Geigy
Dicamba 1918-00-9 3,6—dichloro-o-ariisic acid Velsicol Chemical Corp.
Dichlobeni 1 1194-65-6 2,6—dichlorobenzoni tn le PSI-Gordon
Dicliloropropene 542—75-6 1,3—dichi oropropene Shell
Dichlorvos 62-73-7 2,2-dichiorovinyl dinuethyl phosphate Shell
Dicofol 115-32-2 4,4’dichloro-alpha-(trichloromethyl)benzhydrom Rohm & Haas
Die ldnin 60-57-1 (IR, 45, 5S, 8RJ-1,2,3,4,1O,1O-hexachloro-1,4,4a,58,8a-hexahydro-1,4:5,8-dimetha onaphthalene Shell
-------
TABLE B3. (Continued)
Di noseb
Dioxathion
Di phenami d
Diquat
Disul foton
D uron
Dormant Oil
OSMA
Endosul fan
Endothal 1
Endrin
Fenanii phos
Fenthion
Fenvalerate
Ferbam
Fosamine tumiionium
61 yphosate
Heptachi or
Hexazinone
Iprodione
Lime Sulfur
Lindane
Linuron
Malathion
Maleic Hydrazide
Mancozeb
Maneb
MCPP
Mefluidide
Metal dehyde
Met am
Methami dophos
Met homyl
Met hoprene
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Parathion
Methylene Chloride
Meti ram
Metal achi or
Metribuzin
Mev nphos
Monocrotophos
Monuron
MSMA
Naled
88-85-7
78-34-2
957-51-7
85-00-7
298-04-4
330-54-1
144 -21-8
115-29-7
145-73-3
77-20-8
22224—92-6
5538-9
5 1630-58-1
14484—64-1
25954-13-6
107 1-83-6
76-44-8
5 1235-04-2
36734—19-7
1344-81 -6
58-89-9
330-55- 2
12 1-75-7
123—33- 1
8018-01-7
12427 —38-2
93-65—2
53 7 80-34-0
108-62-3
137 -42-8
10265—92-6
167 52—7 7-5
7 4-83-9
298-00-0
7 9-09-2
9006-42-2
512 18—4 5-2
21087-64-9
7 786-34-7
692 3-22-4
150—68- 5
2 163-80-6
300-76-5
Several
BFC Chemicals
I UCO
Chevron
Mobay
duPont
WA Cleary Corp.
Hoechst AG
Permnwalt
Shell mt., Velsicol
Mobay
Mobay
Shell
FMC
duPont
Monsanto
Velsicol
duPont
Rhone-Poulenc
Several
Hooker & several foreign
duPont
M rican Cyanamid
Drexel Chem. GiliTore
Several
Several
Several
3M
Devidayal, Jewnin-Joffe
Stauffer
Chevron, Mobay
duPont, Shell mt.
Several
Bayer AG, Chemiekmnbinat
BAS F
Ciba-Geigy
duPont, Mobay
Amvac, Shell
Shell
Hopkins, duPont
Several
Chevron
Active Ingredient CASt Chemical Name (IUPAC) Basic Manufacturer
2-sec -butyl -4, 6-di ni trophenol
2,3-p-dioxanedithiol S,S-bis(0,O-diethyl phosphorodTthioate)
N,N-d imethyl-2,2-d iphenylacetam ide
6 ,7-dihydrodipyrido(1,2-alpha:2’,1 ’-c)-pyrazinediium ion
0,0-diethyl S-f2-(ethylthio)ethyl} phosphorodithioate
3-(3.4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea
Petroleijs oils
disodiurn methanearsonate
(l,4,5,6,7,7-hexachloro-8,9,1O-trinorborn-5-en-2,3-ylenebismethylene)sulphite. alpha, 64-67%; beta, 29-32%
7-oxabicyclo(2.2.1)heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid
I,2,3, 4 ,10,I0-hexachloro-61-epoxy-1,4 ,4a ,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-1 ,4:5,8-dimethanonaphthalene
ethyl 3-methyl -4- (methyl thi o) phenyl (1-methyl ethyl ) phosphorami date
0,0-dimethyl 0- [ 4-(methylthio)-m-tolyl] phosphorothioate
(RS)-alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (RS)-2-(4-chlorophenyl )-3-methylbutyrate
tn s(dimethylcarbamodi thi oato-S , S) iron
amnonium ethyl carbamoylphosphonate
N-(phosphonmnethyl )glycine, isopropylamine salt
1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro—3alpha,4,7 ,la lpha-tetrahydro-4,7-methanoindene
3-cyclohexyl-6-(dlmethylamino)-1—methyl —1,3,5-triazine—2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione
3-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-N—(1-methyl-ethyl) -2,4-dioxo=1=jrnidazcljd inecarboxant mde
calcium polysulfide
1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachiorocyclohexane, ganma isomer of not less than 99%
3-(3,4-di chlorophenyl )—1—methoxyl —1-methylurea
0,0-dimnethyl phosphorodithioate of diethyl mercaptosuccinate
6-hydroxy-3(2H)pyridazinone; or 1 ,2-dlhydropynidazine-3,6-dione
coordination product of zinc ion and manganese ethylene bisdithiocarbamate
manganese ethyl enebi sdi thi ocarbamate
2-(4-chloro-o-tolyl)oxypropionic acid, and the potassium salt
N-{2,4-dimethyl—5- [ [ (trifluormsethyl )-sul fonyl]amino]phenyljacetamide
pol3,iner of acetaldehyde; or r-2,c-4,c-6,c-8-tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetroxocane
sodium N-methyl di thi ocarbamate
0,S-dimethyl phosphoramidothioate
S-methyl N- [ (methyl carbamoyl )oxy] -thi oacetimi date
isopropyl (2E-4E)-11-methoxy-3 ,7, il-trimethyl -2,4-dodecadienoate
bromomethane
O,O-dimethyi-O-4-nitrophenyl phosphorothioate
dichi oromethane
zinc anynoniate ethylenebis(dithiocarbamate)poly(ethylenethiurani disulphide)
2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl -6-methylphenyl )-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl )acetamide
4—amino—6-tert-butyl-3—(methylthio)-1 ,2,4-triazin-5(4H)one
methyl 3-(dimethoxyphosphinyloxy)but-2-enoate, (E) and (Z) isomers
dimethyl (E)-1-methyl-2-(methylcarbanmoyl )vinyl phosphate
3—( p-chlorophenyl ) -1, 1-di methyl urea
monosodium metbanearsonate
1 ,2-dibromo-2 ,2-dichloroethyl dimethyl phosphate
-------
TABLE B3. (Continued)
Nap ropami de
Octyl bicycloheptene-
carboxi ml ne
Oryzalin
Oxadiazon
Oxycarboxi n
Oxydemeton-aEthyl
Oxyfi uorfen
Paraquat
Parathion
PCNB (Quintozene)
Pentachl orophenol
Permethri n
Phenothri n
Phorate
Pie loram
Piperonyl Butoxide
Prometon
Pronami de
Propetamphos
i— Propham
Propoxur
Pyrethrins
Resmethri n
Rotenone
Sethoxydi in
Sirnazine
Sodium Chlorate
Sodium Metaborate
Sul fotimturon-methyl
Sulfotep
Sulfur
Sulfuryl Fluoride
Tebuthi uron
Temephos
Terbaci 1
Thiram
Tn 8utyl Tin
Tn chl orfon
Tn cJ opyr
Trifluralin
Verno late
Warfari n
Xylene
Zineb
Ziram
113-48-4
19044-88-3
1 g666-30-9
5259-88-1
301-12-2
4 2874-03-3
19 10-42-5
56-38-2
82-68-8
87-86-5
52645-53- 1
26002-80-2
298-02-2
1918-02-1
5 1-03-6
1610- 18-0
23950-58-5
58995-37-2
122-42-9
114-26-1
12 1-29-9
10453-86-8
8379-4
74051—80—2
122 -34—9
7775—09—9
1303-96-4
7 4223—56—6
3689-24-5
7 704-34-9
2699-79-8
34014—18-1
3383-96-8
5902—51-2
137 -26-8
688-73-3
52-68—6
55335-06-3
1582-09-8
1929—77—7
81-81-2
133 0-20-7
12 122—67-7
13 7-30-4
McLaughlin Gormley
Elanco
Rhone-Poul enc
lini royal
Bayer AG, Shell
Rohm & I-laas
Chevron
Bayer AG, Monsanto
Olin
Vul can
FMC, Id Amer.. Penick
MGK, Sumitomo
AnEri can Cyanamid
Dow
Several
Ciba-Geigy
Rohm & Haas
Sandoz Ltd.
PPG
Mobay
Several
Fairfield Amer., Penick
Several
Nippon Soda, Schering AG
Ciba-Geigy
Kerr-McGee, Occidental
Several
duPont
Bayer AG
Several
Dow
El anco
American Cyanamid
duPont
Several
Pfi ster Chemical
Mobay, TUCO
Dow
Elanco
Stauffer
Several
Crowley Tar, Union Chern.
Bayer AG, several
Z i ram
Active Ingredient CAS#
Chemical Name (IUPAC)
Basic Manufacturer
15299-99-7
2—(alpha-naphthoxy)-N,N-diethylproprionamide
Stauffer
N-(2-ethylhexyfl-8,91O-tr inorborn-5-ene-2,3-d icarboximide
3, 5-di ni tro-N4-N4-di propyl sul fani 1 ami de
2-tert-butyl-4-(2,4-dichloro-5-isopropoxy-phenyl)-delta2-1,3,4-oxadiazolin-5-one
5,6-dihydro-2-methyl-N-phenyl-1,4-oxathiin-3-carboxamide 4,4-dioxide
S-2-ethylsul phi nylethyl 0,0-dimethyl phosphonothioate
2-chloro-1-(3-ethoxy-4-nitrophenoxy)-4-(tri fluoromethyl )benzene
1,1’-dimethyl-4-4’ -bipyridinium ion
0,0-diethyl O-(4-nitrophenyl) phosphorothioate
pentachl oroni trobenzene
pentachlorophenol
3-(phenoxyphenyl)n€thyl (+/-)-cis,trans-3 -(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethyl cyclopropane—carboxylate
(3-phenoxyphenyl)nethyl 2,2-dimethy)-3-(2-methyl-1-propenyl)cyclopropanecarboxy late
0,0-diethyl S- [ (ethylthio)methyl] phosphorodithioate
4-amiao-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid
alpha- [ 2-(2—butoxyethoxy)ethoxy]-4, 5-(methylenedioxy)-2-propyltoluene
2,4-bis(isopropyl amino)—6-(niethy lthio)—s—triazine
3,5-dichloro(N-1, 1-dimethyl -2-propynyl )benzamide
(E)-0-2-isopropoxy-carbonyl-1-methylvinyl 0-methyl ethylphosphoramidothioate
I sopropyl carbani late
o-i sopropoxyphenyl methyl carbamate
mixture of esters of pyrethrins, cinerins, and jasmolins
(5-phenyinethyl -3-furanyl )methyl 2, 2-dinnethyl -3- (2-methyl - 1-propenyl ) -cyci opropanecarboxyl ate
1,2, 12,12a-tetrahydro-2-isopropenyl -8,9- -dimethoxyl [ 1]benzopyrano [ 2,4-bJ furo [ 2,3—b3 [ ljbenzopyran-6(6aH)-one
2- [ 1-ethoxyin iine)butyl]—5- [ 2-(ethylthio)propyl-3—hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one
2-ch loro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine
sodium chlorate
disodium tetraborate
methyl 2 [ [ [ [ (4,6—dmmethyl—2-pynimidinyl )amino]carbony]amino]sul fonyljlbenzoate
O,O,0,O-tetraethyl di thiopynophosphate
elemental sulfur in many formulations
sulfuryl fluoride
N— [ 5-(1,1—dimethylethyl)—1,3 ,4 --thiadiazol—2-y l]-N,N’-dimethylurea
0,0 ’-(thiodi-4,1-phenylene)bis(O,O-dmmethyl phosphorothioate)
3—tert-butyl-5-chlono-6—methyluraci 1
tetramethyl thi unanxli sulfide
bistnibutyltin oxide, several formulations
dimethyl (2,2,2-trichloro-1-hydroxyethyl) phosphonante
3 ,5,6-trichlono-2-pynidinyloxyacetic acid
alpha,alpha,alpha-tri fluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine
S-propyldipropyl thi ocarbamate
3 -(alpha-acetonylbenzyl)—4—hydroxycoumarin
dimethyl benzene (ortho, meta, and pare isomers)
zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate or [ [ 1,2—ethanediylbis [ carbamodithiaato]] -(2)]zinc complex
Zinc dirnethyldithiocerbamate
-------
APPENDIX C
COUNTY-WIDE PESTICIDE USAGE DATA
-------
APPENDIX C: COUNTY-WIDE PESTICIDE USAGE DATA
Data are estimates of usage of pesticides in lb/yr in each of
12 counties of the Puget Sound basin. For those cells with no entries, a
usage value was not provided by the user source or was not estimable by
methods described herein, and is not meant to indicate a lack of use. For
the urban use categories (i.e., cities/schools, urban land/vegetation,
miscellaneous urban, private home), a high level of uncertainty in usage
data precludes a definitive assessment of actual usage. Instead, those data
are only considered as estimates of potential or actual use based on a
standard urban population. Refer to Section 2.2.5 for method of estimation.
Abbreviations used in this appendix are USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture;
USD1, U.S. Department of Interior; USDOT, U.S. Department of Transportation;
USDOE, U.S. Department of Energy; WDNR, Washington Department of Natural
Resources; WOOl, Washington Department of Transportation; WDOG, Washington
Department of Wildlife. Descriptions of user categories are provided in
Section 2.2.
C. -’
-------
TABLE Cl. POPULATIONS OF PUGET SOUND COUNTIES (1980)
County Population
Clallam 51,648
Island 44,048
Jefferson 15,965
King 1,269,749
Kitsap 147,152
Mason 31,184
Pierce 485,643
San Juan 7,838
Skagit 64,138
Snohomish 337,720
Thurston 124,264
Whatcom 106,701
Total Population of
the Puget Sound Basin 2,686,050
State of Washington 4,132,000
Source: Yates and Yates 1985.
