1 2003 NOMINATION FOR A CRITICAL USE EXEMPTION FOR ORCHARD REPLANT FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1. Introduction In consultation with the co chair of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC), the United States ( U. S.) has organized this version of its critical use exemption nomination in a manner that would enable a comprehensive review of relevant information by each individual sector team reviewing the nomination for a specific crop or use. As a consequence, this nomination for orchard replant of stone fruit including ( cherry, peach, nectarine, plum and prune), and almonds, walnuts and grapes, like the nomination for all other crops included in the U. S. request, includes general background information that the U. S. finds critical to enabling review of our nomination in a manner that meets the requirements of the Parties' critical use decisions. With that understanding, the fully integrated U. S. nomination for orchard replant of stone fruit follows.

2. Background In 1997, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adjusted Article 2H of the Protocol, and agreed to accelerate the reduction in the controlled production and consumption of methyl bromide. This adjustment included a provision calling for a phaseout of methyl bromide by the year 2005 " save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses." At the same time, the Parties adopted decision IX/ 6, the critical use exemption decision, which laid out the terms under which critical use exemptions under Article 2H would be granted.

3. Criteria for Critical Uses Under the Montreal Protocol In crafting Decision IX/ 6 outlining the criteria for a critical use exemption, the Parties recognized the significant differences between methyl bromide uses and uses of other ozone depleting chemicals previously given scrutiny under the Protocol's distinct and separate Essential Use exemption process. The United States believes that it is vitally important for the MBTOC to take into account the significant differences between the critical use exemption and the essential use exemption in the review of all methyl bromide critical use nominations.

During the debate leading up to the adoption of the critical use exemption Decision IX/ 6, an underlying theme voiced by many countries was that the Parties wanted to phase out methyl bromide, but not adversely affect agriculture. This was addressed in the critical use exemption provisions, and exemplified by the differences in approach taken between the critical use exemption and the essential use exemption processes. Those differences are outlined below.

The Protocol's negotiated criteria for the critical use exemptions for methyl bromide are much different from the criteria negotiated for " essential uses" for other chemicals.

Under the Essential Use provisions, in order to even be considered for an exemption, it was necessary for each proposed use to be " critical for health, safety or the functioning of society." This high threshold differs significantly from the criteria established for the methyl bromide Critical Use 2 exemption. Indeed, for methyl bromide, the Parties left it solely to the nominating governments to find that the absence of methyl bromide would create a significant market disruption.

For the U. S. nomination for orchard replant, following detailed technical and economic review, the U. S. has determined that the level of methyl bromide being requested is critical to ensuring that there is no significant market disruption. The detailed analysis of technical and economic viability of the alternatives listed by MBTOC for use in orchard replantings is discussed later in this nomination.

In the case of methyl bromide, the Parties recognized many agricultural fumigants were inherently toxic, and therefore there was a strong desire not to replace one environmentally problematic chemical with another even more damaging.

The critical use exemption language explicitly requires that an alternative should not only be technically and economically feasible, it must also be acceptable from the standpoint of health and environment. This is particularly important given the fact that many chemical alternatives to methyl bromide are toxic; some may pose higher risks to human health or the environment than methyl bromide.

In the case of methyl bromide, the Parties recognized that evaluating, commercializing and securing national approval of alternatives and substitutes is a lengthy process.

In fact, even after an alternative is tested and found to work against some pests in a controlled setting, adequate testing in large scale commercial operations can take many cropping seasons before the viability of the alternative can be adequately assessed from the standpoint of the climate and soil for various potential users. In addition, the process of securing national and sub national approval of alternatives may require extensive analysis of environmental consequences and toxicology. The average time for the national review of scientific information in support of a new pesticide, starting from the date of submission to registration, is approximately 38 months. In most cases, the company submitting the information has spent approximately 7 10 years developing the toxicity and other environmental data necessary to support the registration.

The Parties to the Protocol recognized that unlike other chemicals controlled under the Montreal Protocol, the use of methyl bromide and available alternatives could be site specific and must take into account the particular needs of the user.

