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 ------- |