C-2
-------
TABLE C2. CLALLAM COUNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR WOOl
2,4-D CLaLtam 3186 1622
2,4-0 Amine CLaL tam
2,4-0 Esters Cta( tam
Ace * ete Ctet tam
AcroLein CtaUam
Atach(or CLaL Lam
A(dicarb CLaL Lam
ALdrin CLaL (em
ALuninum Phosphide CtaL tam
Amir ,opyridine CLaUam
Amitrote CLaL (em
Mmoniun SuLf nate CteL Lam
Atrazine CLaL tam
Aziophos-methyL CLat Lam
BaciLLus Thuringiensis CLaLLam
Bendiocarb CLaL Lam
c BenfLuraLin CtaL(am
Benamyt CLaUam
Bensutide CLaLLam
Boric Acid CLaLLam
Bronecit CLaLLem
Bro xyniL CLeLtem
Butytate CLaUam
CacodyLic Acid deL Lam
CaptafoL CLaL Lam
Captan C LaL Lam
Carberyt CLa L Lam 247
Carbofuran CLettam 133
Chtoranten CLaL Lam
Chtordane CLaL Lam
ChLorfLurenoL d eL Lam
ChLoropicrin CLaLLam
ChLorothaLonit CLaLLam
ChLor critos CLaIlam
ChtorsuLfuron CLa L Lam
Copper Naphthenate CLaL Lam
Cuprous Oxide CLaL Lam
DaLapon CLaI Lam
DCPA CLat lam
Diazinon CLattem 32
DIc b e CLaLtam
DichtobeniL ClaLLam
Dichioropropene CLaLLam
Dichiorvos C LaL. Lam
Dicofol C taLtam
Dinoseb Claltam 56
-------
TABLE C2. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRIQJLTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS NR OT
D oxsthione CLaL Lain
Diphenamid CLaUam
Diquat CLaL Lam
D suLfoton CLatLam
Diuron CLeL la in
DSMA CLaL Lam
Endosutfan CLaLlam
Feniphos CLatLam
Fenth on CLaL Lam
Fenvoterate CLaL lam
Ferbam CLaL Lam
Fosamine An noniun CLaLLam
Gtyphosete CLaLLam 160
Heptach(or CLaL Lam
Hexezinone CLetlam
Lime SuLfur CLaL Lam
c- Undone CLaL lam
‘t4atathion CLaLLam 14
MaLeic Hydraz de CLatlam
Mancozeb CLaL Lam
P4aneb CLaL lam
MCPP CLaL Lam
MefLuidide CLaLlam
MetaLdehyde CLaL Lain
Metain CLot Lam
Methamidophos CLaL Lam
Methon L CLaLLam
MethyL Bromide CLaL Lam
MethyL Parathion CLaLLem 99
MethyLene ChLoride CLot Lam
Metirain CtaLtam
MetoLachLor CLaLLam
Metribuzin CLattam
Mevinphos CLaLLam
Monocrotophos CLaLtam
Monuron CLaL Lam
MSMA CLaLLam
NaLed CLaLLam
Napropamide CLaLLam
Octyl bicycLoheptenedi- CLaLLam
carboximicie CLaL Lam
Oryzalin CLaLlam
Oxadiazori ClaLLam
Oxycarboxin CIaL Lam
Oxyderneton-methyt CLaLLam
Oxyfluorfen CLaL lam
-------
TABLE C2. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTUNE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE US C! US DOT ARMY CORPS )NR )OT OG
Peraquat CLaUam
Parathion CLaL Lain 290
PCNB (Quintozene) CLaL Lain
Permethrin CLaLLam
Phenothrin CLaL Lam
Phorate CLaL Lam
Pictoram CLaL Lam 439
Piperonyt Butoxide Ctat tarn
Prometon CLa L Lam
Pronamide CLaL Lam
Propetan hos C LaL Lam
Prophain CLaL Lam
Propoxur CLaL Lam
Pyrethrins CLaLtam
Resnathrin CLat tam
Rotenone CLaL Lam
(_)Slmazine ClaLtam
Sodiun ChLorate CLaL Lam
01 Soditjn Metaborate CLaL Lam
Sutfometurori-methyt dat Lam
SuLfur CLaLtam
SutfuryL FLuoride CLaLtam
Tebuthjuron CLaL Lam
Temophos CLaL Lam
Terbacit CLaLLam
Thiram dat Lam
TriButyLlin CLaL Lam
TricLopyr Ctat tam 32
Trifturatin CLaLLem 18
Vernotate CLaL Lam
Warfarin CLaL Lam
XyLene CLaLLam
Ziram CLatLam
TOTAL 4075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2065 235 0
-------
TABLE C2. (Continued)
couwly LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOIJLANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2 4-D Clattem 95 118 5021
2,4-0 Amine CLaltam 78 78
2,4-0 Esters CLat lam 150 150
Acephate CLat tam 238 100 338
Acrotein CLatlam 90 90
Atachtor CLattam 0
Atdicarb CLaLtam 0
A tdrin CLat Lam 24 24
Atueirun Phosphide Cte t Lam 0
Amino ’ridine CLatLam 0
Amitrote CLaLlam 120 54 21 16 211
Anmoniun Sutfamate Clot lam 0
Atrazine CLaLLam 17 17
Azirçhos-methy t CLaLtam 155 155
BaciLLus Thuringiensis CLot Lam 0
Bendiocarb CLattem 22 22
Benfturatin CtaLIam 100 100
Benomyt CLattam 124 124
Bensutide CLat tam 0
Boric Acid CLattam 80 80
Bro nocit CLaLtam 0
Brono xynit CLat tam 0
Butytate Ctattam 0
CacodyLic Acid C tattam 17 17
Captafot CtalI.am 0
Captan CLaL Lam 20 20
CarbaryL Ctat tam 66 460 773
Carbofuren CtaUarn 16 149
ChLoraiMeri CLot Lam 0
ChLordane CLaLtam 956 956
Ch(orfturenot CLaltam 15 15
Ch toropicrin ClaLLam 10 62 72
Ch torothatonit CLaLLam 46 75 121
Chtorpyrifos CLaLlam 170 502 80 752
Ch lorsutfur on Ctatlam 0
Copper Naphthenate C tattam 15 15
C rous Oxide CLatLam 312 312
Datapon CLaLLam 0
DCPA CLot Lam 0
Diazinon CLattam 20 434 520 660 1666
Dican*a CLattem 50 75 100 225
Dichiobenit Ctattani 120 120
Dichtoroproper e Ctattam 0
Dichtorvos CLallam 50 50
05cofo C laUam 15 15
Dinoseb C(aLl.arn 56 112
-------
TABLE C2. (continued)
COUNTY LOCAL UR8AN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Dioxathione dat Lam 0
Diphenamid CLaL tern 0
Diquat Clot tam 75 75
DisuLfoton CLaLLam 75 75
Diuron CiaLtarn 30 65 18 113
DSNA CtaUam 0
EndosuLfen d eL Lam 269 269
Fenamiphos CLaI Lam 0
Fenth on Claltam 0
Fenvaterate CLet lam 0
Ferbam Clat Lam 0
Fosamine v nlun Clot lam 0
GLyphosate ClalLam 160 200 98 44 100 20 782
Heptachtor CLaLLam 213 213
Hexazinone Clot tarn 0
Lime Sulfur CLot La in 46 46
- , Lindane da t Lam 52 52
MaLathion CLoLLam 386 262 900 1562
MaLeic Hydrazide CLelLam 0
Mancozeb CLot Lam 0
Maneb Ctattam 0
I4CPP Clot tam 108 13 100 221
Meftuidide CLaLLam 0
Meta tdehyde Ctalt em 45 1000 1045
Metarn dial tarn 0
Methamidophos CLot tern 0
Methomyt CLaLLam 17 17
MethyL Bromide CLOt tern 5312 5312
Methyl Parathion Clot tern
Methyterie Chloride CLaL Lam 0
Metiram Ctattern 0
MetotachLor CLaL tam 0
Metribuzin CLaLLam 0
Mevinphos Clot Lam 0
Monocrotophos CLot tam 0
Monuron Ctat tam 0
MSNA CLaL Lam 21 14 35
Mated Clot lam 0
Napropamide C lot tarn 20 20
Octyl bicycLoheptenedi- CtatLarn 13 13
cerboximide CtaI.Lom 0
Oryzatin CtatLam 46 32 76
Oxadiazon CLat Lam 20 20
Oxycarboxin Clallam 0
Oxydemetorr-niethyt dat. lam U
Oxyftuorfen CLatlam 0
-------
TABLE C2. (ContInued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HC) E ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Paraquat CLat Lam 18 18
Parathion CLaL lam 290
PCNB (Quintozene) CLeL Lam 0
Permethrin da t Lam 0
Phenothrin CLaL tam 0
Phorate CLaL Lam 0
Pictoram dat tam 439
Piperonyt Butoxide CLaL Lam 23 23
Prometon CLot Lam 90 90
Pronamide CLaL tam 0
Propetarrç hos CLeL Lam 46 46
Propham CLaL Lam 0
Propoxur CLat tam 29 100 129
Pyrethrins CIattam 11 26 37
Resmethrin CLaL Lam 0
Rotenone CLot Lam 10 10
C) S,rnazrne CLat tam 43 88 13 144
Sodiuti Chlorate CLat Lam 0
Sodnsn Metaborate CLeL Lam 14 14
Sutfometuron-methyt Ctettam 90 43 176
SuLfur CLot tam 667 667
SuLfuryt FLuoride CLaLtam 2324 2324
Tebuth uron C tattem 0
Temephos CLot Lam 0
TerbaciL Ctattam 0
Thiram CtaUam 0
TriButytTin CLatLem 134 134
Trictopyr CLattam 500 150 80 766
TrifturaLin C tattam 13 31
Vernolate CtaL lam 0
Warfarin CLaL Lam 0
Xytene Ctattam 413 413
Ziram CLattam 335 335
TOTAL 750 1177 2889 12041 4137 446 116 27931
-------
TABLE C3. ISLAND COJNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR WDOT l 0G
2,4-0 Island 2019
2,4-0 Amine Island
2,4-0 Esters Island
Acephate Island
Acrolein Island
Atachlor IsLand 6
Aldicarb IsLand
Aldrin Island
Atuninuu Phosphide Island
Amino ’ridine IsLand
Amitrole Island
Armionia Sutfamate Island
Atrazine IsLand 2 380
Azinphos-methy( Island
Bacillus Thuringiensis Island 464
Bendiocerb Island
Benflurelin Island
Benonryl Island
Bensulide Island
Boric Acid island
Bromacil Island 14384 13
Bromoxynil IsLand
Butylate Island
Cacodytic Acid Island
Captafol Island
Captan Island
Carbaryt Island 118
Carbofurarr Island 72
Chloranten Island
Ch lordane Island
Ch lorflureno l Island
Chtorop lcr ln IaLand
Chlorothelonil Island
Chlorpyrifos Island 11
Chlorsulfuron Island 2
Copper Naphthenate Island
C ,rous Oxide Island
Dalapon Island
DCPA Island
Diazinon Istai-d 25
Dicanta Island 1011 189
Dichiobenil Island
Dichioropropene Island
Dichiorvos Island
Dicofol Island
Dinoseb Island 6
-------
TABLE C3. (Continued)
ACTIVE fl GREDIENT COUNTY AGRIOJLTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS hONR WOOT WOOG
Dioxathione Island
0ip l enamid Island
Diquat Island
Disutfoton Island
Diuron Island 13663
DSMA Island
Endosulfan Island
Fenamiphos Island
Fenthion Island
FenvaLerate Island
Ferbam IsLand
Fosamine Asmaoniun Island
Glyphosate Island 60
I4eptachlor IsLand
Hexazinone Island
Lime Sulfur Island 5048
C) Lindane Island
Malathion Island 6 709
c Mateic Hydrazide Island
Mancozeb Is land
Naneb Island
MCPP Island
Meftuidide Island
Metaldehyde IsLand
Metam Island
Methamidophos Island
Methomyt Island
Methyl Bromide Island
Methyl Parathion Island 10
Methylene Chloride Island
Metiram Island
Metolachlor Island
Netribuzin IsLand 100
Nevinphos Island
Monocrotophos Island
Monuron Island
MSMA Island
Naled Island
Napropamide Island
Octyl bicycloheptene- Island
carboximide Island
Oryzalin Island
Oxadiazon Island
Oxycarboxrn Island
0xydemeton niethyL Island
Oxyfluorfen Island
-------
TABLE C3. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS )NR WOOT
Paraquat IsLand
Parathion IsLand 105
PCNB (Quintozene) Island
Permethrin Island
Phenothr in IsLand
Phorate Island
Picloram IsLand 30
Piperonyl Butoxide Island
Prometon Is Land
Pronamide IsLand 3
Propetançhos Is Land
Proç em Island
Propoxur IsLand
Pyrethrins Is land
Resmethrin IsLand
Rotenone Island
C ) Simazine IsLand 60
. Sodiun Chlorate Island
i— Sodiun Metaborate isLand
Sulfoneturon-methyl IsLand 27
Sulfur IsLand
Sulfuryt FLuoride isLand
Tebuthiuron Island
Temephos Island
TerbaciL IsLand
Thiram IsLand
IrtHutyL l in Island
Triclopyr Island 155
Trifluralin Island 2
Vernolate IsLand 7
Warfarin Island
XyLene Is land
Zir u Island
TOTAL 3582 0 0 34468 0 0 0 0 0 637 0
-------
TABLE C3. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDiENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2 ,4-D Island 80 101 2200
2,4-0 Amine IsLand 67 67
2,4-0 Esters IsLand 130 130
Acej ate IsLand 202 80 282
Acrotein IsLand 77 77
Alachtor IsLand 6
ALdicarb IsLand 0
A ldrin IsLand 20 20
Alunirun Phosphide Island 0
Arninopyridine IsLand 0
Amitrole IsLand 103 46 18 167
Aninonia SuLfamate IsLand 0
Atrazine IsLand 14 396
Azir hos-methyt Island 132 132
Baciflus Thuringiensis IsLand 464
Bendiocarb IsLand 18 18
C) Benfluratin IsLand 90 90
,• Benomyt isLand 105 105
j’ Bensutide IsLand 0
Boric Acid IsLand 69 69
BromeciL IsLand 14397
Bromaxynil IsLand 0
Butylate IsLand 0
Cecodylic Acid Island 15 15
CaptafoL IsLand 0
Captan Island 18 18
Carbaryl IsLand 56 390 564
Carbofuran IsLand 14 86
ChLor en Island 0
ChLordane Island 816 816
ChLorfLureno l IsLand 13 13
ChLoropicrin IsLand 53 53
Chtorothaton lt Island 40 62 102
ChLor ’rifos IsLand 145 428 70 654
ChlorsuLfuron Island 2
Copper Naphthenate IsLand 12 12
CLçrous Oxide Island 273 273
Dalapon IsLand 0
0CPA IsLand 0
Diazinon IsLand 18 370 443 560 1416
Dicamba Island 43 64 80 1387
DichiobeniL Island 100 100
DichLoropropene Is ard 0
D ichLorvos Island 40 40
DicofoL IsLand 13 13
Dinoseb Island 49 55
-------
TABLE C3. (ContinUed)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT WGETAT1C MISC URBAN H E ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Dioxathione IsLand 0
Diphenamid isLand o
Diquat Island 65 65
D sulfoton Island 62 62
Diuron IsLand 25 55 15 13758
OSIIA island 0
Endosulfan Island 229 229
Fenamiphos IsLand 0
Fenthion IsLand 0
Fenveterate island 0
Ferbem IsLand 0
Fosamine M.nonlun IsLand 0
Glyphosate Island 170 83 38 80 50 481
Heptachtor IsLand 181 181
l4exaz none ISland 0
Lime Sulfur Island 40 5088
Lindane IsLand 44 44
Malathion isLand 329 224 760 2028
Maleic ilydrazide isLand 0
Mancoieb island 0
Maneb Island 0
MCPP Island 92 11 80 183
Meftuidide Island 0
Metaldehyde isLand 40 850 890
Metam Islend 0
Methamidophos IsLand 0
Metho ’l IsLand 14 14
Methyl Br inde IsLand 4530 4530
Methyl Parathion IsLand 10
Methylene Chloride Island 0
Metiram Island 0
Metolachlor island 0
Metribuzin Island 100
Mevinphos isLand 0
M000crotophos Island 0
Monuron IsLand 0
MSMA Island 31
Mated IsLand 0
Wapropatrnde Island 10 10
Octyl b cyc(oheptene- Island 11 11
carboxiinide Island 0
Oryzalin Island 40 28 68
Oxadiazon island 20 20
0xycarbo,cir island 0
O ydemetor -methyl Island 0
Oxyfluorfen IsLand 0
-------
IABLE C3. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Peraquat IsLand 15 15
Parathion IsLand 105
PCNB (Quintozene) IsLand 0
Perjnethrin IsLand 0
Phenothrin IsLand 0
Phorate IsLand 0
Pictoram IsLand 30
PiperonyL Butoxide IsLand 20 20
Prometon IsLand 80 80
Pronamide IsLand 3
Propetanphos IsLand 39 39
Propham IsLard 0
Propoxur IsLand 24 90 114
Pyrethrins IsLand 22 22
Resmethrin IsLand 0
Rotenone IsLand 10 10
Stinazine IsLand 42 75 11 188
.. Sodi gn ChLorate IsLand 0
- Sodiun Metaborate Istard 12 12
SuLfometuron-methyt IsLand 37 64
SuLfur IsLand 568 568
Su(furyt FLuoride IsLand 1982 1982
Tebuthiuron IsLand 0
Temephos IsLand 0
Terbacit IsLand 0
Thiram IsLand 0
TriButytlin IsLand 117 117
Trictopyr IsLand 130 285
Trif luratrn IsLand 12 14
VernoLete IsLand 7
Warfarin IsLand 0
Xy(ene Istard 352 352
Ziram IsLand 286 286
TOTAL 0 1016 2456 10257 3499 390 50 56355
-------
TABLE C4. JEFFERSON COUNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR WOOT WOOG
2,4-D Jefferson 1510 2000 77
2,4-D Amine Jefferson
2,4-D Esters Jefferson
Acephate Jefferson
AcroLein Jefferson
Atachtor Jefferson
Atdicarb Jefferson
ALdrin Jefferson
Atuninun Phosphide Jefferson
Aminor ’r dine Jefferson
AmitroLe Jefferson
Ainnonia SuLfamate Jefferson
Atrazine Jefferson
Azinphos-methy( Jefferson
BacciLus Thuringiensis Jefferson
Bendiocarb Jefferson
Benf Luratin Jefferson
C) Bencsiiyl Jefferson
... Bensutide Jefferson
(T Boric Acid Jefferson
BromaciL Jefferson 240
Bromaxyni t Jefferson
ButyLate Jefferson
Cacodytic Acid Jefferson
CaptafoL Jefferson
Captan Jefferson
Carbaryl Jefferson 80
Carbofuran Jefferson 14
Chtoramben Jefferson
Chtordane Jefferson
ChLorfturenoL Jefferson
Chtoropicriri Jefferson
ChLorothaloni L Jefferson
Chtorpyrlfos Jefferson
Chtorsutfuron Jefferson
Copper Nephthenate Jefferson
Cuprous Oxide Jefferson
DaLapon Jefferson
OCPA Jefferson
Diazinon Jefferson 17
Dicatha Jefferson
DicMobenit Jefferson 10
DichLoropropene Jefferson
Dichiorvos Jefferson
Dicofot Jefferson
Dinoseb Jefferson
-------
TABLE C4. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRIOULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDWR WDOT li)OG
Dioxathione Jefferson
Diphenamid Jefferson
Diquat Jefferson
Disulfoton Jefferson
Diuron Jefferson 240 140
DSMA Jefferson
Endosul fan Jefferson
Fenamiphos Jefferson
Fenthion Jefferson
Fenvalerate Jefferson
Ferbam Jefferson
Fosamine Anim,niun Jefferson 80
Glyphosate Jefferson 240 48
Heptachior Jefferson
Hexazinone Jefferson
Lime Sulfur Jefferson
Lindane Jefferson
,_. Malathion Jefferson
Mateic Hydrazide Jefferson
Mancozeb Jefferson
Maneb Jefferson
MCPP Jefferson
Mefluidide Jefferson
Metaldehyde Jefferson
Metais Jefferson
Methamidophos Jefferson
Methoinyl Jefferson
Methyl Branide Jefferson
Methyl Parathion Jefferson
Methylene Chloride Jefferson
Met i ram Jefferson