The Essential Use exemption largely assumed that an alternative used in one place could, if approved by the government, be used everywhere. Parties clearly understood that this was not the case with methyl bromide because of the large number of variables involved, such as crop type, soil types, pest pressure and local climate. That is why the methyl bromide Critical Use exemption calls for an examination of the feasibility of the alternative from the standpoint of the user, and in the context of the specific circumstances of the nomination, including use and geographic location. In order to effectively implement this last, very important provision, we believe it is critical for MBTOC reviewers to understand the unique nature of U. S. agriculture, as well as U. S. efforts to minimize the use of methyl bromide, to research alternatives, and to register alternatives for methyl bromide.

4. U. S. Consideration/ Preparation of the Critical Use Exemption for Orchard Replant Work on the U. S. critical use exemption process began in early 2001. At that time, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA) initiated open meetings with stakeholders both to inform them of the Protocol requirements, and to understand the issues being faced in researching alternatives 3 to methyl bromide. During those meetings, which were attended by State and associated officials representing thousands of methyl bromide users, the provisions of the critical use exemption Decision IX/ 6 were reviewed in detail, and questions were taken. The feedback from these initial meetings led to efforts by the U. S. to have the Protocol Parties establish international norms for the details to be in submissions and to facilitate standardization for a fair and adequate review. These efforts culminated in decision XIII/ 11, which calls for specific information to be presented in the nomination.

Upon return from the Sri Lanka meeting of the Parties, the U. S. took a multi track approach to the critical use process. First, we worked to develop a national application form that would ensure that we had the information necessary to answer all of the questions posed in decision XIII/ 11. At the same time, we initiated sector specific meetings. This included meetings with representatives of orchard growers from across the U. S. to discuss their specific issues, and to enable them to understand the newly detailed requirements of the critical use application. These sector meetings allowed us to fine tune the application so we could submit the required information to the MBTOC in a meaningful fashion.

Finally, and concurrent with our preparation phase, we developed a plan to ensure a robust and timely review of any and all critical use applications we might receive. This involved the assembly of more than 45 PhDs and other qualified reviewers with expertise in both biological and economic issues. These experts were divided into interdisciplinary teams to enable primary and secondary reviewers for each application/ crop. As a consequence, each nomination received by the U. S. was reviewed by two separate teams. In addition, the review of these interdisciplinary teams was put to a broader review of experts on all other sector teams to enable a third look at the information, and to ensure consistency in review between teams. The result was a thorough evaluation of the merits of each request. A substantial portion of requests did not meet the criteria of decision IX/ 6, and a strong case for those that did meet the criteria has been included.

Following our technical review, discussions were held with senior risk management personnel of the U. S. government to go over the recommendations and put together a draft package for submission to the parties. As a consequence of all of this work, it is safe to say that each of the sector specific nominations being submitted is the work of well over 150 experts both in and outside of the U. S. government.

5. Overview of Agricultural Production 5a. U. S. Agriculture The U. S. is fortunate to have a large land expanse, productive soils and a variety of climates favorable to growing crops. These factors contribute to and enable the U. S. to be a uniquely large and productive agricultural producer. Indeed, the size and scope of farming in the U. S. is different than in most countries. Specifically, in 2001, U. S. farmland totaled 381 million hectares, a land mass larger than the entire size of many entire countries. There were 2.16 million farms, with average farm size across all farms of 176 hectares ( approximately 10 times larger than average farm sizes in the European Union). The availability of land and the fact that so many U. S. regions are conducive to outdoor cultivation of fruits and vegetables has had an important impact on the way agriculture has developed in the U. S. Specifically, these factors have meant that greenhouse production has generally proven to be very costly ( in relative terms) and has as a consequence, been limited. 4 Other factors also affected the general development of farming in the U. S. While land for farming is widely available, labor is generally more expensive and less plentiful. As a result, the U. S. developed a unique brand of highly mechanized farming practices that are highly reliant on pesticides such as methyl bromide and other non labor inputs. The extent of mechanization and reliance on non labor inputs can be best demonstrated by noting the very low levels of labor inputs on U. S. farms: in 2001, only 2.05 million workers operated the 2.16 million U. S. farms, with help from fewer than 1 million hired workers.

Farming in the U. S. is also unique in the broad range of crops produced. For example, the fruit and vegetable sector, the agricultural sector most reliant on methyl bromide, includes production of 107 separate fruit and vegetable commodities or groups of commodities. With this diversity, however, has come a large number of pest problems that methyl bromide has proven uniquely able to manage.

