AAPCO
2005 Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey Report

2005 AAPCO Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey

  1. Survey Request:
    AAPCO was asked by a number of AAPCO members as well as attendees at the October 2004 International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, to conduct a "Drift Survey" of the State Pesticide Regulatory Lead Agencies. The survey was to be similar to the AAPCO surveys in 1996 and 1999.
     
  2. Methods:
    Members of the AAPCO Committee on Off Target Movement of Pesticides cooperatively developed the questions for this 2005 survey. Important input from members of the SFIREG Pesticides Operations Management Committee contributed to the drafting of appropriate and desired questions. Comments received as a result of conducting the 1996 and 1999 surveys were relied upon in decisions to include same or similar questions, or alternatively, in asking a question in a significantly different way.
     
  3. Participation:
    State Lead Agencies (SLAs) reported again that substantial expenditure of staff time and other resources were necessary in order to complete the survey. Following is a list of states that provided data for the 2005 survey.
Alaska Illinois Nebraska South Carolina
Arizona Indiana Nevada South Dakota
Arkansas Iowa New Mexico Tennessee
California Kansas New York Utah
Colorado Kentucky North Carolina Vermont
Delaware Louisiana North Dakota Virginia
Florida Maryland Ohio Washington
Georgia Michigan Oklahoma West Virginia
Hawaii Minnesota Oregon Wisconsin
Idaho Mississippi Pennsylvania Wyoming
  1. Strengths & Limitations:
    Many of the following comments are the same as were offered in regard to the 1996 and 1999 surveys.

    - States answered questions "as best they could".
    - Individual states accept, investigate and enforce pesticide drift complaints in many different ways.
    - States have varying data base systems for recording drift complaint and enforcement data.
    - Definitions, data entry, design of databases, and data utilization vary significantly among the states.
    - Some states offered complete answers/data to all survey questions; some only partial responses to some or all of the survey questions.
    - Some data are estimates.
    - Some states have no specific violation for off-target drift.
    - Some states track and report only "serious" drift violations.
    - One state does aerial drift investigations & forwards results to the state aerial board for enforcement.
     

  2. Recognition of Team:
    The 2005 AAPCO Survey resulted from the hard work and voluntary efforts of Leo Reed and Berly Nguyen, both on staff at Office of the Indiana State Chemist.

    NOTE:
    SLA responses were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. If you are interested in individual state survey data, you can request a copy of the spreadsheet from Dave Scott at scottde@purdue.edu or download it directly from the AAPCO website http://www.aapco.org.

 

2005 AAPCO Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey
 

  1. How many drift complaints or occurrences did your agency field investigate in the following years?
2002:

1674 (These are totals for all respondents)

2003:

1676

2004:

1705

  1. How many of your agency’s drift investigations were (1) not confirmed for pesticide drift, (2) confirmed for pesticide drift but no enforcement actions were taken, and (3) confirmed for pesticide drift and enforcement actions were taken?
 

Drift Not Confirmed

Drift Confirmed But No Enforcement Action*

Drift Confirmed & Enforcement Action Taken

2002:

744

175

670

2003:

788

202

589

2004:

785

213

610

* This would include cases where the responsible applicator could not be identified, where the pesticide label may not have been clearly violated, where state/tribal laws & rules may not have allowed for enforcement action, etc.
 

  1. How many of the confirmed drift occurrences involved pesticide applications to the following targets?
 

Ag Crops

Non-Ag

Right-of-Ways

Other

2002: 607 121 79 42
2003 524 135 97 36
2004: 556 117 77 33
  1. How many of the confirmed drift occurrences involved drift to the following non-target sites?
 

Ag Crops

Lawn & Landscape

Humans

Animals

Endangered Species

Aquatic

2002: 328 345 115 25 3 15
2003 284 325 90 21 4 19
2004: 289 324 99 20 2 19
  1. How many of the confirmed drift occurrences involved applications made by the following applicators?
 

Commercial Applicators

(For hire)*

Commercial Applicators

(Not for hire; in-house business; government)*

Certified Private Applicators
(Farmers, growers)*

Uncertified Applicators

Unknown

2002: 423 29 185 57 144
2003 402 51 153 51 108
2004: 446 41 176 47 81

* This includes individuals (including registered technicians) working under the supervision of these certified applicators.
 

  1. How many of the confirmed drift occurrences involved applications by the following method?
  Aerial Ground
    Boom Sprayer Air Blast Hand-Held Sprayer Chemigation Other
2002: 244 342 45 58 5 23
2003 237 302 34 83 3 35
2004 260 342 44 66 3 31
  1. List the five (5) pesticide active ingredients most commonly involved in the confirmed occurrences.
 

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

2002: 2,4-D glyphosate malathion atrazine pendimethalin
2003 2,4-D glyphosate dicamba atrazine picloram
2004: 2,4-D glyphosate dicamba atrazine paraquat
  1. How many of the following enforcement actions were taken for confirmed drift occurrences? Count each action that applies for the drift violation, even if more than one enforcement action is taken for each drift occurrence. (NOTE: Enforcement actions are often concluded in subsequent years, and some actions may be open or pending. Simply report actions taken/concluded in each year.)
 

Written Warning

Administrative Hearing

Fine Assessed

Civil Complaint

Criminal Complaint

Referral to US EPA

License/Certificate Suspension/

Revocation

Other

2002: 375 63 237 158 1 1 27 33
2003 313 63 209 131 0 1 13 21
2004: 385 76 248 128 0 3 13 36
  1. How many of the actions in #8 above involved repeat drift offenders within the last three years?

 

Written Warning

Administrative Hearing

Fine Assessed

Civil Complaint

Criminal Complaint

Referral to US EPA

License/Certificate Suspension/

Revocation

Other

2002: 49 31 55 62 1 0 14 1
2003 47 12 40 52 0 0 5 2
2004: 73 26 55 74 0 0 6 1
  1. Since 2001 have there been changes to your state/tribal pesticide laws or regulations that have changed the way you respond to, investigate, or enforce drift complaints or violations? If yes, please provide details.

 

NV- policy change; "avoid drift" language on label no longer considered advisory language.

KS- routinely screen sensitive crops for a.i.’s that can cause synthetic auxin symptoms.

ND- added reg. language preventing off-target discharges & application when atmospheric conditions favor drift ; minimize exposure to animals& precautions to prevent application when humans are present in target and adjacent areas.

LA- emergency reg. adding restrictions on 2,4-D use in areas where sensitive crops grown.

WA- amended penalty matrix reg. to increase penalties for repeat offenders.

AZ- added reg."A person shall not allow drift that causes any unreasonable adverse effects." Defined buffer zones, contamination, direct release, drift, unreasonable adverse effect, child care facility & school.

CA- amended violation class designations & increased civil penalty ranges; amended law to allow county commissioners to pass county regs. for agricultural pesticide use within mile of a school.

TN- amended legislation regarding aerial applicators.

IN- added reg. "A person may not apply a pesticide in a manner that allows it to drift from the target site in sufficient quantity to cause harm to a nontarget site." Defined drift, nontarget site & sufficient quantity to cause harm.