Metolach lor Jefferson
Metribuzin Jefferson
Mevinphos Jefferson
Monocrotophos Jefferson
Monuron Jefferson
MSMA Jefferson
Waled Jefferson
Napropamide Jefferson
Octy( bicycloheptenedi- Jefferson
carboximide Jefferson
Oryzat in Jefferson
Oxadiazon Jefferson
Oxycarboxin Jefferson
Oxydemeton-methyt Jefferson
Oxyf I uorfen Jefferson
-------
TABLE C4. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT WJNTY AGRIWLTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR WOOl WOOG
Paraquet Jefferson
Parathion Jefferson 96
PCNB (Quintozene) Jefferson
Permethrin Jefferson
Phenothrin Jefferson
Phorate Jefferson
PicLoram Jefferson 450
Piperonyt Butoxide Jefferson
Prometon Jefferson
Pronamide Jefferson
Propetanp os Jefferson
Proph n Jefferson
Propoxur Jefferson
Pyrethr ins Jefferson
Resmethrin Jefferson
Rotenone Jefferson
Simazine Jefferson
Sodiuii ChLorate Jefferson
Sodiun Metaborate Jefferson
SuUometuron-methyt Jefferson 1 16
SuLfur Jefferson
SutfuryL FLuoride Jefferson
lebuthiuron Jefferson
Temephos Jefferson
Torbocit Joqferion
Thiram Jefferson
TriButytlin Jefferson
Trictopyr Jefferson
TrifLuraLin Jefferson
Vernotate Jefferson
Warfarin Jefferson
XyLene Jefferson
Ziram Jefferson
TOTAL 1718 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3172 405 0
-------
TABLE C4. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOtJLANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2 ,4-D Jefferson 30 36 3653
2 ,4-0 Amine Jefferson 24 24
2 ,4-D Esters Jefferson 40 40
Acephate Jefferson 73 30 103
Acrotein Jefferson 28 28
A1ach or Jefferson 0
Aldicarb Jefferson 0
Aidrin Jefferson 0
A1uninui Phosphide Jefferson 0
Amino ’ridine Jefferson 0
Amitrote Jefferson 40 17 57
Ainnonia Sulfamate Jefferson 0
Atrazine Jefferson 0
Azinphos-methyt Jefferson 48 48
Baccitus Thuringiensis Jefferson
Bend locerb Jefferson o
ç BenfLuratin Jefferson 30 30
Benomyt Jefferson 0
Bensutide Jefferson 0
Boric Acid Jefferson 25 25
Bromacit Jefferson 240
Bromoxynit Jefferson 0
Butytate Jefferson 0
Cacodytic Acid Jefferson 0
Captafot Jefferson 0
Capten Jefferson 0
Carbaryt Jefferson 20 142 242
Carbofuran Jefferson 14
Chtoramben Jefferson 0
Ch tordarie Jefferson 296 296
Ch torfturenot Jefferson 0
Chtoropicrin Jefferson 19 19
ChLorotha toniL Jefferson 14 25 39
Chtorpyrifos Jefferson 52 155 25 232
Chiorsutfuron Jefferson 1
Copper Naphthenate Jefferson 0
Ci. rous Oxide Jefferson 93 93
Datapon Jefferson 0
DCPA Jefferson 0
Diazinon Jefferson 134 161 200 512
Dicanba Jefferson 15 23 30 68
D ichtobenit Jefferson 40 50
Dichtoropropene Jefferson 0
Dichtorvos Jefferson 15 15
Dicofot Jefferson 5
Dinoseb Jefferson 17 17
-------
TABLE C4. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATiON MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Dioxathione Jefferson 0
Diphenamid Jefferson 0
Diquat Jefferson 20 20
Disutfoton Jefferson 25 25
Diuron Jefferson 20 400
OSMA Jefferson 0
Endosut fan Jefferson 83
Fenomiphos Jefferson 0
Fenthion Jefferson 0
Fenvaterate Jefferson 0
Ferbam Jefferson 0
Fosamine Anrnoniun Jefferson so
Glyphosate Jefferson 60 30 14 30 422
Heptach (or Jefferson 65 65
Hexazinone Jefferson 0
Lime Sulfur Jefferson 15 15
( Lindane Jefferson 16 16
MaLathion Jefferson 119 81 275 476
Nateic Hydrazide Jefferson 0
Nancozeb Jefferson o
Naneb Jefferson 0
NCPP Jefferson 33 30 63
Nef(uidide Jefferson 0
Meteldehyde Jefferson 14 300 314
Met n Jefferson 0
Methamidophos Jefferson 0
Methomyt Jefferson 0
Methyl Bromide Jefferson 1642 1642
Methyl Parathion Jefferson 0
Methylene Chloride Jefferson 0
Metirem Jefferson 0
Mototachior Jofferean 0
Metribuzin Jefferson 0
Mevinphos Jefferson 0
Monocrotophos Jefferson 0
Monuron Jefferson 0
MSMA Jefferson 0
HaLed Jefferson 0
Napropamide Jefferson
Octyl bicyctoheptenedi- Jefferson 0
carboximide Jefferson 0
Oryzalin Jefferson 12 10 22
Oxadiazon Jefferson 0
Oxycarboicin Jefferson 0
Oxydemeton-methyL Jefferson 0
Oxyftuorfen Jefferson 0
-------
TARI.F C4. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Peraquat Jefferson 0
Parathion Jefferson 96
PCNB (Quintozene) Jefferson 0
Permethrin Jefferson o
Phenothrin Jefferson o
Phorate Jefferson 0
PicLoram Jefferson 450
Piperonyt Butoxide Jefferson 0
Prometon Jefferson 30 30
Pronamide Jefferson 0
Propetairphos Jefferson 14 14
Propham Jefferson 0
Propoxur Jefferson 33 33
Pyrethrins Jefferson 8 8
Resmethrin Jefferson 0
Rotenone Jefferson 4 4
Simazine Jefferson 15 27 42
Sodiun ChLorate Jefferson 0
Sodiun Hetaborate Jefferson 0
Sutfometuron-methyL Jefferson 13 30
SuLfur Jefferson 206 206
Sutfuryt FLuoride Jefferson 718 718
Tebuthiuron Jefferson 0
Temephos Jefferson 0
TerbaciL Jefferson 0
Thi rem Jefferson 0
TriButytTin Jefferson 40 40
Trictopyr Jefferson 45
TrifLuratin Jefferson 0
VernoLate Jefferson 0
Warfarin Jefferson 0
Xytene Jefferson 128 128
Ziram Jefferson 104 104
TOTAL 0 321 836 3629 1262 133 0 11476
-------
TABLE C5. KING COUNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRiCULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR WOOl
2 4-D King 10157 1650 15 256 38
2 4-D Amine King 1537
2 4-D Esters King
Ace iate King
Acrotein King
A iechtor King 623 165
A(dicarb King
Aidrin King
Aluniruu Phosphide King
Amnopyridine King
Amitrote King 7 2
Arm,oniuD Sulfamete King
Atrazine King 987 1890 40
Azinphos-methyt King
Beccilus Thuringiensis King
Bendiocerb King
BenfLuratin King
C•) BenomyL King
, Bensutide King 6
‘—i Boric Acid King
BromaciL King 125 56
Bromoxyn lL King
ButyLate King
Cacodylic Acid King
Captafot King 2
Captan King
CarbaryL King 1067
Carbofuran King 40
Chtorwrben King 74
Chtordane King
Chtorf lurenoL King
Chioropicrin King
ChtorothaLoniL King
Chiorpyrifos King
ChtorsuLfuron King
Copper Naphthenate King
Ci çrous Oxide King
Dalapon King
DCPA King
Diazinon King 13
Dicatha King 12000 304 7 228
Dich lobenfl King 150 150 150
Dichtoropropene King
D lchLorvos King
DicofoL King
Dinoseb King 103
-------
TABLE C5. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR WOOl WOOG
Dioxathione King
Diphenamid King
Diquat King
Disulfoton King 100
D uron King 15 56 2520
DSMA King 19
Er osut fan King
Fenamiphos King 100
Fenthion King
Fenvaterate King
Ferbam King
Fosamine Anuoniun King 960 800
Glyphosate King 4 16 400
Heptach(or King
Hexazinone King
Lime Sulfur King
i Lindane King
MaLathion King 44 23
Maleic Hydrazide King
Mancozeb King
Naneb King
MCPP King 3
MefLuidide King
Metaldehyde King 50 50
Metam King
Methamidophos King 21
Methomyl King 5
Methyl Bromide King
Methyl Parathion King 65
Methytene Chloride King
Metiram King 2
MetolachLor King 244 90
Metritijzjn King
Mevinphos King
Monoc rotophos King
Monuron King 400
MSNA King
Naled King
Napropamide King
Octyt bicycloheptenedi- King
carboximide King
Oryzalin King 1400
Oxadiazon King
Oxycarboxin King
Oxydeneton-methyl King 52
Oxyftuorfen King
-------
TABLE CS. (Contir ed)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRZOJLTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD 1 US DOT ARMY CORPS NR I OT
Paraquat King
Parathion King 1345
PCNB (Quintozene) King
Perniethrin King 10
Phenothrin King
Phorate King 450
Pictoram King
Piperonyt Butoxide King
Prometon King 25925
Pronamide King 00 252
PropetBnç hos King
ProØ ii King 28
Propoxur King
Pyrethrins King
Resmethrin King
ç) Rotenone King
Siinazine King 1000 50 24
Sodiisn Chlorate King
Sod .ri I4etaborate King
Su l foineturon-methy l King 86
Sulfur King
Sutfuryl Fluoride King
Tthuthiuron King 8257
Temephos King
Terbacil King
Thiram King
TriButytlin King
Trictopyr King 47 1220
Trilturatin King 41
Vernotate King 1370
Warfarin King
Kytene King
Zire n King
TOTAL 30299 0 0 23 38901 0 400 293 1491 8684 399
-------
TABLE £5. (Continued)
O&J*1TY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COIJMTY ROADS GOVEPNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HOME ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2,4-0 King — 2300 292 705 18041
2,4-0 Amine King 1918 3455
2,4-0 Esters King 23 3700 3723
Ace iate King 35 7600 32 2400 10067
Acrolein King 2206 2206
Atachtor King 788
Atdicarb King 0
Atdrjn King 585 585
Atunirun Phos ide King 45 45
inop irid ne King 0
Amitrole King 2900 1330 519 4758
Aninoniijii SuLf nate King 67 67
Atrazine King 15000 411 18328
Anrçhos-methyl King 3800 3800
Baccitus Thuringiensis King 202 202
Bendiocarb King 100 531 631
I Benfluratin King 2400 11 2411
Benanyt King 15 3047 11 30Th
Bensulide King 6
Boric Acid King 1975 1975
Bromacil King 142 323
BroaioxyniL King 136 136
Buty ate King 0
Cacodytic Acid King 400 400
CeptafoL King 2
Captan King 507 507
CarbaryL King 160 1623 11300 14150
Carbofuren King
Chtoramben King 74
ChLordane King 23514 23514
Chtorf lurenot King 300 300
Ch oropicrin King 250 1528 1778
Chtorotha loniL King 1142 10 1800 2956
ChLorpyrifos King 10 4190 12345 2000 18545
Ch(orsuUuron King 0
Copper Naphthenate King 357 35 ?’
Cuprous Oxide King 7840 7840
Dalapon King 0
DCPA King 19 19
Diazinon King 500 10665 12697 15772 39647
Dicainba King 120 1200 1855 132 2400 19246
DichiobeniL King 3000 82 3532
Dichioropropene King 169 169
Dichtorvos King 96 1000 10%
Dicofot King 25 380 405
Dinoseb King 1397 1500
-------
TABLE C5. (Conttnu.d)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY RON)S GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULAI4TS TIMBER TOTAL
Dioxathione King 80 80
Diphenamid King 0
Diquat King 1830 141 1971
DisuLfoton King 42 1800 1942
Diuron King 750 1600 433 5374
DSMA King 19
Endosut fan King 6600 6600
Fenamiphos King 100
Fenthion King 89 89
FenvaLerate King 56 56
Ferbam King 0
Fosamine Asmnoniun King 1760
GLyphosate King 80 4800 2410 1079 2400 700 11889
Heptechtor King 5244 5244
Hexazinone King 0
Lime SuLfur King 1100 1100
C) Lindane King 1270 1270
Malathion King 9500 6443 22000 38010
UlMalelo Hydrazide King 0
Mencozeb King 47 47
Maneb King 47 47
MCPP King 2667 329 2400 5399
Meftuidide King 125 125
Metaldehyde King 1000 25000 26100
Metwn King 0
Methamido ios King 21
Methoniy l King 414 419
Methyl Brcxnide King 130596 130596
Methyl Parathion King 65
Methytene Chloride King 188 188
Metiravn King 2
MetotachLor King 334
Metribuzin King 0
Mevinphos King 141 141
Monocrotophos King 174 174
Monuron King 400
MSMA King 530 339 869
Naled King 179 179
Napropemide King 200 19 219
Octyt bicyctoheptenedi- King 315 315
carboximide King 0
Oryzatin King 1100 800 3300
Oxodiazon King 500 500
Oxycarboxin King 0
Oxyderneton-methyl King 52
Oxyftuorfen King 28 28
-------
TABLE C5. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY R DS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE A$TIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Paraquat King 447 447
Parathion King 21 1366
PCNB (Ouintozene) King 85 85
Permethrin King 141 151
Phenothrin King 0
Phorate King 450
PicLoram King 16 16
PiperonyL Butoxide King 564 564
Prometon King 99 2300 28324
Pronamide King 352
Propetan hos King 1129 1129
Propham King 28
Propoxur King 705 2600 3305
Pyrethrins King 263 600 863
Resmethrin King 124 124
Rotenone King 280 280
Simazine King 15000 1150 2160 324 19708
Sodiun ChLorate King 0
Sodiun Metaborate King 334 334
Sutfcxneturon-rnethyt King 1070 62 1218
SuLfur King 16387 16387
SuLfuryL FUioride King 57134 57134
Tebuthiuron King 15 8272
Temep l os King 18 18
Terbacit King 0
Thiram King 38 38
TriButyLTin King 0
TricLopyr King 1000 3600 47 1931 7845
Tr ifturaLin King 350 23 414
VernoLate King 1370
Werfarin King 0
XyLene King 10158 10158
Ziram King 8253 8253
TOTAL 31200 28750 72896 299005 101232 7840 3336 624749
-------
TABLE C6. KITSAP COUNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS )NR WDOT
2,4-0 Kitsap 2463 285 308
2,4-0 Amine Kitsap
2 ,4-D Esters Kitsap
Acephate Kitsap
Acrotein Kitsap
Atachlor Kitsap
Atdicarb Kitsap
Atdriri Kitsap
Atunirun Phosphide Kitsap
Aminopyridine Kitsap
Amitrote Kitsap
Anmonia Sulfamate Kitsap
Atrazine Kitsap
Azinphos-methy l Kitsap
Bacittus Thuringiensis Kitsap
Bendiocarb Kitsap
C) Benfluratin Kitsap
Benosyt Kitsap
-4 Bensutide Kitsap
Boric Acid Kitsap
Bromacit Kitsap 305
8roai xyniL Kitsap
Butytate Kitsap
Cacodytic Aced Kitsap
Captefol Kitsap
Captan Kitsap
Carberyt Kitsap 72
Carbofurar, Kitsap 5
Chioranten Kitsap
Ch tordane Kitsap
Ch torfiurenot Kitsap
Chtoropicrin Kitsap
Ch torothatonit Kitsap
Chlorpyrifos Kitsap
ChLorsu tfuron Kitsap
Copper Naphthenate Kitsap
C ,rous Oxide Kitsap
Datapon Kitsap
DCPA Kitsap
Diazinon Kitsep 18 18
Dicanla K tsap 0O0
Dichtobenht Kitsap 40
Dichtoropropene Kitsap
Dich torvos Kitsap
Dicofol Kitsap
Dir,oseb Kitsap 2
-------
TABLE C6. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WONR )OT )OG
Dioxathione Kitsep
Diphenamid Kitsap
Diquat Kitsap
Disulfoton Kitsap
Diuron Kitsap 170 560
DSMA Kitsap
Endosutfan Kitsap
Fen niphos Kitsap
Fenthion Kitsap
Fenvalerate Kitsap
Ferbam Kitsap 30
Fosanine Anm niun Kitsap 320
Glyphosate Kitsap 32
leptachtor Kitsap
Hexazinone Kitsap 320
Lime Sulfur Kitsap
Lindane Kitsap
Ma(athion Kitsap 7
Maleic Hydrazide Kitsap
Mancozeb Kitsap
Maneb Kitsap
MCPP K tsap
Mefluldide Kitsap
Metaldehyde Kitsap
Met ii Kitsap
Methamidophos Kitsap 3
Methon y l Kitsap 70
Methyl Braside Kitsap
Methyl Parathion Kitsap
Methytene Chloride Kitsap
Metiram Kitsap
Metolachlor Kitsap
Metribuzin Kitsap
Mevinphos Kitsap
Monocrotophos Kitsap
Monuron Kitsap
MSMA Kitsap
Haled Kitsap
Napropamide Kitsap
Octyl bicycloheptenedi- KitSap
carboximide Kitsap
Oryzatin Kitsap
Oxadiazon Kitsap
Oxycarboxin Kitsap
Oxydemeton-methyl Kitsap
Oxyfluorfen Kitsap
-------
TABLE C6. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRIWLTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS NR OT
Paraquat Kitsap
Parathion Kitsap 99
PCNB (Quintozene) Kitsap
Permethrin Kitsap
Phenothrin Kitsap
Phorate Kitsap 3
Pictoram Kitsap 150
PiperonyL Butoxide Kitsap
Prometon Kitsap
Pronamide Kitsap
Propetanç*los Kitsap
Propham Kitsap
Propoxur Kitsap
Pyrethrins Kitsap
Resmethrin Kitsap
Rotenone Kitsap
C)Simazine Kitsap 440
Sodiun ChLorate Kitsap
L.oSodiu i Metaborate Kitsap
Sutfometuron-methyL Kitsap 28
SuLfur Kitsap
SuLfuryt FLuoride Kitsap
Tebuthiuron Kitsap
Temephos Kitsap
TerbaciL Kitsap
Thiram Kitsap
TriButyLlin Kitsap
TricLopyr Kitsap 112 64
Triflura(jn Kitsap 1
Vernolate Kitsap
Warfarin Kitsap
XyLene Kitsap
Ziram Kitsap
TOTAL 4655 0 0 523 0 285 0 0 112 1352 0
-------
TABLE C6. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2,4-0 Kitsap 280 340 3676
2,4-0 Amine Kitsap 222 222
2,4-0 Esters Kitsap 14 430 444
Acephate Kitsap 675 270 945
Acrotein Kitsap 256 256
Atachtor Kitsap 0
Aldicarb Kitsap 0
A [ drin Kitsap 68 68
A1u iru1% Phosphide Kitsap 0
Aminopyridine Kitsap 0
Amitrote Kitsap 340 154 60 554
Atnnonia Su(famate Kitsap 0
Atrazine Kitsap 2000 2000
Azinphos-methyt Kitsap 440 440
BaciUus Thuringiensis Kitsap 23 23
Bendiocarb Kitsap 62 62
BenfturaLin Kitsap 300 300
(—)Benon ly( Kitsap 350 350
Bensutide Kitsap 0