Agricultural productivity has enabled the U. S. to meet not only its food and commodity needs, but also the needs of many other countries. The U. S. produced 88.3 million metric tonnes of fruits and vegetables in 2001, up 10 percent from 1990. At the same time, the land planted in fruits and vegetables has remained stable, and individual farm size increased as the number of farms has fallen. The related yield increases per land area are almost exclusively related to non labor inputs, like the adoption of new varieties, and the application of new production practices, including plastic mulches, row covers, high density planting, more effective pesticide sprays, and drip irrigation, as well as increased water irrigation practices. Optimization of yields through these and other scientific and mechanized practices make U. S. agricultural output very sensitive to changes in inputs. Therefore, as evidenced by the U. S. nomination for critical uses of methyl bromide, the phaseout of methyl bromide can have a very significant impact on both the technical and economic viability of production of certain crops in certain areas.

5b. Orchard Replant The crops covered in the nomination for orchard replant ( Appendix A) in California are very important. Among stone fruits, peaches are grown commercially throughout the U. S., but the majority of production is in California, with over 70 percent of production by weight. Nectarines, which are a variety of peach, are primarily grown in the same orchards. Sweet cherries are produced primarily in four U. S. states, California, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington, with California being a relatively minor producer. California is the leading producer of plums, prunes, and table grape, with over 97 percent of the total production. Production from table grape vineyards is aimed at the fresh market, although a portion of production is processed and dried for raisins or made into wine or juice. California is the sole producer of almonds and walnuts in the U. S. Table 1 provides a summary of area, production and value for these orchard crops. 5 Table 1. California Orchard Area, Production and Value. Crop Area of Bearing Trees ( ha) Yield ( MT/ ha) Total Production ( MT) Percent of U. S. Production Value of Production ( US$ 1000) Peaches/ Nectarines 42,230 27.3 1,151,500 70.0 346,547 Sweet Cherries 7,690 5.1 39,100 19.0 67,822 Plums 15,380 12.5 192,100 95.0 847,000 Prunes 33,600 20.1 677,000 98.0 101,080 Table Grapes 36,840 19.8 728,100 98.0 433,924 Almonds 212,550 2.0 416,500 100.0 847,000 Walnuts 79,350 3.8 298,900 100.0 270,000 Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, 2001 preliminary summary, 2002.

The producing life of an orchard varies according to the type of tree, with most stone fruit producing for about 20 years. Plum trees for prunes are longer lived, lasting about 40 years. Grapes and almonds typically produce for about 25 years and walnuts about 40 years. When production declines, the old trees are removed and new trees are replanted on the same land. While most of the biomass of the old trees is removed, a significant amount of the tree roots remain in the soil.

Throughout the life of the orchard or vineyard, there is an increase in populations of soil pests and pathogens ( see Section 6a below). Old established trees and vines can withstand moderate to high pest pressure, but young stock is vulnerable to numerous pests, and especially pest complexes such as replant disorder. An orchard destined for replant has trees harvested from September to October, after which old trees are removed and the soil is prepared and fumigated. Fumigation with methyl bromide effectively kills or reduces pest populations and permits seedlings or new vines to become established in the absence of competing organisms, such as nematodes, pathogens, or weeds. Failure to adequately control the range of pests commonly found in established orchards can result in reduced yields, stunting and even tree mortality. Methyl bromide penetrates and diffuses through soils due to its high vapor pressure. Therefore, it can be used effectively on various soil types ( sandy or clay), which permits rapid orchard replanting. New trees are planted in California in the early spring, following the rainy season ( November to March) to optimize root development and growth of trees. Walnuts, however, are harvested in late fall and it is rare that fields can be fumigated before the rainy season. Instead, growers leave the land fallow a year, fumigate the following fall and plant in early spring of the next year.