Boric Acid Kitsap 229 229
BroinaciL Kitsap 16 321
Bro noxyni( Kitsap 16 16
Butylate Kitsap 0
Cacody(ic Acid Kitsap 50 50
CaptafoL Kitsap 0
Captan Kitsap 60 60
CarbaryL Kitsap 19 188 1310 1589
Carbofuran Kitsap 46 51
Chtoran*en Kitsap 0
Chtordane Kitsap 2725 2725
ChiorfLurenol Kitsap 40 40
Chtoropicrin Kitsap 30 177 207
ChLorothaloniL Kitsap 130 130
Chtorpyrifos Kitsap 485 1431 240 2156
Chtorsutfuron Kitsap 0
Copper Naphthenate Kitsap 41 41
C rous Oxide Kitsap 200 200
Datapon Kitsap 900 900
DCPA Kitsap 0
Diazir,on Kitsap 60 1230 1481 1800 4607
Dicamba Kitsep 140 215 15 270 1640
O ich lobeni( Kitsap 350 10 400
Dichioropropene Kitsap 20 20
Dichtorvos Kitsap 11 150 161
Dicofot Kitsap 45 4S
Dinoseb Kitsap 162 164
-------
TABLE C6. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Dioxethione Kitsap 0
Diphenamid Kitsap 0
Diquat Kitsap 215 16 231
Disutfoton Kitsap 200 200
Diuron Kitsap 80 185 50 1045
DSMA Kitsap 0
EndosuLfan Kitsap 765 765
Fenamiphos Kitsap 0
Fenthion Kitsap 10 10
Fenvaterate Kitsap C
Ferbam Kitsap 30
Fosamine Asrinoniun Kitsap 320
Glyphosate Kitsap 560 280 125 270 1267
HeptachLor Kitsap 607 607
Hexazinone Kitsap 320
Lime Sulfur Kitsap 130 130
Lindane Kitsap 147 147
Malathion Kitsap 1100 747 2500 4354
MaLeic Hydrazide Kitsap 0
Mancozeb Kitsap 0
‘ Maneb Kitsap 0
MCPP Kitsap 310 38 270 618
MefLuidide Kitsap 15 15
Metaldehyde Kitsap 130 2800 2930
Metam Kitsap 0
Methamidophos Kitsap 3
Methomyt Kitsap 48 118
Methyl Bromide Kitsap 15135 15135
MethyL Parathion Kitsap 0
MethyLene Chloride Kitsap 22 22
Metiram Kitsap 0
MetolachLor Kitsap 2
Metribuzin Kitsap 0
Mevinphos Kitsap 16 16
Monocrotophos Kitsap 20 20
Monuron Kitsap 0
MSMA Kitsap 62 39 101
Nated Kitsap 21 21
Napropainide Kitsap 20 20
Octyl bicyctoheptenedi- Kitsap 37
carboximide Kitsap 0
Oryzatin Kitsap 130 93 223
Oxadiazon Kitsap 60 60
Oxycarboxin Kitsap 0
Oxydemeton-niethyt Kitsap 0
OxyfLuorfen Kitsap 0
-------
TABLE C6 (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACT lYE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Paraquat 1 (1 tsap 52 52
Parathion Kitsap 99
PCNB (Quintozene) Kitsap 10 10
Permethrin Kitsap 16 16
Phenothrin Kitsap 0
Phorate Kitsap 3
Pic loram Kitsap 150
Piperonyt 8utoxide Kitsap 65 65
Prometon Kitsap 11 270 281
Pronacnide Kitsap 0
Propetanphos Kitsap 131 131
Propham Kitsap 0
Propoxur Kitsap 82 300 382
Pyrethrins Kitsap 31 75 106
Rest thr in Kitsap 14 14
Rctenone its a p 30 30
Simazine Kitsep 140 250 38 668
Sodiun Chlorate Kitsap 0
Sodiun Metaborate Kitsap 39 3 9
¶ulfouneturon-stethyt its.p 125 153
Sutfur Kitsap 1899 1899
Sutfuryt FLuoride Kitsap 6621 6621
Tebuthiuron Kitsap 0
Tecnephos Kitsap 0
Terbacit Kitsap 0
Thiram Kitsap 0
TriButytTin K ltsap 385 385
TricLopyr Kitsap 270 425 871
Tr ifLuratin Kitsap 40 41
Vernotate Kitsap 0
Warfarin Kitsap 0
Xy tene Kitsap 1177 1177
Zirsn Kitsap 955 955
TOTAL 2270 3394 8234 34537 11560 1285 0 68207
-------
TABLE C7. MASON COUNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOE ARMY CORPS WDNR WL)OT )OG
2,4-D Mason 1256 825 80 386
2 4-D Amine Mason 769
2,4-D Esters Mason
Acephate Mason
AcroLein Mason
AtachLor Mason 72
ALdicarb Mason
ALdrin Mason
ALuninun Phosphide Mason
Aminopyridine Mason
Amitrote Mason 3
Airmonia SuLfamate Mason
Atrazine Mason 70
Azirçhos-methyt Mason
Baccitus Thuringiensis Mason
Bendiocarb Mason
?8en ureLjn Mason 48
c Benomyl Mason
Bensutlde Mason
Boric Acid Mason
BromeciL Mason 28
Bromoxyni I Mason
Butylate Mason
Cacodylic Acid Mason
Ceptafot Mason
Captan Mason
Carbaryt Mason 70
Carbofuran Mason 20
ChLoramberi Mason
Chtordane Mason
Chtorfturenot Mason
ChLoropicrin Mason
ChLorothatoni I Mason
Chtor p yrifos Mason
ChLorsuLfuron Mason
Copper Naphthenate Mason
C rous Oxide Mason
Datapon Mason 40
DCPA Mason
Diazinon Mason 15
Dicant)a Mason 1500 650 40
DichlobeniL Mason 50
Dichtoropropene Mason
Dich lorvos Mason
DicofoL Mason
Dinoseb Mason
-------
TABLE C7. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOE ARMY CORPS WDNR JDOT
Dioxathione Mason
Diphenamid Mason
Diquat Mason
DisuLfoton Mason
Diuron Mason 300 28 700
DSMA Mason 9
Endosut fan Mason
Fenamiphos Mason
Fenthion Mason
Fenvalerate Mason
Ferbem Mason
Fosaaine Mnmniun Mason 400
GLyphosate Mason 2 40
HeptachLor Mason
Hexezinone Mason
Lime SuLfur Mason
Lindane Mason
MaLathion Mason 5
Meteic Mydrezide Mason
Mencozeb Mason
Maneb Mason
MCPP Mason
Meftuidjde Mason
Mete Ldehyde Mason
Metan Mason
Methami dophos Mason
M.thom L Mason
MethyL Bromide Mason
MethyL Parathion Mason
Methytene ChLoride Mason
Met Iran Mason
MetoLachior Mason 9
Metribuzin Mason
Mevinphos Mason
Monoc rotophos Mason
Monuron Mason
MSMA Mason
HaLed Mason
Napropamicie Mason
OctyL bicycLoheptenedi- Mason
carboximide Mason
OryzaLin Mason
Oxadiazon Mason
Oxycarboxm Mason
0xydemeton-metI y1 Mason
Oxyfluorfen Mason
-------
TABLF C7 (ContInued)
ACTIVE ZNGREDZENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOE ARMY CORPS I )OT 11)OG
Paraquat Mason
Parath,on Mason 70
PCNB (Quintozene) Mason
Permethrin Mason
Phenothrin Mason
Phorate Mason 18
Pictorani Mason 200
PiperonyL Butoxide Mason
Proaieton Mason 12963
Pronamide Mason 4000
Propetaliphos Mason
Proç* am Mason
Propoxur Mason
Pyrethr ins Mason
Resmethrin Mason
Rot enone Mason
Simazine Mason 50000
I Sodiun Chlorate Mason
Sodiun Metaborate Mason
Sutfometuron-methyL Mason 43 35
SuLfur Mason
Sutfuryl FLuoride Mason
Tebuthiuron Mason 4130
Temephos Mason
Terbecil Mason
Thiram Mason
TriButy lT ln Mason
TricLopyr Meson 80
TrifluraLin Mason
Vernotete Meson
Warfarin Mason
Xytene Mason
Zirwn Mason
TOTAL 57693 0 0 0 19450 0 0 0 120 1691 0
-------
TABLE C?. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2 ,4-0 Mason 60 70 2677
2 ,4-D Amine Mason 47 816
2 ,4-D Esters Mason 90 90
Acephate Mason 2 143 60 205
Acrotein Mason 54 54
Atachtor Mason 72
Atdicarb Mason 0
ALdrin Mason 14 14
ALt .m intJn Phosphide Mason 0
Amino ’rid ine Mason 0
Amitrote Mason 70 32 13 118
Aim onia Sutfamete Mason 0
Atrazine Mason 10 80
Aziriphos-methyt Mason 95 95
BaccUus Thuringiensis Mason 0
Bendiocarb Mason 13 13
CBenflura(in Mason 60 108
BenomyL Mason 75 75
o Bensutide Mason 0
Boric Acid Mason 49 49
BromacU Mason 28
Bromoxyni L Mason 0
ButyLate Mason 0
Cacodytic Acid Mason 10 10
CaptafoL Mason 0
Captan Mason 12 12
Carbaryt MasOn 4 40 280 394
Carbofuran Mason 10 30
Chtoramben Maaon 0
Chtordane Mason 577 577
ChLorfturenot Mason 9 9
Chtoropicrin Mason 38 38
Ch torothaLon it Mason 30 45 75
Chtorpyrifos Mason 1 100 303 50 454
ChLorsutfuron Mason 0
Copper Naphthenate Mason 0
Ci çrous Oxide Mason 200 200
DaLapon Mason 40
DCPA Mason 0
Diazinon Mason 13 262 314 400 1004
Dicethe Mason 30 45 60 2325
D ichtobenit Mason 75 125
Dichioropropene Mason 0
Dichiorvos Mason 30 30
Dicofot Mason 1 10 11
Dinoseb Mason 34 34
-------
TABLE CT. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HC*IE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Dioxathione Mason 0
Diphenamid MaSOn 0
Diquat Meson 44 44
Disutfoton Mason 45 45
Diuron Mason 16 40 11 1095
DSMA Mason 9
Er iosu(f an Mason 162 162
Fen nipI1os Mason 0
Fenthion Mason 0
Fenvalerate Mason 0
Ferbam Mason 0
Fosamine Aar niun Mason 400
Gtyphosate Mason 110 60 27 60 299
Heptachior Meson 128 128
Hexezinone Mason o
Lime Sulfur Mason 28 28
Lindane Mason 31 31
c Matathion Mason 233 158 540 936
Maleic Ilydrazide Mason o
Mancozeb Mason 0
Maneb Mason o
MCPP Mason 65 60 125
MefLuidide Mason 3 3
Metaldehyde Mason 30 600 630
Metam Mason o
Methamidophos Mason o
Methomyl Mason 10 10
Methyl Bromide Mason 3207 3207
Methyl Parathion Mason o
Methylene ChLoride Mason 0
Metiram Mason 0
MetotachLor Mason 9
Metribuzin Mason 0
Mevinphos Mason 0
Monocrotophos Mason 0
Monuron Mason 0
MSNA Mason 13 13
Waled Mason 0
Napropamide Mason 5
OctyL bicycloheptenedi- Mason 0
carboximide Mason 0
OryzaLin Mason 25 20 45
Oxadiazon Mason 10 10
Oxycarboxin Mason 0
Oxydemeton-inethyl Mason 0
Oxyftuorfen Mason 0
-------
TABLE C7. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Paraquat Mason 11 11
Parathion Mason 70
PCNB (Quintozene) Mason 0
Permethrin Mason 0
Phenothrin Mason 0
Phorate Mason 18
Pictorain Mason 200
PiperonyL Butoxide Mason 14 14
Prometon Mason 60 13023
Pronamide Mason 4000
Propetan hos Mason 28 28
Propham Mason 0
Propoxur Mason 17 65 82
Pyrethrins Mason 16 16
Resmethrin Mason 0
Rotenone Mason 7 7
c—., Simazine Mason 30 53 50083
I Sodiun Chtorate Mason 0
Sodiun Metoborate Mason 0
SuLfometuron-niethyL Mason 25 103
SuLfur Mason 402 402
SuLfuryL fluoride Mason 1403 1403
Tebuthiuron Mason 4130
Temephos Mason 0
Terbacit Mason 0
Thiram Mason 0
TriButyLlin Mason 85 85
Trictopyr Mason 90 170
TrifLuraLin Mason 10 10
Vernotate Mason 0
Warfarin Mason 0
XyLene Mason 249 269
Zirwn Mason 200 200
TOTAL 0 708 1735 7212 2506 285 0 91400
-------
TABLE C8. PIERCE COUNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTLI E AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR OT )OG
2,4-0 Pierce 5694 900 1237
2,4-0 Amine Pierce 1153
2 ,4-D Esters Pierce 200625
Acephate Pierce
Acrolein Pierce
Machlor Pierce 395
ALdicarb Pierce
ALdrin Pierce
Atiiuirun Phospliide Pierce
Aminopyridine Pierce 30
AmitroLe Pierce 5
Aninoniui SuLfanate Pierce
Atrezine Pierce 230 3000
Azi o phos-inethyL Pierce
BaciLLus Thuringiensis Pierce
Bendiocarb Pierce 135
BenfLuratin Pierce
BencinyL Pierce
BensuLide Pierce 11
Boric Acid Pierce 396
Bronmc lL PIerce 15000 43
BrolToxyniL Pierce
Butytate Pierce 400
Cecodytic Acid Pierce
Captafot Pierce 9
Captan Pierce
CerbaryL PIerce 498
Cerbofuran Pierce 407
ChLoran en Pierce 100
ChLordane Pierce
Ch(orfturenot Pierce
Ch(oropicrin Pierce
Chtorothatonit Pierce 1
ChLorpyr ifos Pierce 136
ChtorsuLfuron Pierce
Copper Naphthenate Pierce
Ci ,rous Oxide Pierce
DaLapon Pierce
DCPA Pierce
Diazinon Pierce 8 30
Dican a Pierce 12000 978
DichtobeniL Pierce
DichLoropropene Pierce
D ichtorvos Pierce
0 cofoL Pierce
Dinoseb Pierce 388
-------
TABLE C8. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY WAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS NR I )0T
Diox thione Pierce
Diphenam d Pierce 900
Diquat Pierce
Disutfoton Pierce 11.00
Diuron Pierce 60 43 2320
DSMA Pierce 14
Er losuL fan Pierce
Fenamiphos Pierce 600
Fenthion Pierce
Fenvaterate Pierce 420
Ferbam Pierce
Fosamine A rmniun Pierce 880
G (yphosate Pierce 6620 3
Heptach (or Pierce
Hexazinone Pierce 1952 60
lime Su (fur Pierce
( ) Lindane Pierce
MaLathion Pierce 51 122390
MaLeic Hydrazide Pierce 6
Mancozeb Pierce
Ileneb Pierce
MCPP Pierce
Meftuidide Pierce
Metetdehyde Pierce
Iletam Pierce
Nethamidophos Pierce
Methomyl Pierce 270
MethyL Branide Pierce
MethyL Parathion Pierce
MethyLerie ChLoride Pierce
Netiram Pierce 7
MetoLachior Pierce 22
Metrib zin Pierce
Mevinphos Pierce
Monocrotophos Pierce
Monuron Pierce
MSMA Pierce
Hated Pierce
Napropamide Pierce
Octyl bicyctoheptenedi- Pierce
carboxinide Pierce
Oryzatin Pierce 208
Oxadiazon Pierce
Oxycarboxin Pierce
Oxydeneton-methyl Pierce
Oxyftuorfen Pierce
-------
TABLE C& (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRIOULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WONR WOOl WOOG
Paraquat Pierce
Parathion Pierce 621
PCNB (Quintozene) Pierce
Permethrin Pierce
Phenothrin Pierce 753
Phorete Pierce 27
PicLoram Pierce
PiperonyL Butoxide Pierce
Prometon Pierce 19444
Pronamide Pierce 500 120
PropetaffDhos Pierce
Proç.tham Pierce
Propoxur Pierce 10 474
Pyrethrins Pierce 92
Resmethrin Pierce
Rotenone Pierce
Siinazine Pierce 1700 365
‘ Sodiun ChLorate Pierce
Sodiun Metaborate Pierce 12995
Sutfometuron-methyt Pierce 64
SuLfur Pierce
Sutfuryt FLuoride Pierce
Tebuthiuron Pierce 6192
Temephos Pierce
TerbaciL Pierce 500
Thiram Pierce 240
TriButyLlin Pierce
Trictopyr Pierce 28000 284 40
Trifturalin Pierce 53
Unknown Herbicide Pierce 1400
VernoLate Pierce 450
Warfarin Pierce 60 675
XyLene Pierce
Zirwn Pierce
TOTAL 27302 3011 390241 0 29176 0 0 0 344 7018 0
-------
TABLE C8. (Cont ruied)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2 ,4-0 Pierce 23 980 1120 400 10354
2,4-0 Amine Pierce 734 1887
2 ,4-D Esters Pierce 47 1400 202072
Acephate Pierce 15 2230 12 900 3157
Acrolein Pierce 844 844
Atachtor Pierce 395
ALdicarb Pierce o
Atdrin Pierce 224 224
A(unirun Ptiospl ide Pierce 17 17
Amino ’ridine Pierce 30
Amitrote Pierce 1120 500 198 1823
Anmoniun Sutfamate Pierce 26 26
Atrazine Pierce 157 3387
Azirç l os-methy( Pierce 1450 1450
Bacillus Thuringiensis Pierce 57 57
Bendiocarb Pierce 50 203 388
c- Benfturatin Pierce 100 100
Benomyt Pierce 1165 1165
BensuLide Pierce 11
Boric Acid Pierce 755 1151
Bromacit Pierce 54 15097
Broe xyniL Pierce 53
Butylate Pierce 400
Cacod’ytic Acid Pierce 160 160
Captafot Pierce 9
Captan Pierce 190 190
Cerberyt Pierce 65 621 4300 5484
Carbofuran Pierce 151 558
Chtoraii en Pierce 100
Chtordane Pierce 8993 8993
Ch torf(ureno( Pierce 150 150
ChLoropicrin Pierce 100 585 685
ChtorothatoniL Pierce 440 680 1121
Chiorpyrifos Pierce 1600 4722 780 7236
Chtorsu tfuron Pierce o
Copper Naphthenate Pierce 137 137
Cu rous Oxide Pierce 2940 2940
Detapon Pierce 0
DCPA Pierce 0
Diazinon Pierce 4079 4856 5901 14874
Dicainba Pierce 8 470 700 50 900 15106
Dchtoben l Pierce 1200 31 1231
Dichioropropene Pierce 65 65
Dichiorvos Pierce 37 500 537
Dicofol Pierce 10 150 160
Dir oseb Pierce 534 922
-------
TABLE C8. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROAI)S GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTI FOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Gioxathione Pierce 32 32
Diphenamid Pierce 900
Diquat Pierce 700 54 754
Disutfoton Pierce 16 680 2096
Diuron Pierce 280 610 165 3478
DSNA Pierce 14
Er osuLfan Pierce 2520 2520
Fenm iiphos Pierce 600
Fenthion Pierce 34 34
Fenvaterate Pierce 1500 1840 22 900 4682
Ferbam Pierce 0
Fosanine Mvnoniun Pierce 880
G y osate Pierce 920 423 1243 9209
Heptachior Pierce 2003 2003
liexazinone Pierce 2012
lime Sulfur Pierce 440 440
Lindane Pierce 486 486
i Malathion Pierce 3630 2464 8400 136935
Mateic Hydrazide Pierce 6
Mancozeb Pierce 18 18
Maneb Pierce 18 18
MCPP Pierce 1020 126 900 2046
Meftuidide Pierce 50 50
Meta dehyde Pierce 400 18 9000 9418
Metan Pierce 22 22
Methamidophos Pierce 0
Methomyt Pierce 158 428
Methyl Bromide Pierce 49949 49949
Methyl Parathion Pierce 0
Nethytene Chloride Pierce 72 72
Metiram Pierce
Metolachior Pierce 22
Metribuzin Pierce o
Mev nphos Pierce 54 54
I ’lonocrotophos Pierce 67 67
Monuron Pierce 0
MSMA Pierce 200 130 330
Mated Pierce 68 68
Napropamide Pierce 100 100
Octyl bicyctoheptenedi- Pierce 12
carboximide Pierce 0
OryzaUn Pierce 425 300 933
Oxadiazon Pierce 200 200
Oxycarboxin Pierce 0
Oxydemeton-methyl Pierce 0
Oxyfluorfen Pierce 11 11
-------
TABLE Ca. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN NONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Paraquet Pierce 171 171
Parathion Pierce 621
PCNB (Quintozene) Pierce 32 3?
Pernethrin Pierce 54 54
Phenothrin Pierce 753
Phorate Pierce 27
Picloram Pierce 0
Piperonyt Butoxide Pierce 216 216
Proneton Pierce 38 900 20382
Pronamide Pierce 620
Propetan hos Pierce 432 432
Prophain Pierce 0
Propoxur Pierce 270 1000 1754
Pyrethrins Pierce 101 250 443
Resmethrin Pierce 47 47
Rotenone Pierce 200 200
Simazine Pierce 8000 480 825 124 11494
Sodiun Chlorate Pierce 0
Sodiun Metaborate Pierce 128 13123
SuLfometuron methy1 Pierce 375 400 24 863
Sulfur Pierce 6268 6268
Sutfuryt Fluoride Pierce 21852 21852
Tebuthiuron Pierce 6192
Temephos Pierce 0
Terbacit pierce 500
Thiram Pierce 14 254
Tr iButy(Tin Pierce 1260 1260
Triclopyr Pierce 2445 1400 18 4169 36356
Trifturelin Pierce 130 183
Unknown Herbicide Pierce 1400
Vernotate Pierce 450
Warfarin Pierce 735
XyLene Pierce 3885 3885
Zirem Pierce 3150 3150
TOTAL 12351 10325 27149 114259 38181 4200 5812 669369
-------
TABLE C9. SAN JUAN COUNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR WOOl WOOG
2 4-D San Juan 1850 — __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
2,4-0 Amine San Juan
2,4-D Esters San Juan
Acep1 ate San Juan
Acrotein San Juan
ALachlor San Juan
Atdicarb San Juan
Atdrin San Juan
ALuni run Phosphide San Juan
Aminopyridine San Juan
AmitroLe San Juan
Anmonia Sutfamate San Juan
Atrazine San Juan
Azinphos-methyL San Juan
Baccitus Thuringiensis San Juan
Bendiocarb San Juan
C)Benf(uratin San Juan
, BenanyL San Juan
(J Bensutide San Juan
Boric Acid San Juan
Broqnaci( San Juan
BromoxyniL San Juan
ButyL ate San Juan
CacodyLic Acid San Juan
Captafot San Juan
Captan San Juan
CarbaryL San Juan 7
Carbofuran San Juan 6
Chtora ,ten San Juan
ChLordane San Juan
ChtorfLurenot San Juan
ChLoropicrin San Juan
ChLorotha(onit San Juan
Chtorpyrifos San Juan
ChLorsuLfuron San Juan
Copper Naphthenate Sen Juan
C rous Oxide San Juan
DaLapon San Juan
DCPA San Juan
Diazinon San Juan
Dicmtha San Juan
Dichtoben il San Juan 0
DichLoropropene San Juan
Dichiorvos San Juan
Dicofot San Juan
Dinoseb San Juan
-------
TABLE C9. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRIOJLTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS )NR WDOT Ii)OG
Dioxathione San Juan
Diphenamid San Juan
Diquat San Juan
Disutfoton Sen Juan
Diuron San Juan
OSMA San Juan
Er osu lfan San Juan
Fenamiphos San Juan
Fenthion San Juan
Fenvalerate San Juan
Ferbam San Juan
Fosannne Anr niun San Juan
G lyphosate San Juan
Heptachtor San Juan
Hexazinone San Juan
Lime Sulfur San Juan
Lindane San Juan
MaLathion San Juan
O MaLeic Hydrazide San Juan
Mancozeb San Juan
Maneb San Juan
MCPP San Juan
MefLuid ide San Juan
Metaldehyde San Juan
Metam San Juan
Methamidophos San Juan
Methoeiy l San Juan
Methyl Bromide San Juan
Methyl Parathion San Juan
Methylene Chloride San Juan
Met iram San Juan
Meto lach lor San Juan
Metribuzin San Juan
Mevinphos San Juan
Monocrotophos San Juan
Monuron San Juan
MSMA San Juan
Waled San Juan
Napropamide San Juan
Octyl bicycloheptene- San Juan
carboximide San Juan
Oryzalin San Juan
Oxadiazon San Juan
Oxycarboxin San Juan
Oxydemeton- methyl San Juan
Oxyfluorfen San Juan
-------
TABLE eQ. (ConUnued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRIO.JLTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WNR WDOT
Paraquat San Juan
Parath ori San Juan 2
PCNB (Quintozene) San Juan
Permethrin San Juan
Phenothrin San Juan
Phorate San Juan
P ic toram San Juan
PiperonyL Butoxide San Juan
Prometon San Juan
Pronamide San Juan
Propetairphos San Juan
Pro tan San Juan
Propoxur San Juan
Pyrethrins San Juan
Resqetbrin San Juan
Rotenone San Juan
o Simazine San Juan
Sodium Chlorate San Juan
— Sodiun P4etaborate San Juan
Suttometuron-methyt San Juan
Sulfur Sari Juan
SuLfuryL FLuoride San Juan
Tebuthiuron San Juan
Tenephos San Juan
TerbaciL San Juan
Thiram San Juan
Tri autytlin San Juan
Trictopyr San Juan
Trifturat in San Juan
VernoLate San Juan
Warfarin San Juan
Xy¾ene San Juan
Zirani San Juan
TOTAL. 1866 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-------
TABLE C9. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFCXJLANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2,4-0 San Juan 15 20 1885
2,4-0 Amine San Juan 12 12
2,4-0 Esters San Juan 20 20
Acephate San Juan 35 15 50
AcroLein San Juan 111 111
Atachtor San Juan 0
Atdicarb San Juan 0
Atdrin San Juan 30 30
ALianir .sn Phosphide San Juan 0
Aminopyridine San Juan 0
Amitrote San Juan 15 15
Anmonia SuLfamate San Juan 0
Atrazine San Juan 0
Azirçhos-methyt San Juan 25 25
BacciLus thuringiensis San Juan 0
Bendiocarb San Juan 0
BenfLuratin San Juan 16 16
c- BenomyL San Juan 20 20
I Bensutide San Juan 0
Boric Acid San Juan 12 12
Bromecit San Juan 0
BroioxyniL San Juan 0
ButyL ate San Juan 0
CacodyLic Acid San Juan 0
CaptafoL San Juan 0
Captan San Juan 0
Carbaryt San Juan 10 70 87
Carbofuran San Juan 6
Chtora n*en San Juan 0
Chtordane San Juan 145 145
ChLorfturenot San Juan 0
ChLoropicrin San Juan 0
Chtorothatonit San Juan 10 10
Chtorpyrifos San Juan 25 76 15 116
ChLorsutfuron San Juan 0
Copper Naphthenate San Juan 0
C prous Oxide San Juan 47 47
Dalapon San Juan 0
DCPA San Juan 0
Diazinon San Juan 65 79 100 245
Dic tha San Juan 10 15 25
Dichtobenit San Juan 20 20
Oich loropropene San Juan 0
Dichtorvos San Juan 5 5
Dicofot San Juan 3 3
Dinoseb San Juan 0
-------
TABLE C9. (Contniued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTI FOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Dioxathione San Juan 0
Diphenamid San Juan 0
Diquat Sen Juan 11 11
Disutfoton San Juan 10 10
Diuron San Juan 0
DSMA San Juan 0
EndosuL fan San Juan 40 40
Fenamiphos San Juan 0
Fenthion San Juan 0
FenvaLerate San Juan 0
Ferbem San Juan 0
Fosamine Aninoniun San Juan 0
Glyphosate San Juan 29 15 15 59
HeptechLor San Juan 32 32
Hexazinone San Juan 0
Lime SuLfur San Juan 10 10
C Lindane San Juan 0
MaLathion San Juan 60 40 140 240
Mateic Hydrazide San Juan 0
Mancozeb San Juan 0
Maneb San Juan 0
MCPP San Juan 16 15 31
MefLuidide San Juan 0
Metatdehyde San Juan 10 150 160
Metam San Juan 0
Methemidophos San Juan 0
MethomyL San Juan 0
MethyL Bromide San Juan 806 806
MethyL Parathion San Juan 0
MethyLene ChLoride San Juan 0
Met iram San Juan 0
Metotachtor San Juan 0
Metribuzin San Juan 0
Mevinphos San Juan 0
Monocrotophos San Juan U
Monuron San Juan 0
MSNA San Juan 0
Nated San Juan 0
Napropamide San Juan 0
Octyl bicycLoheptene- San Juan 0
carboximide San Juan 0
OryzaLin San Juan 10 10
Oxadiazon San Juan 0
Oxycarboxin San Juan 0
Oxydemeton-methyL San Juan 0
Oxyfluorfen San Juan 0
-------
TABLE C9. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Paraquat San Juan o
Pareth on San Juan 2
PCNB (Quintozene) San Juan o
Permethrin San Juan 0
Phenothrin San Juan 0
Phorate San Juan 0
Picloram San Juan 0
Piperonyl Butoxide San Juan 0
Profneton San Juan 15 15
Pronan ide San Juan 0
Propetanphos San Juan 0
Proph n San Juan 0
Propoxur San Juan 15 15
Pyrethrins Sen Juan 4 4
Resmethrin San Juan 0
Rot enone San Juan 2 2
Siniazine San Juan 13 13
,, Sodiua Chlorate Sen Juan 0
CD Sodiun Metaborate San Juan 0
Sutfometuron-methyl San Juan 0
Sulfur San Juan 101 101
Sulfuryt FLuoride San Juan 353 353
Tebuthiuron San Juan 0
Temephos San Juan 0
Terbecit San Juan 0
ihirem Sen Juan 0
TriButytTin San Juan 20 20
Trictopyr San Juan 25 25
Trifluralin San Juan 0
Vernotate San Juan 0
Warferin San Juan 0
Xytene San Juan 63 63
Ziram Sen Juan 50 50
TOTAL 0 151 394 1870 629 67 0 4977
-------
TABLE C10. SKAGIT COUNTY
AC11VE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR l )OT OG
2,4-D Skagit 9336 413 200 150
2 4-D Amine Skagit 384
2 4-D Esters Skag t
Acephate Skagit
Acrotein Skegit
Atachtor Skagit 3430
AWicarb Skagit
AIdrin Skagit
Atunirun Phosphide Skagit
Aminopyridine Skagit
Amitrote Skagit 2
Aninoniizn Sutfanate Skagit
Atrazine Skagit 1938 2400 30
Azinphos-rnethyt Skagit
BacilLus Thuringiensis Skagit
Bendiocarb Skagit
BenfluraUn Skegit
Benomyt Skagit
Bensutide Skagit 864
Boric Acid Skeg t
Bromacit Skagit 14
Bromoxynit Skagit
Butytate Skagit 7000
CacodyLic Acid Skagit
Ceptafot Skagit 636
Captan Skagit
Carbaryt Skagit 4339
Carbofuran Skagit 75
ChLoran ,en Skegit
Chtordane Skagit
Chtorfturenot Skagit
Ch toropicrin Skagit
ChtorothaLonit Skagit 41
Chtorpyrifos Skagit
Ch torsutfuron Skagit 13
Copper Nephthenate Skagit
Ci .prous Oxide Skagit
Datapon Skagit
DCPA Skagit
Diazinon Skagit 91
Dicanta Skagit 4100 326 120 40
Dichtobenit Skagit
Dichtoroproper ie Skagit
Dichtorvos Skagit
Dicofot Skagit
Dinoseb Skagit 4758
-------
TABLE ClO. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WONR WOOT UDOG
Drnxathione Skagit
Diphenamid Skagit
Diquat Skagit
DisuLfoton Skagit 1713
Diuron Skagit 650 14
DSMA Skegit 5
Er IosuL fan Skagit
Fen nip hos Skag lt 250
Fenthion Skegit
Fenvaterate Skagit
Ferbam Skagit
Fosw ine Aniuoniun Skagit
Glyphosate Skagit 1 262
Heptachior Skagit
Hexazinone Skagit
Lime Sulfur Skegit
c- Lindane Skagit
MaLathion Skagit 7
r’ Ma(etc Hydrazide Skagit 100
Mancozeb Skagit
Maneb Skagit
MCPP Skagit
Mefluidide Skagit
I4etatdehyde Skagit
Metam Skagit
Methamidophos Skaglt 3917
Methoa ’t Skagit 2300
Methyl Bromide Skagit
Methyl Parathion Skagit 5155
Methytene Chloride Skagit
Metiram Skagit 418
MetoLechLor Skagit 2257
Metribuzin Skagit 110
Mevinphos Skagit
Monocrotophos Skagit
Monuron Skagit
MSMA Skagit
Nated Skagit
Napropamide Skagit
Octyt bicyctoheptenedi- Skagit
carboximide Skagit
Oryzat in Skagit
Oxadiazon Skagit
Oxycarboxin Skagit
Oxydenieton- m ethyl Skagi t
Oxyfluorfen Skagit
-------
TABLE ClO. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRIOJLTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS NR WOOl WOOG
Paraquat Skagit
Parathion Skagit 6968
PCNB (Quintozene) Skagit
Permethrin Skagit
Phenothrin Skagit
Phorate Skagit 3316
Pictoram Skagit
Piperonyt Butoxide Skagit
Prometon Skagit 6481
Pronanide Skagit 500
Propetan 3hos Skegit
Pro n Skagit 1800
Propoxur Skagit
Pyrethrfna Skagit
Resmethr ln Skag t
Rotenone Skagit
c) S mazine Skagit 1000
Sodiun ChLorate Skagit
c Sodiun Netaborate Skagit
Sutfoneturon -methyL Skagit 22 168
SuLfur Skagit
SutfuryL FLuoride Skagit
Tebuthiuron Skagit 2064
Tenephos Skagit
Terbacit Skagit 1100
Thirani Skagit
TriButytTin Skagit
TricLopyr Skagit 350
TrifLuratin Skagit 3640
Vernotete Skagit 4653
Warfarin Skagit
Xytene Skagit
Ziran Skagit
TOTAL 76462 0 0 0 9726 0 0 0 58? 2931 220
-------
TABLE ClO. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2,4-D Skegit 300 120 150 10669
2,4 -D Amine Skegit 97 481
2,6-0 Esters Skegit 190 190
Acephate Skegit 300 120 420
AcroLein Skagit 111 111
Atech tor Skegit 3430
Atdicerb Skagit 0
Aidrin Skagit 30 30
At aninun Phosphide Skagit 0
Aminopyridine Skagit 0
Amitrote Skagit 140 65 26 233
Aninoniun Sutfønate Skagit 0
Atrazine Skegit 21 4389
Aziophos-methyt Skagit 190 190
BacilLus Thuringiensis Skagit 10 10
Bendiocarb Skagit 27 27
C Benfluratin Skagit 130 130
,, BenomyL Skagit 155 155
- Bensutide Skagit 864
Boric Acid Skagit 100 100
Bromacit Skegit 160 174
Bromoxynil Skagit 0
Butytate Skagit 7000
CaCOdYUC Acid Skagit 20 20
CaptafoL Skagit 636
Captan Skagit 25 25
CarbaryL Skagit 82 570 4991
Carbofurari Skegit 20 95
ChLoranten Skagit 0
Ch tordane Skegit 1188 1188
Chtorf turenot Skegit 20 20
Ch(oropicr n Skegit 13 77 90
Chtorothatonit Skagit 60 90 191
Chiorpyrifos Skagit 200 624 100 924
Chtorsulfuron Skagit 13
Copper Waphthenate Skagit 18 16
Ci.çrous Oxide Skagit 400 400
Datapon Skagit 0
DCPA Skagit 0
Diazinon Skagit 27 540 61.5 820 2123
Dicanta Skagit 240 60 90 120 5096
DichLoben iL Skagit 150 150
DichLoroproper ie Skagit 0
Dichtorvos Skagit 70 70
Dicofol Skagit 20 20
Dinoseb Skagit 70 4828
-------
TABLE ClO. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE AI4TIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Dioxethione Skegit 0
Diphenaniid Skagit 0
Diquat Skagit 97 97
Disutfoton Skagit 90 1803
Diuron Skagit 37 80 22 803
DS*1A Skagit S
Endosutfan Skagit 330 330
Fenamip I os Skagit 250
Fenthion Skagit 0
Fenvaterate Skagit 0
Ferbam Skagit 0
Fosamine A&mnoniun Skagit 240 240
Gtyphosate Skagit 300 230 120 56 120 1089
Heptachtor Skag t 264 264
Hexezinone Skagit 0
Lime Sutfur Skagit 60 60
Lindane Skagit 64 64
MaLathion Skagit 480 325 1100 1912
Mateic Hydrazide Skagit 100
Mancozeb Skagit 0
Maneb Skagit 0
MCPP Skagit 135 17 120 272
Meftuidide Skagit 0
Metatdehyde Skagit 60 1200 1260
Metam Skagit 0
Methamidophos Skagit 3917
Methoinyt Skagit 21 2321
MethyL Bromide Skagit 6597 6597
Methyl Parathion Skagit 5155
MethyLene ChLoride Skagit 10 10
Metirwu Skagit 418
Metotachtor Skagit 2257
Metribuzin Skagit 110
Mevinphos Skagit 0
Monocrotophos Skagit 0
Monuron Skagit 0
MSNA Skagit 25 17 42
Nated Skagit 0
Napropamide Skagit 10 10
OctyL bicyctoheptenedi- Skagit 16 16
carboximide Skagit 0
OryzaLin Skagit 60 60
Oxadiazon Skagit 30 30
Oxycarboxin Skagit 0
Oxydemeton-methy t Skagit 0
Oxyftuorfen Skagit 0
-------
TABLE ClO. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Paraquat Skagit 23 23
Parathion Skagit 6968
PCNB (Quintozene) Skagit 0
Permethrin Skagit 0
Phenothrin Skagit 0
Phorate Skagit 3316
Picloram Skagit 0
Piperonyt Butoxide Skag%t 29 29
Prometon Skagit 100 6581
Pronamide Skagit 500
Propetanphos Skagit 57 57
Propham Skagit 1800
Propoxur Skagit 36 130 166
Pyrethrlns Skagit 13 30 43
Resmethrin Skagit 0
Rotenone Skagit 15 15
c Simazine Skagit 68 100 16 1184
Soditju Chlorate Skagit 0
a Sod%un Metaborate Skagit 17 17
Sulfometuron-methyt Skagit 60 55 305
SuLfur Skagit 828 828
Sutfuryt FLuoride Skagit 2886 2886
Tebuthiuron Skagit 2064
Temephos Skagit 0
Terbacit Skagit 1100
Thiram Skagit 0
TriButyLTin Skagit 170 170
Triclopyr Skagit 60 190 600
TrifLuratin Skagit 18 3650
Vernotate Skagit 4653
Warfarin Skagit 0
Xylene Skagit 513 513
Ziram Skagit 415 415
TOTAL 1360 1467 3528 14973 5065 570 0 116884
-------
TABLE Cli. SNONOMISH CQJNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COJNTY AGRIUJLTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS 11)NR OT Ik)OG
2 ,4-0 Snohomish 13048 413 200
2,4-0 Amine Snohomish 384
2,4-0 Esters Snohonfish
Acephate Snohomi sh
Acrotein Snohomish
Atachtor Snohoinish 1761
ALdicarb Snohomish
ALdrin Snohomish
Atunlrun Phosphide Snohomish
Ami no ’ri dine Snohonil sh
AmitroLe Snohoniish 2
Amnoniun Sutfunate Snohoinish
Atrazine Snohoinish 2992
Az lr hos-methyL Snohoinish
BacilLus Thuringlensis Snohoinish
Bendiocarb Snohomish
BenfluraLin Snohomish
Benanyt Snohomish
u BensuLide Snohocnish
Boric Acid Snoho nish
Broinacil Snohoinish 16 88
Bronoxyni L Snohomish
Butylate Snohomish 4600
Cacodytic Acid Snohomish
Captafot Snohomish 16
C8ptan Snohomi sh
Cerbaryl Snohomish 1078
Carbofuran Snohomish 27
Ch1orant en Snohoini sh
Chtordane Snohonish
ChLorfLurenol Snohomish
ChLoropicrin Snohomish
Chtorotha(oniL Snohomish 1
Ch I orpyr i fos Snohomi sh
Chlorsutfuron Snohomish
Copper Naphthenate Snohomish
C*. rous Oxide Snohomish
Dalapon Snohomish
DCPA Snohomi sh
Diazinon Snohomish 85
Dicanta Snohomish 4200 326 100
Dich lobenit Snohomish
Di ch ( oropropane Snohomi sh
Dichtorvos Snohomi sh
Dicofol Snohoinish
Dinoseb Snohomish 847
-------
TABLE Cl i. (Contlnu.d)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS OT
Dioxathione Snohomish
Diplienemid Snohoinish 1500
Diquet Snohoinish
Olsutfoton Snohomlsh 18
Diuran Snohomish 35 14 1928
DSMA Snohom lsh 5
EndosuLfan Snohomish
Fenan iphos Snohoin lsh 650
Fenthion Snohomish
Fenvaterete Snohomish
Ferbam Snohomish
FoeMnine Anunoniun Snohomish
Gtyphosate Snohomish 1 262 420
Heptech (or Snohomi sh
Hexaz inone Snohomi sh
Lime SuLfur Snohomish
Li ndane Snohomi sh
MaLathion Snohomish 9
MaLeic Hydrazide Snohomish
Mancozeb Snohomi sh
Maneb Snohomi sh
MCPP Snoho4ni sh
Meftuidide Snohomish
Metetdehyde Snohoinish
Met am Snohomi sh
Methami dophos Snohomi sh 80
Methomyt Snohom lsh 500
MethyL Bromide Snohoinish
MethyL Parathion SnOhO iniSh 1235
MethyLene ChLoride Snohomish
Metiram Snohomish 11
Metotachtor Snohomish 776
Metribuzin Snohomish 60
Mevinphos Snohomish
Monocrotophos Snohomi sh
Monuron Snohomi sh
MSMA Snohomish
Meted Snohomish
Napropamide Snohomish
Octyt bicyctoheptenedi- Snohomish
carboximide Snohomish
Oryza Liii Snohomi sh
Oxadiazon Snohomish
Oxycarboxin Snohomi sh
Oxydemeton-methyt Snohomi sh
OxyfLuorfen Snohomish
-------
TABLE Cli. (Contlnu.d)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS I1)NR t1)OT
Paraquat Snohomi sh
Parathion Snohoniish 2108
PINB (Quintozene) Snohomish
Permethrf n Snohon I sh
Phenothr ln Snohoinish
Phorate Snohoin lsh 1425
Pictorem Snohomish
Piperonyt Butoxide Snohoinish
Pronieton Snohoniish 6481
Pronemide Snohon iish 200
Propetanç hoa Snohonii sh
Prophnin Snohomi sh 2300
Propoxur Snohomi sh
Pyrethrins Snohoinish
Resmethri n Snohonil sh
Rotenone Snohomish
c— Siniazine Snohoniish 700
Sodiun Chtorate Snohomish
Sodiun Metaborate Snohomish
SuLfometuron-methyL Snohomish 22 661
SuLfur Snohomish
SutfuryL FLuoride Snohomish
Tebuthiuron Snohomish 2064
Temephos Snohomi sh
Terbacit Snohomish 270
Thiram Snohomish
TriButytlin Snohomish
Trictopyr Snoho nish 730
TrifLuraLin Snohornish 52
VernoLate Snohomish 4092
Warfarin Snohomish
XyL ene Snohoini sh
Ziren Snohomish
TOTAL 44656 0 0 0 9126 0 0 0 562 3827 0
-------
TABLE Cli. (Contlrsi.d)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2,4-D Snohomish 23 630 775 1100 16189
2,4-D Amine Snohoinish 510 894
2,4-D Esters Snohomish 33 990 1023
Ace ate Snohoinish 1550 630 2180
Acrotein Snohoinish 587 587
AtachLor Snohomtsh 1761
Atdicarb Snohomish 0
ALdrin Snohomish 156 156
ALunirsjn Phos ide Snohoinish 12 12
Am ino ’ridine Snohomish 0
AmitroLe Snohoinlsh 770 355 138 1265
Aninoniun SuLf nate Snohomish 18 18
Atrazine Snohoinish 109 3101
Azlr hos-methyL Snohomish 1000 1000
BaciL (us Thuringiensis Snohoinish 54 54
Bendiocarb Snohomish 141 141
c- BenfLuratin Snohomish 700 700
Benomyt Snohomish 810 810
j BensuLide Snohoinish 0
Boric Acid Snohomish 525 525
Bromacit Snohomish 38 140
Bromoxyni L Snohomish 37 37
ButyL ate Snohoinish 4600
Cacodytic Acid Snohomish 100 100
Captafol Snohomish 16
Captan Snohomish 135 135
Carbaryl Snohomish 40 432 3000 4550
Carbofuran Snohomish 105 132
ChLorainben Snohoinish 0
Chlordane Snohomish 6254 6254
Ch lorfLureno ( Snohomish 100 100
Chioropicrln Snohom lsh 68 407 475
Chtorothaton lL Snohom lsh 300 480
Ch(orpyrlfos Snohomish 1115 3283 550 4948
Chtorsutfuron Snohomish 0
Copper Naphthenate Snohomish 95 95
Ci rous Oxide Snohomish 1960 1960
Dalapon Snohomish 0
DCPA Snohomi sh 0
Diazinon Snohomish 135 1620 3398 4300 9538
Dic a Snohoinish 8 300 490 35 630 6089
DichLobenit Snohomish 800 22 822
DichLoropropane Snohomish 45 45
Dichiorvos Snohomish 26 300 326
Dicofot Snohomish 10 100 110
Dinoseb Snohomish 372 1219
-------
TABLE Cl i. (Contlr jed)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN NONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
DioxatPiione Snohomish 21 21
Di phenamid Snohomi sh 1500
Diquet Snohom lsh 485 38 523
Disutfoton Snohomlsh 11 480 509
Diuron Snohon,ish 195 425 115 2712
DSMA Snohomi sh 5
Endoeulf.n Snohomish 1755 1155
FenNn$phos Snohoin lsh 650
Fenthion Snohoinish 24 24
Fenvaterate Snohomlsh 15 15
Ferbam Snohomi sh 0
Fosamine Meioniun Snohomish 0
Gtyphosate Snohoniish 1600 1275 640 294 630 600 5722
Heptachtor Snoh o inist 1393 1393
Hexazinone Snohomish 0
Lime Sulfur Snohomish 300 300
Lindane Snohomish 338 338
Malathion Snohomish 2525 1714 5800 10048
o Maleic I4ydrazide Snohomish 0
• Mancozeb Snohomish 13 13
Maneb Snohomish 13 13
MCPP Snohoinish 710 88 630 1428
Mefluidide Snohomish 30 30
Metaldehyde Snohomish 300 13 6500 6813
Metam Snohomish 15 15
Methamido os Snohoniish 80
Methomyt Snohooiish 110 610
Methyl Branide Sriohomish 34735 34735
Methyl Parathion Snohomish 1235
Methytene Chloride Snohomish 50 50
Met iram Snohomish 11
Metolachtor Snohomish 776
Metribizin Snohomish 40
Mevinphos Snohomish 38 38
Monocrotophos Snohomish 46 46
Monuron Snohoinish 0
MSMA Snohomish 140 90 230
Noted Snohoinish 48 48
Napropemide Snohoinish 50 50
Octyt bicyctoheptenedi- Snohomish 84 84
carboximide Snohoinish 0
Oryzatin Snohomish 100 200 300
Oxadiazon Snohomish 260 260
Oxycarboxin Snohomish 0
Oxydemeton-methyt Snohomish 0
Oxyftuorfen Snohomish 0
-------
TABLE Cl i. (Contrnued)
101*ITY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HOME ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Paraquat Snohoinish 119 119
Parathion Snohoinish 2108
PCNB (Quintozene) Snohomish 23 23
Permethrin Snohoin lsh 38 38
Phenothrin Snohoinish a
Phorate Snohomlsh 1425
Pictorain Snohom lsh 0
Piperonyt Butoxide Snohoinlsh 150 150
Pros ton Snohomish 26 600 7107
Pronamide Snohoinish 200
Propetan hos Snohoinish 300 300
Prophain Snohoini sh 2300
Propoxur Snohomi oh 188 700 888
Pyrethrins Snohomish 70 170 240
Resmethrin Snohoinish 33 33
Rotenone Snohomi sh 75 75
Simazine Snohoniish 8000 320 575 86 9681
C Sodiun Chlorate Snohomish 0
Sodiun Metaborate Snohornish 89 89
r’) Sulfometuronmethyt Snohomish 230 283 16 1212
Sulfur Snoho4nish 4359 4359
Sulfuryt fluoride Snohomish 15196 15196
Tebuthiuron Snohomish 2064
Temephos Snohomish 0
Terbaci t Snohomish 270
Thiram Snohoinish 10 10
triButytlin Snohomish 840 840
Trictopyr Snohooiish 2400 1000 13 400 4543
Trifturatin Snohomish 90 142
Vernotate Snohomish 4092
Warfarin Snohomish 0
XyLene Snohoinish 2702 2702
Zirarn Snoho.nish 2200 2200
TOTAL 12261 7690 17671 79556 26865 2800 2100 207714
-------
TABLE C12. THURSTON COUNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS I )NR A)OT )OG
2,4-D Thurston 4556 188
2 4-D Amine Thurston
2,4-D Esters Thurston
Acephate Thurston
Acrotein Thurston
Atachtor Thurston 387
Atdicarb Thurston
Aidrin Thurston
A(unirun Phosphide Thurston
Amino ’r1dine Thurston
Amitrote Thurston
Anmoniijn SuLf nate Thurston
Atrazine Thurston 471 1140
Aziophos-methyt Thurston
BaciLLus Thuringiensis Thurston
Bendiocarb Thurston 178
BenfturaLin Thurston
I Bencmyt Thurston
Bensutide Thurston
8oric Acid Thurston 421
BroinaciL Thurston 10000
Bronoxynit Thurston
Butytate Thurston
Cacodytic Acid Thurston
Captafot Thurston
Captan Thurston
Carbaryt Thurston 139
Carbofuran Thurston 18
ChLorwi en Thurston
Ch(ordane Thurston
ChLorfturenot Thurston
ChLoropicrin Thurston
ChtorothaLonit Thurston
Chtorpyrifos Thurston
ChLorsutfuron Thurston 3
Copper Naphthenate Thurston
C rous Oxide Thurston
Datapon Thurston
DCPA Thurston
Diazinon Thurston 27
Dic nba Thurston 94
Dichlobenit Thurston
Dichtoropropane Thurston
Dich torvos Thurston
Dicofot Thurston
Dinoseb Thurston 65
-------
TABLE Cl ?. (Contirued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRIOJLTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS b )OT )OG
Dioxethione Thurston
Diphenamid Thurston
Diquat Thurston
Disulfoton Thurston
Diuron Thurston 8ç )
OSMA Thurston
Endosut fan Thurston
Fenamiphos Thurston
Fenthion Thurston
Fenvaterate Thurston
Ferbam Thurston
Fosamine Amoniun Thurston
Gtyphosete Thurston
Heptachtor Thurston
Hexazinone Thurston
Lime Sulfur Thurston
C) Lindane Thurston
Malathion Thurston 11
P Ma(e c Hydrazide Thurston
Mancozeb Thurston
t4aneb Thurston
MCPP Thurston
Meftuidide Thurston
MetaLdehyde Thurston
Metam Thurston
Methamidophos Thurston 3
Nethomyl Thurston
Methyl Bromide Thurston
MethyL Parathion Thurston
Methylene Chloride Thurston
Met iram Thurston
NetoLachLor Thurston 94
Metribuzin Thurston
Nevinphos Thurston
Monocrotophos Thurston
Monuron Thurston
MSMA Thurston
Nated Thurston
Napropamicle Thurston
Octyl bicycloheptenedi- Thurston
carboximide Thuston
Oryzatin Thurston
Oxadiazon Thurston
Oxycarboxin Thurston
Oxydemeton-methyl Thurston
Oxyfluorfen Thurston
-------
TABLE C12. (Contirued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUt4TY AGRIWITURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR WOOl WOOG
Peraquat Thurston
Parathion Thurston 131
PCNB (Quintozene) Thurston
Permethri n Thurston
Phenothri n Thurston
Phorate Thurston 174
Pictoram Thurston
PiperonyL Butoxide Thurston
Prometon Thurston
Pronamide Thurston
Propetan hos Thurston
Proçi Thurston
Propoxur Thurston
Pyrethr ins Thurston
Resmethri n Thurston
Rotenone Thurston
C ) Simazine Ihurston 900
Sodiun Chlorate Thurston
(J Sodiun Metaborate Thurston
Sut fometuron-n thyt Thurston
SuLfur Thurston
Sulfuryl Fluoride Thurston
Tebuth iuron Thurston
Temephos Thurston
Terbacil Thurston
Thiram Thurston
TriButyLTin Thurston
Triclopyr Thurston 143
Tr ifturelin Thurston 4
Vernotate Thurston 704
Warfarin Thurston
XyL en. Thuraton
Z1r n thurston
TOTAL 18283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425 2033 0
-------
TABLE C12. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2 1 4-D Thurston 240 285 500 5769
2,4-D Amine Thurston 188
2 4-D Esters Thurston 12 360 372
Acephete Thurston 570 230 800
Acro ein Thurston 216 216
AtachLor Thurston 367
Aldicarb Thurston U
ALdrirt Thurston 57 57
Aluni run Phosphide Thurston o
Aminopyridine Thurston 0
Amitrole Thurston 270 130 51 451
Aninoniun Sutfemate Thurston 0
Atrazine Thurston 40 1651
Azir hos-methyt Thurston 370 370
BacilLus Thuringiensis Thurston 20 20
Bendiocarb Thurston 52 230
Benfluretin Thurston 250 250
8enca y L Thurston 300 300
BensuLide Thurston 0
Boric Acid Thurston 193 614
Bromacil Thurston 14 10014
Bron xyniL Thurston 13 13
ButyL ate Thurston 0
CacodyLic Acid Thurston 40 40
Captafot Thurston 0
Captan Thurston 50 50
Carbaryt Thurston 14 159 1100 1412
Corbofuran Thurston 39 57
ChLorni en Thurston 0
Chtordane Thurston 2301 2301
ChLorfturenol Thurston 30 30
Chtoropicrin Thurston 25 150 175
Chtorothatoni( Thurston 110 175 285
Chtorpyrifos Thurston 610 1208 200 1818
Chtorsutfuron Thurston 3
Copper Naphthenate Thurston 35 35
Coprous Oxide Thurston 780 780
Dalapon Thurston 0
DCPA Thurston 0
Diazinon Thurston 50 1040 1250 1600 3967
D ic tha Thurston 120 180 13 230 637
Dichiobenit Thurston 300 300
Dichtoropropane Thurston 17 17
Dichiorvos Thurston 100 100
Dicofot Thurston 40 40
Dinoseb Thurston 136 201
-------
TABLE C12. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Dioxathione Thurston o
Diphenamid Thurston
Diquat Thurston 180 14 194
Disutfoton Thurston 175 175
Diuron Thurston 75 160 42 1167
DSMA Thurston 0
Endosut fan Thurston 645 645
Fenamiphos Thurston 0
Fenthion Thurston 0
Fenvaterate Thurston 0
Ferbam Thurston 0
fosamine Anronlua Thurston 0
GLyphosate Thurston 560 450 235 108 230 1583
Heptachtor Thurston 512 512
Hexazinone Thurston 0
Lime SuLfur Thurston 100 100
c— Lindane Thurston 124 124
• MaLathion Thurston 930 631 2100 3672
MaLeic Hydrazide Thurston 0
Mancozeb Thurston 0
Month Thurston 0
MCPP Thurston 260 32 230 522
Meftuidide Thurston 12 12
MetaLdehyde Thurston 100 2400 2500
Metam Thurston 0
Metham idophos Thurston 3
Methomyt Thurston 41 41
Methyl Branide Thurston 12781 12781
MethyL Parathion Thurston 0
MethyLene Chloride Thurston 18 18
Metiram Thurston 0
Metotachtor Thurston 94
Metri lxizin Ihurston 0
Mevinphos Thurston 14 14
Monocrotophos Thurston 17 17
Monuron Thurston 0
MSMA Thurston 50 33 83
Noted Thurston 17 17
Naproparnide Thurston 20 20
Octyt bicycLoheptenedi- Thurston 31 31
carboximide Thuston 0
Oryzatin Thurston 110 80 190
Oxadiazon Thurston 50 50
Oxycarboxin Thurston 0
Oxydemeton-methyt Thurston 0
Oxyftuorfen thurston 0
-------
TABLE Cl ?. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Paraquat Thurston 64 44
Parathion Thurston 131
PCNB (Quintozene) Thurston 0
Permethrin Thurston 14 14
Phenothrin Thurston 0
Phorate Thurston 174
Pictoram Thurston 0
Piperonyt Butoxide Thurston 55 55
Prometon Thurston 10 225 235
Pronamide Thurston 0
Propetanphos Thurston 110 110
Pro n Thurston 0
Propoxur Thurston 69 250 319
Pyrethrins Thurston 26 60 86
Resmethr,n Thurston 12 12
Rotenone Thurston 30 30
C) Simazine Thurston 124 210 32 1266
Sodi&in Chlorate Thurston 0
CO Sodiun Metaborate Thurston 33 33
SuLfometuron -methyL Thurston 46 100 146
SuLfur Thurston 1604 1604
Sutfuryt Fluoride Thurston 5591 5591
Tebuthiuron Thurston 0
Temephos Thurs ton 0
TerbaciL Thurston 0
Thiram Thurston 0
Tr$ButytT ln Thurston 335 335
Trictopyr Thurston 820 360 250 1573
Trifturatin Thurston 34 38
Vernotate Thurston 704
Warfarin Thurston 0
XyLene Thurston 994 994
Ztram Thurs ton 800 800
TOTAL 1626 2829 6940 29173 9835 1115 750 72809
-------
TABLE C13. WHATCCZI COUNTY
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS WDNR Ii)OT )OG
2,4-0 Whatcom 6318 2062 342
2,4-D Amine Whatcom 1921
2,4-D Esters Whatcom
Acephate Whatcom
Acrotein Whatcom
Atachtor Whatcom 2563
A(dicarb Whetcom 100
Atdrin Whatcom
Atuni nun Phosphide Whatcom
Aminopyrldine Whatcom
Amitrote Whatcom 8
Ajmionia Sutfamate Whatcom
Atrazine Whatcom 3527 20
Azi o phos-methyL Whatcom
BaciLLus Thuringiensis Whatcom
Bendiocarb Whatcom
BenfturaLin Whatcom
Benomyt Whatcom
o Bensutide Whatcom
Boric Acid Whatcom
Bromecit Whetcom 71
Bromoxyni L Whatcom
ButyLate Whatcom
CacodyLic Acid Whatcom
Captafot Whatcom 443
Captan Whatcom
CarbaryL Whetcom 1962
Carbofuran Whatcom 73
ChLoranten Whatcom
Chtordene Whetcom
ChtorfLurenoL Whatcom
Chtoropicrin Whatcom
Ch LorothaLonil Whatcom 29
ChLorpyrifos Whatcom
ChtorsuLfuron Whatcom 7
Copper Naphthenate Whatcom
C rous Oxide Whatcom
Datapon Whatcom
DCPA Whatcom
Diazinon Whatcom 154
DicaMa Whatcom 1500 1630
DichLobenit Whatcom
D ch1oropropene Whatcom 15000
DichLorvos Whatcom
DicofoL Whatcom
Dirioseb Whatcom 3223
-------
TABLE C13. (Continued)
ACIIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS NR i)OT IL)OG
Dioxathione Whetcom
Diphenamid Whatcom
Diquet Whatcoin
Disutfoton Whatcom 248
Diuron WhetcolTi 71 3
DSMA Whatcom 23
Endosut fan Whatcom
Fenaniphos Whatcom
Fenthion Whatcom
Fenvel.erete Whatcom
Ferbem Whatcom
Fosemine Anr niun Whetcom
Gtyphosate Whatcom 5 440 148
HeptachLor Whatcom
Hexazinone Whatcom 260
Lime Sutfur Whatcom
C ) Lindene Whetcom
$ MMathion Whatcom 12
MaLeic Hydrazide Whatcom
Mancozeb Whatcom
Maneb Whatcom
MCPP Whetcom
Meftuldide Whatcom
MetaLdehyde Whatcom
Metem Whetcom
Methem dophoa Whatcom 1952
Methoniyt Whatcom
MethyL Bromide Whatcom
MethyL Parathion Whatcom 1292
MethyLene ChLoride Whatcom
Metirem Whetcom 290
Metotachtor Whatcom 1807
Metribuzin Wt atcom 90
Meviriphos Whatcom
Monoc rotophos Whatcom
Monuron Whatcom
MSMA Whatcom
Nated Whatcom
Napropamide Whatcom
Octyt bicyctoheptenedi- Whatcom
carboximi de Wtiatcom
Oryzatin Whatcom
OAadi azon Whatcom
Oxycarboxin Whetcom
oxydemeton-methy L Whatcom
Oxyftuorfen Whatcom
-------
TABLE C13. (Continued)
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY AGRICULTURE AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY US DOE USD1 US DOT ARMY CORPS I )NR l OT
Paraquat atcocn
Parathion Whatcon 1890
PCMB (Quintozene) atcon
Permethr in l4 atcosa
Phenothri n M atcoin
Phorate Whatconi 2743
Pictoram Whatcoin
Piperonyt Butoxide Whatco n i
Prometon Whatcom 32406
Pronamide Whatconi 175
Propetanphos Whatcom
Propham Whatconi
Propoxur Whatconi
Pyrethr ins Whatconi
Resmethrin Whatconi
Rotenone Whatcom
c- Simazine Whatconi 2300
Sodiun ChLorate Whatcom
Sodiun Metaborate Whatconi
SuLfometuron-methyL Whatco.n 107 95
SuLfur Whatconi
Sutfuryt FLuoride Whatcom
Tebuthiuron Whatcom 10321
Tecnephos Whatcom 1700
Terbacit Whatcoin
Thiram Whatcom
TriButytlin Whatconi
Trictopyr Whatcoin 45
Tr ifLuratin Whatcom 986
Vernotate Whatcom 4923
Warfarin Whatcom
Xy tene Whatcon
Ziran Whatcom
TOTAL 55560 0 0 0 48625 342 0 0 0 587 172
-------
TABLE C13. (Continued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN NONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
2,4-0 Whatcom 205 245 9172
2,4-0 Amine Whatcom 161 2082
2,4-D Esters Whatcom 10 310 320
Acephate Whatcom 490 200 690
Acrotein Whatcom 185 185
Atachtor Whatcoin 2563
Atdicarb Whatcom 100
Atdrin Whatcom 49 49
ALunirun Phosphide Whatcoin 0
Aminopyridine Whatcom 0
Amitrole Whatcom 245 100 44 397
Annnonia Sutfarnate Whatcom 0
Atrazine Whatcom 35 3582
Azirç,hos-methyt Whatcorn 320 320
BaciLLus Thuringiensis Whatconi 35 35
Bendiocarb Whatcoin 45 45
Benf turelin Whatcom 200 200
BenanyL Whatcom 255 255
- Bensutide Whatcoin 0
N.) Boric Acid Whatcom 166 166
Broniacit Whatcoin 12 83
Bronoxyn hL Whatcoin 12 12
Butyt ate Whatcoin 0
Cacodytic Acid Whatcom 35 35
CaptafoL Whatcofn 443
Captan Whatcoin 40 40
Car’baryt Whatconi 13 136 950 3061
Carbofuran Whatco4n 33 106
Chtoran en Whatcom 0
Chtordane Whatcom 1976 1976
Chtorfturenot Whatconi 30 30
Chtoropicrin Whatcocn 20 128 148
ChLorothelon lt Whatconi 95 150 274
Chtor ’rifos Whatcom 350 1037 170 1557
Chlorsutfuron Whatcom 7
Copper Naphthenate Whatcoin 30 30
Ci . rous Oxide Whatcom 700 700
Datapon Whatcom 0
DCPA Whatcom 0
Diazinon Whatcom 40 900 1074 1360 3528
Dic nba Whatcom 105 155 11 200 3602
Dich(obeni( Whatcom 20 250 270
Dichtoropropene Whatcom 14 15014
D ichtorvos Wtiatcorn 50 50
Dicofot Whatcom 30 30
Dinoseb Whatcom 117 3340
-------
TABLE C13. (Contirued)
COUNTY LOCAL URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN HONE ANTIFOULANTS TIMBER TOTAL
Dioxathione Whatcom 0
Diphenamid W h tcom 0
Diquat Whetcom 155 12 167
Disulfoton Whatcom 150 398
Diuron Whatcom 60 135 36 305
DSMA Whatcom 23
EndosuL fan Whatcom 555 555
Fen niphos Whatcom 0
Fenthion Whatcom 0
FenvaLerate Whatcom 0
Ferbam Whatcom 0
Fos nine Aim ni un Whatcoqn 0
Gtyphosate Whatcoin 800 400 200 93 200 2286
HeptachLor Whatcom 439 439
Hexazinone Whatcom 260
Lime Sulfur Whatcom 100 100
Lindane Whatcom 107 107
¶ MaLathion %.Thatcom 800 541 1800 3153
MaLeic Hydrazide Whatcoin 0
Mancozeb Whatcom 0
Maneb Whatcom 0
MCPP Whatcom 225 28 200 453
MefLuidide Whatcom 10 10
Metaldehyde Whatcom 100 2100 2200
Metam Whatcom 0
Methamidophos Whatcom 1952
Met homyl Whatcom 35 35
Methyl Bromide Whatcom 10974 10974
Methyl Parathion Whatcom 1292
Hethytene ChLoride Whatcom 16 16
Met i ram Whatcom 290
MetotachLor Whatcom 1807
Metrib izin Whatcom 90
Mevinphos Whatcom 12 12
Monocrotophos Whatcom 15 15
Monuron Whatcom 0
MSMA Whatcom 45 28 73
Mated Whatcom 15 15
Napropamide Whatcom 50 50
Octyt bicycloheptenedi- Whatcom 26 26
carboximide Whatcom 0
Oryzatin Whatcom 100 70 170
Oxadiazon Whatcom 50 50
Oxycarboxin Whatcoin 0
Oxydoineton-methyt Whatcom 0
Oxyfluorfen Whatcom 0
-------
TABLE C13. (Continued)
COUNfl 10CM. URBAN LAND PRIVATE PRIVATE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT COUNTY ROADS GOVERNMENT VEGETATION MISC URBAN H( 4E ANTIFOULMTS TIMBER TOTAL
Paraquat Whatcom 38 38
Parathion Whatcom 1890
PCNB (Quintozene) Whatcoin 0
Permethrin Whatcom 12 12
Phenothrin Whetcom 0
Phorate Whetcom 2743
Pictoram Whetcoin 0
Piperonyl. Butoxide Whetcom 47 47
Prometon Whatcom 190 32596
Pronamide Whatcom 175
Propetenphos Whatcom 95 95
Prophw Whatcom 0
Propoxur Whatcoin 59 200 259
Pyrethrins Whatcon 22 50 72
Resmethrin Whatcom 10 10
Rotenone Whatcom 25 25
c— Simazine Whatcom 105 180 27 2612
Sodiun ChLorate Whatcom 0
Sodjijn Metaborate Whatcom 28 28
Sutfometuron-methyt Whatcom 150 90 442
SuLfur Whatcoin 1377 1377
Sutfuryt FLuoride Whetcom 4801 4801
Tebuthiuron Whatcom 10321
Temephos Whatconi 1700
Terbaci L Whatcom 0
thiram Whatcoin 0
TriButytlin Whatcom 300 300
Trictopyr Whatcoin 475 200 720
Trifturatin Whatcoin 30 1016
VernoLate Whatcoin 4923
Warfarin Whatcoin 0
Xytene Whatcom 854 854
Ziran Whatcom 690 690
TOTAL 1445 2383 5960 25057 8435 1000 0 149566
-------
APPENDIX D
TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USES IN THE PtJGET SOUND BASIN
-------
APPENDIX D: TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USES IN THE PUGET SOUND BASIN
Trends in the use of contemporary pesticides are of interest because of
concerns for the potential for these pesticides to contaminate the environ-
ment and adversely affect nontarget organisms. Notable contemporary pesti-
cide uses and probable trends in their use are discussed in this appendix.
D.1 URBAN USES
Pesticides have been used in urban environments for over 75 yr.
However, their use intensified after the 1940s with large population shifts
to suburban areas. Accurate accounts of the amount of pesticides used for
urban purposes nationwide have not been possible, although U.S. EPA does
provide an estimate for total urban usage derived from a variety of sources
(U.S. GAO 1986). According to these statistics, out of 230 million lb of
herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide active ingredients used
each year in this country, 28 percent were applied around homes and yards
and 72 percent were used by government, commercial, and industrial entities.
This is comparable to the approximately 25 percent of estimated urban use
pesticides that are applied to homes and yards in the Puget Sound basin (see
Tables C2-C13 in Appendix C for data and Section 4.1.4 for uncertainties in
these data). Another 1.24 billion lb of disinfectants and wood preservatives
(accounting for a full 65 percent of total urban usage) were used in urban
environs nationwide (U.S. GAO 1986). Disinfectants were not included in the
pesticide usage surveys of the Puget Sound basin and their estimated usage
is unknown.
Urban pesticide use is the most varied source of environmental exposure
to pesticides, as compared with the more limited types and purposes of
applications in agriculture and silviculture. For example, the California
Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) lists over 30 uses for urban
pesticides, including recreational areas, commercial and public buildings
D— 1
-------
(e.g., restaurants, hospitals, offices, schools), parks and community
gardens, homes and yards, house plants, and domestic animals (Environmental
Assessment Team 1978).
Pesticides used in an urban environment also have the most varied
routes of transport into the natural environment (von Rumker et al. 1972).
The route with greatest potential for transport of chemicals to the aquatic
environment is outfall runoff into city drainage systems. Runoff from soil
applications in urban environs is not likely to be a problem because of the
small area of open, uncovered soils (Ridgley 1982). Liquid formulated
pesticides, which are fairly common in urban/suburban yard applications,
have the greatest potential for transport into waterways, especially when
applied to lawns or over pavement where adsorption to soils is minimal (von
Rumker et al. 1972). Improper pesticide disposal and spills also have a high
potential for transport of pesticides into aquatic environments. Evapora-
tion, drift from aerial application, and movement through groundwater are
believed to have much less potential as transport mechanisms in urban
environs than in the agriculture and silviculture sectors.
The potential for release of household pesticides into aquatic
environments is not known. Although over 90 percent of private households
use pesticides, only one-third use them in their yards or gardens (Savage
et al. 1980). However, it has been estimated that household use of
pesticides represents one of the heaviest pesticide applications to any land
in the U.S., possibly up to 5-10 lb/ac (von Rumker et a]. 1972). This
application rate contrasts with the 0.5-2.0 lb/ac common in agriculture
(Gianessi 1986). Pesticide applications by commercial applicators and
private households occur most extensively in late spring, generally from May
through mid-June (Huisenga, F., 5 January 1988, personal communication);
80 to 90 percent of urban pesticide applications occur over this 6-wk
period (von Rumker et al. 1972). Moderate to heavy rainfall, not uncommon
in the Puget Sound basin during that season, may lead to significant
transport to aquatic environments within and around urban settings.
0-2
-------
Types and relative volumes of household pesticides used in the Puget
Sound area were surveyed in 1981 in a garden and nursery department of a
local retail outlet (Ridgley 1982). A follow-up survey conducted for this
report (see Section 2.2.5.3) indicated few changes in available pesticides
on the retail market shelf. Poor selling brands had been withheld by the
manufacturers, but an absence of pesticide active ingredients was not noticed
since the 1981 survey. However, a few new items appeared in the interim.
According to the department manager, the most notable increases in sales by
volume over the past few years were the herbicides glyphosate (RounduplM),
the 2,4-D/dicamba/MCPP-salt mixture (TrimeclM), and diquat (Lou, L.,
9 February 1988, personal communication). These products will presumably
continue to increase in popularity in the Puget Sound area. Anti-moss
products containing various salts of iron, copper, and zinc have also become
more popular with the public since 1981.
It is expected that in the future, urban pest control will rely less on
the chemical approach that has been characteristic of the past few decades
(Olkowski et a). 1980). New ideas in urban pest control management include
biological control with insect predators, pheromones, growth regulators, and
pathogens, such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Use of these pest control
measures in a unified program that takes into account the relationship of
the pests to the ecology of the host environment is considered to be the
best integrated pest management approach to pest control problems (Olkowski
et al. 1980).
D.2 AGRICULTURE
It is expected that the majority of pesticides currently in use in the
agricultural sector of Puget Sound will continue to be used in the near
future, with few exceptions. In general, decisions regarding which
pesticides to be used for particular crops are reached by consensus between
pesticide sellers, cooperative extension agents, and the local grange. As
the use of agricultural pesticides proceeds through the Special Review
process of U.S. EPA, it is anticipated that a few pesticides will be
restricted for future use. For example, in 1986, U.S. EPA evoked an
D—3
-------
emergency suspension of the registration and sale of dinoseb due to concerns
over potential human birth defects and male reproductive effects. In recent
hearings, U.S. EPA has decided to allow its use on select crops in Washington
such as dry beans and cranberries for 1988 and 1989 only.
D.3 FEDERAL AGENCIES
The types and amounts of pesticides used by federal agencies in the
Puget Sound basin are expected to continue with minimal changes (Freimark
1985). The following are notable pesticide uses and trends for certain
federal agencies.
D.3.1 Military Installations
Presently, military installations constitute the largest federal use of
pesticides in the basin. Most pesticide usage data for federal agencies are
provided in a survey by Freimark (1985). Additional sources of information
on usage rates by military installations in the basin are provided below.
All usage data are provided on a country-wide basis in Appendix C.
• The Department of Army pesticide usage rates are solely for
Fort Lewis in Pierce County, and are for July 1984 to June
1985.
• The Department of Air Force pesticide usage is for McChord
Air Force Base in Pierce County. The annual usage rate was
not provided in Freimark (1985). Instead, usage was
quantified for 1987 by a separate request to the Command
Entomologist of the U.S. Air Force (Lang, J., 16 February
1988, personal communication).
• The Department of Navy pesticide usage in the Puget Sound
basin is reported for four installations: Whidbey Island
Naval Air Station (Island County), Bangor Naval Submarine
Base (Kitsap County), Bremerton Naval Shipyard (Kitsap
0-4
-------
County), and Seattle Naval Station (King County). Naval
central recordkeeping provided usage information for 1983.
The Naval stations in Puget Sound also store 2,4,5-1 and DDT
onsite, some of which are shipped to foreign countries for
pest control problems.
D.3.2 U.S. Forest Service
The USFS anticipates using new forest chemical products, primarily
herbicides, when they have been approved by U.S. EPA and become commercially
available. However, the agency believes the chemical industry is reluctant
to introduce new chemicals for the forest industry market because of its
relatively small size in relation to other chemical markets (USDA 1987).
New pesticides that may be considered for future use in the forest industry
are metsulfuron methyl (EscortlM) and sulfometuron methyl (OustTM).
D.4 STATE AGENCIES
The largest pesticide user in the• state government is the Washington
Department of Transportation (WDOT), who manages 40,000 ac of state right-
of-ways. Usage of pesticides by WDOT is substantial in most counties and
current uses are expected to continue.
Timberland owned by the State of Washington is managed by the Department
of Natural Resources (WDNR) and totals 2.2 million ac statewide; however,
pesticide usage on these lands is relatively small. WDNR pesticide usage
primarily consists of applications to right-of-ways along state forest roads
(2,700 ac). A major shift away from herbicide use by WDNR on timberlands
was noted since 1984. Of the approximately 21,000 ac of timberland
inspected by WDNR each year, the percentage not treated for vegetation
control rose from 22 percent in 1984 to 62 percent in 1987. Of the treated
land, nonherbicide techniques have increased from 12 to 35 percent (Belz,
D., 5 January 1988, personal communication). Generally, these nonherbicide
techniques are mechanical vegetation management.
D-5
-------
The Washington Department of Wildlife (WDOW) manages three wildlife
areas within the Puget Sound basin: Lake Terrell Wildlife Area (100 ac
under crop production, Whatcom County, Nooksack Watershed), Skagit Flats
Wildlife Area (325 ac under crop production, Skagit County, Skagit Water-
shed), and Snoqualmie Wildlife Area (600 ac under crop production, King
County, Snoqualmie Watershed). These wildlife areas constitute mixed
management of preserved land and land leased to tenant farmers for crop
production. Pesticides are applied to the crop production lands by share
croppers or by commercial applicators.
D.5 SPECIFIC PESTICIDE USES
The following pesticides have recently received increasing concern over
their potential toxicity to aquatic organisms. They are used to varying
degrees in the Puget Sound basin. Their usage trends are reflective of this
growing awareness of toxicities and are briefly reviewed below.
D.5.1 Pentachlorophenol (PCP )
According to representatives of Greenpeace (Perivier, H., 15 March 1988,
personal communication), use of PCP in the Puget Sound basin is primarily
related to the treatment of utility poles and other products by the
following five wood treating plants:
• McFarland Cascade, Tacoma (Pierce County)
• Wyckoff Company, West Seattle (King County)
• J.H. Baxter, Arlington (Snohomish County)
• Frank Brooks Manufacturing, Bellingham (Whatcom County)
• Oeser Company, Bellingham (Whatcom County).
D-6
-------
Other uses in the basin are by various local sawmills for sap-stain
control. The larger sawmills are located in Tacoma (Pierce County) and
Everett (Snohomish County). Much of the wood treated in these mills is not
used in the area but shipped overseas primarily to Japan. The relative use
of PCP at other sawmill locations in the basin is not known.
Sodium pentachiorophenate is a water soluble analogue of PCP and is
used in sap-stain control by certain wood mills in the Puget Sound basin.
Its toxicity is slightly less than that of PCP, but the potential for sodium
pentachiorophenate to migrate to and remain in the water column of the sound
is considerably greater due to its solubility. However, the extent of its
usage in the basin is unknown at present (Lindsay, D., 4 February 1988,
personal communication).
PCP is very toxic to fish and has been detected in sediments of Puget
Sound (Tetra Tech 1985, 1988a, 1988b). Some of the public concern with PCP
has been over the contamination of commercial formulations of PCP with up to
2 mg/L (ppm) of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins during the manufacturing
process (Perivier, H., 15 March 1988, personal communication). Most notable
among these are the hexa, hepta, and octa-chlorobenzo-p-dioxins. Primary
concern has been their potent immunosuppressive activity, rather than their
potential carcinogenicity as is the case with tetra-chlorobenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD). For example, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorobenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) has
been shown to be toxic to regulatory 1-cells similar to TCDD (Kerkvliet and
Brauner 1987). Of further concern is the possibility that these dioxins
may accumulate in biological tissue, particularly the octa-isomer, which is
strongly retained by the liver of laboratory animals (Birnbaum et al. 1987).
Because of public and regulatory agency awareness of the high toxicity
to nontarget organisms and the extent of contamination around many wood
treatment facilities and certain estuarine ecosystems, PCP usage is
decreasing nationwide. In fact, all but one of the chemical manufacturers
of PCP in this country have ceased production. In addition, many sawmill
users of PCP are switching to Borax-based products as an alternative in sap-
stain control (Best 1988). Borax is water soluble and considered safe
D-7
-------
enough for home products use. However, in the treatment of wood for utility
poles, PCP remains the choice fungicide, although alternatives to its use in
this area are also being considered. For example, Seattle City Light
(Kakida 1987) has proposed to shift away from PCP to copper naphthenate as a
less toxic alternative in utility pole treatment.
In addition to copper and zinc naphthenates, other wood preserving
compounds are being developed. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
has developed two compounds, alkylammonium compounds (AACs) and ammoniacal
copper carboxylates (ACCs), which it claims are less toxic to nontarget
organisms than PCP, but equally effective against fungal wood rot (EPRI
1986). It is anticipated that these compounds will receive increasing
attention as PCB alternatives upon approval by U.S. EPA.
D.5.2 Antifoulants
Historically, ship builders have used copper to protect their boat
hulls from marine organisms, primarily barnacles, algae, and tubeworms.
These organisms not only damage the ship’s hull, but increase hull friction
and weight, thereby increasing fuel consumption. In more recent years,
antifouling paints have contained copper (i.e., cuprous oxide) as a biocidal
agent. Antifouling paints have contained organotin compounds only since the
mid 1970s. Most organotin-based paints still contain substantial amounts of
cuprous oxide (Haafs, 0., 2 February 1988, personal communication).
The major organotin ingredient in antifouling paints is bis(tributyltin)
oxide, with eight minor tributyltin (TBT) compounds comprising the remaining
ingredients. Organotin-based paints are categorized according to the manner
in which TBT is incorporated into paint coatings and subsequently released.
The first category is a conventional freely associated coating where the TBT
is physically incorporated into the paint matrix. This formulation has
traditionally posed the problem of a high early release rate. The second
category is a copolymer paint where the TBT moiety is bound to a polymer
backbone that releases TBT only by chemical hydrolysis. The release rate
D-8
-------
is controlled better, although there is still an initial short term high
release rate (U.S. EPA 1985).
Organotin-based antifouling paints were introduced to Puget Sound in
1981 and major users have ranged from shipyards, shipping companies, and
repair shops, to small recreational boat owners. Nationwide, there are over
30 formulations from 60 manufacturers of organotin-based paints (U.S. EPA
1985). National usage is estimated to have been approximately 800,000 lb in
1985 (U.S. EPA 1985). Sales of tin-based paints in Seattle peaked in 1985,
with reductions in sales of 10 to 20 percent per year since then (Haafs, D.,
2 February 1988, personal communication). Because of the potential for
harmful effects of TBT-oxide on nontarget organisms, International Paints
has recently phased out production of these paints, concentrating on
standard cuprous oxide-based paints. Copper-based paints have always made
up 90 percent of total antifouling paints sold, and will probably continue
as such in the future.
Increased interest in the toxicity of TBT has accompanied its increase
in usage as an antifouling agent in marine paints. Crustaceans and molluscs
are particularly sensitive to 181; mussel larvae exhibit toxic effects at
levels as low as 100 ppt (Valkirs et al. 1985). There is also considerable
bioaccumulation of TBT by these organisms, with oysters accumulating 3-4
orders of magnitude of TBT over ambient concentrations (Valkirs et al.
1985). It is estimated that even these values underestimate actual
bioaccumulation, since equilibrium between test organisms and the media may
not have been achieved in these studies (U.S. EPA 1985a). Even concen-
trations at sublethal levels in urban bays may pose a threat to population
dynamics. Based on these findings, U.S. EPA determined that TBT-containing
paints may pose a potential hazard to aquatic organisms and evoked the
Special Review process to further evaluate its environmental effects. A
final ruling should be issued in September 1988.
In addition, Washington State has recently passed legislation (RCW
70.54) regulating the use of TBT-based paints within the state. This law
states that, effective April 1988, no TBT- or organotin-based paint can be
0-9
-------
sold within the State of Washington except paint intended for use on
aluminum hulls, or when sold in small spray cans with a release rate of not
more than 5 ug/cm 2 /day. The law is intended to remain in effect until U.S.
EPA promulgates standards for the use of TBT-based antifouling paints
(expected in September 1988). Other states have considered or have passed
similar legislation.
With anticipated federal restrictions on TBT use as an antifouling
component of marine paints, various alternatives are being espoused as its
replacement. Most attention is presently directed toward the traditional
copper-based paints. According to marine paint manufacturers, state-of-the-
art copper-based ablative equals or exceeds the performance of TBT copolymers
(Clark 1987). Alternatives to both of these agents include “. . .something
like Teflon, a non-stick material,” and antibiotics such as Compound X sold
in paint formulations for use on pleasure craft (Clark 1987). Toxic actions
of the antibiotics are generally directed toward metabolic pathways of
selected organisms, primarily barnacles, and are considered to be relatively
nontoxic to nontarget organisms.
0.5.3 Thiocarbamates
U.S. EPA is currently reviewing ethylene bisthiocarbamate (EBDC)
pesticides under the special review process for reregistration and will
decide by October 1988 if use should be cancelled or further regulated. The
Special Review was initiated by concerns for potential risks of cancer and
birth defects during human exposure to EBDC pesticides. These include
mancozeb, maneb, and metiram. All these pesticides degrade to ethylene-
thiourea (ETU), which has been shown to cause tumors, birth defects, and
adverse effects in the thyroid. These pesticides are not widely used in
the Puget Sound basin and their use is expected to diminish in the future.
0-10
-------
APPENDIX E
ALGORITHM COMPUTATIONS FOR LEVEL OF CONCERN MATRIX
-------
TABLE El, ALGORITHM SCORES FOR DETERMINING LEVEL OF CONCERN
Persistence
Active Ingredient Usage ST St Ht Pt VP
ENVIRONMENTAL FATEa
Mobility
El Koc WS F2
Bioaccumulation
Potential
K 0 BLF F3
Fate
Criterion
Acute
Freshwater
TOXICITY
Acute
Marine Chronic
Toxicity
Criterion
Preliminary
Level of
Concern
Pentachiorophenol
H
- H - - L
H
L
I
L
HR
H
H
H
H
El
H
P
2,4-0 Species
Methyl Brc nide
H
H’
H H L - L
L L L - L
H
L
H
-
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
-
L
L
H
L
H
L
H
-
H
H
H
L
P
S
Malathion
Sulfuryl Fluoride
H
Hb
L I L H H
L
U
L
-
L
H
L
H
L
-
I
-
L
U
L
U
H
-
H
-
H
H
U
S
U
Prometon
Simazine
Diazinon
Dicamba
Metaldehyde
Triclopyr
Chiordane
Bromacil
Chiorpyrifos
Carbaryl
mAt i ’ mne
a Glyphosate
‘ Sulfur
Tebuthiuron
H
H
H
H
Hb
HL
H”
H
Hb
H
H
HL
H”
H
- H H I H
HHHHH
LLL-H
HHH-H
- H H I H
- H H - H
H H — - H
I H - - H
LLLLH
HHH-H
- L L - -
- H H L -
H
H
L
H
U
H
H
H
H
L
H
L
U
H
I
-L
-
H
-
H
L
L
-
L
H
H
H
I
H
L
IL
H
I.
H
H
L
L
H
H
H
I
H
L
L
H
H
L
H
I
L
L
H
-
I
H
L
H
L
H
L
-
-
-
I
L
-
-
L
H
-
H
L
I
-
—
—
I
I
L
H
-
L
H
L
H
L
L
I
-
U
H
H
L
H
U
H
H
H
H
L
H
L
U
H
I
L
H
L
-
L
H
L
H
H
H
H
-
I
I
L
L
L
H
-
H
H
L
-
-
-
L
H
L
I
11
L
-
H
H
I
-
H
L
I
L
U
L
H
L
H
H
H
H
U
L
S
sd
Sc
sd
U
sd
P
S”
P
S
P
U
sd
Diuron
Acephate
Ziram
H
H
H”
HR--H
L L I - I-I
-LL--
H
I
L
-
LL
H
-L
L
H
L
H
-
-
-
I
-
H
I
U
H
I
L
H
I
-
H
H
-
H
H
-
H
H
U
P
S
U
Vernol ate
H
L L - - -
L
-
I
L
-
—
U
I
H
H
-
H
S
Cuprous Oxide
Dichloropropene
Endosul fan
I I
H
Rb
— L I - I
I H L - I
U
I
L
-
I
I
I
H
I
L
H
I
H
H
-
-
U
H
H
U
H
I
H
H
-
H
H
H
U
H
H
U
pe
S
Parathion
H
L I L - H
L
L
L
I
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
H
S
Sodium Metaborate
H
H - - - -
LI
H
H
U
U
I
L
U
Dinoseb
H
L—HLL
L
HH
H
H
H
H
L
I
H
L
S
Butyl ate
MCPP
Heptachior
Amitrole
H
Rb
Rb
Hb
I H H - H
L - - - -
- H - - -
L L L - -
H
U
H
I
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
L
H
-
-
H
-
L
-
H
—
I
U
H
U
I
U
H
L
L
H
L
-
H
L
I
-
H
H
I
I
H
L
S
U
pe
S
Alachior
H
H - - H H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
-
-
H
P
Phorate
Azinphos-methyl
Methyl Parathion
Propoxur
Lime Sulfur
H
11 b
H ,
H”
H
- H L - H
- - L - -
- I L L -
- - - - L
H
L
L
Li
U
L
-
L
-
-
I
I
1
H
H
L
I
L
H
H
I
-
H
L
-
-
L
L
H
-
L
I
L
H
-
I
L
L
U
U
H
H
H
H
—
H
H
H
-
-
L
-
H
-
-
H
H
H
H
U
S
S
S
U
U
Disulfoton
Dichlobenil
H
Rb
— H I - L
H L — - H
L
H
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
-
—
I
I
I
L
I
H
I
L
-
H
-
H
L
S
S
-------
TABLE El. (Continued)
Pesticides are ranked by usage in descending order. Remaining pesticides on Table 3 are assigned a Low Level of Concern.
d Fl, final Persistence value; F2, final Mobility value; F3 , final Bioaccimiulation Potential value. See Table 9 for explanations of other
column headings.
Usage highly uncertain (see Table 4).
C Final placement in Primary level of concern for high waterfowl toxicity.
Final placement in Primary level of concern for local “hot spots” of very high usage (see Table 3 and Appendix C).
Final placement in Secondary level of concern for high usage uncertainty (see Section 4.1).
Final placement in Primary level of concern for degradation product(s).
Usage < 1,500 lb/yr. All pesticides with usages below this value (Table 3) are assigned a low level of concern.
Persistence
Active Ingredient Usage ST St Ht Pt VP
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE’
Mobility
Fl WS F2
Bioaccumulation
Potential
K 0 BLF F3
Fate
Criterion
Acute
Freshwater
TO JCJTY
Acute
Marine Chronic
Toxicity
Criterion
Preliminary
Level of
Concern
Benomyl
Chlorothalonil
H
H
H H - - -
- L H H H
H
H
-
H
I
L
L
I
H
L
-
-
H
L
H
L
H
-
-
-
-
H
H
U
U
Methamidophos
Pronamide
H
H
L - - - H
H H H - H
L
H
-
L
H
I
H
L
-
H
-
-
U
H
I
H
-
-
L
-
-
H
I
u
S
s
Trifluralin
H
L H - - H
H
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
P
Oryzalin
H
H - - - -
H
L
L
L
-
-
U
L
U
U
Metolachior
H
E l
-
H
H
-
-
U
U
L
-
H
H
U
Boric Acid
H
U
-
H
H
-
-
U
U
L
-
-
L
U
Acrolein
Fenvalerate
H
H
L - - - -
- H - H -
I
H
-
-
-
I
U
L
-
-
-
H
U
H
U
H
L
H
H
-
-
H
H
U
pC
Sul fometuron-nmthyl
H
- L L - -
L
-
L
L
—
—
U
L
U
U
Benfluralin
H
L - - L -
L
L
L
L
—
—
U
L
H
H
S
Diquat
H
H-L--
H
-H
H
-
-
U
H
L
L
H
I
S
Propham
H
L L - L -
L
H
H
H
L
—
L
L
L
H
L
S
r Met homyl
, .. Chloropicrin
TriButyllin
H
L
L
- L - - H
- L - - I
L
I
U
H
-
—
H
H
-
H
H
U
L
L
-
-
H
L
I
H
I
I
U
H
H
—
H
-
H
H
H
S
S
5 d
Fosamine Muionium
I
- L H - -
L
L
H
H
U
L
L
L
L
Undone
L
-H---
H
IL
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
-
H
S
Hexazinone
L
- H H H -
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
S
Dichlorvos
L
— L - - H
L
—
H
H
L
-
L
L
H
H
H
S
Diphenamid
L
HHHH-
H
-H
H
I
-
I
H
I
I
I
S
Propetamphos
Pyrethrins
L
I
- - H H -
- - - L -
H
U
-
-
L
L
L
1
-
—
—
U
U
U
U
—
-
—
U
U
U
U
Terbacil
I
- H L I -
L
H
H
H
L
—
L
L
H
—
—
H
S
MSMA
I
L-HHL
L
H
L
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
S
Carbofuran
L
- H H - H
H
H
H
H
L
-
L
H
H
H
S
Temephos
Fenamiphos
Bendiocarb
I
L
I
- - H - -
H - L - H
- L L - H
U
H
L
-
-
-
L
H
I
I
H
L
-
-
-
-
-
H
U
U
H
U
H
I
H
H
H
-
-
H
H
H
U
S
S
Pjc}oram
I /L 9
- H H I H
H
H
H
H
L
I
L
H
L
L
H
I
I
------- |