The use of methyl bromide in the U. S. for orchard replant exemplifies many of the broader characteristics of U. S. agriculture noted above. Methyl bromide is currently considered to be critical for the reestablishment of healthy orchards and vineyards, where there is a high correlation between seedling health and future orchard productivity. For this use, methyl bromide is mechanically injected into the soil immediately prior to replanting to reduce pest populations and to ensure that young trees and vines receive optimal growth conditions. After orchard replant, soils are not fumigated during the productive life of the orchard ( 20 to 40 years). 6 6. Results of Review  Determined Need for Methyl Bromide for Orchard Replant 6a. Target Pests Controlled with Methyl Bromide Growers replanting orchards or vineyards on non virgin ground face what is often referred to as the " replant problem." The replant problem is a poorly understood complex that refers to a decline in vigor of the orchard crop due to both well defined pests and unidentified pests. The known pests include fungal pathogens, including Armillaria spp. and Phytophthora spp., and parasitic nematodes that infest orchard crops, such as Mesocriconema xenoplax ( ring nematode), Meloidogyne spp. ( root knot nematodes), Pratylenchus vulnus ( root lesion nematode), and Xiphinema americanum ( dagger nematode). In addition, a newly identified insect that may be a part of replant disorder in California is the Polyphylla decemlineata ( tenlined June beetle). Weeds, such as yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus L.) and purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus L.), are widely recognized for their economic impact in replant situations. Weeds compete with young trees for water, nutrients, and light, especially early in the orchard establishment, and methyl bromide, in addition to effectively managing replant disorder, is the most effective treatment for reducing competition from weeds. Because fumigation is administered only once during the life of an orchard, maximum effectiveness of pest control is required to obtain healthy trees and optimal yields.

6b. Overview of Technical and Economic Assessments of Alternatives MBTOC identified several alternatives for use in orchard and vineyard replants; these are listed below ( Table 2):

Table 2. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Identified by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee for Fruit and Nut Tree Orchard Replant and Grape Vineyard Replant. Methyl bromide alternatives identified for fruit and nut tree orchards Methyl bromide alternatives identified for grape vineyards 1,3 dichloropropene Sodium tetrathiocarbonate 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin Biofumigation 1,3 dichloropropene + metam sodium Solarization Dazomet ( Basamid ® ) Steam Metam sodium Biological control Nematicides Cover crop and mulching Biofumigation Crop rotation/ fallow Solarization Crop residue and compost Steam Substrate/ plug plants Biological control Plowing/ tillage Cover crop and mulching Resistant cultivars Crop rotation/ fallow Grafting/ resistant rootstock Physical removal Organic amendments/ compost Integrated pest management None of these alternatives was found to be technically feasible for use on table and raisin grapes replants. None of the alternatives proposed by MBTOC for vineyards provide effective control of the replant problem. Of the alternatives proposed by MBTOC for fruit and nut orchards, 1,3 7 dichloropropene ( manufactured as Telone ® ) alone or in conjunction with chloropicrin or metam sodium, has shown promise on some soil types ( specifically light soils, which make up one third of the California orchard area), but research on tree survival and on yield impacts is incomplete because long orchard life and high establishment costs result in limited sites available for research trials.

Economic analyses show that even minimal biological impacts, in terms of planting delays, tree survival rates, and yield losses, as may be expected with the use of 1,3 dichloropropene, can significantly reduce the value of an orchard. Furthermore, as a potential carcinogen, use of 1,3 dichloropropene is severely restricted (" township caps") in California where most orchards are located.

While testing alternatives has been, and continues to be done, reliable data are limited for fruit and nut tree orchards because of the time required for studies in perennial crops and to the difficulty of extrapolating from small research plots to commercial scale production ( particularly concerning long term impacts on yield).

6c. Technical Feasibility of In Kind ( Chemical) Alternatives Three alternatives were found to be technically feasible for orchards ( at least for certain soil conditions) but not vineyards, and are discussed below. A summary of technical and economic assessments are provide in Table 3a ( stone fruit, almonds and walnut replant) and Table 3b ( vineyard replant). An economic analysis of the technically feasible alternatives are reported in Section 6d.

Table 3a. Technical and Economic Assessments of Methyl Bromide Alternatives for Orchard ( Stone Fruit, Almond and Walnut) Replant. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Assessment of Technical Feasibility Assessment of Economic Feasibility 1,3 Dichloropropene Yes, on light soils No 1,3 Dichloropropene + chloropicrin Yes, on light soils No 1,3 Dichloropropene + metam sodium Yes, on light soils No Dazomet ( Basamid ® ) No N/ A Metam sodium No N/ A Nematicides No N/ A Biofumigation No N/ A Solarization No N/ A Steam No N/ A Biological control No N/ A Cover crops and mulching No N/ A Crop rotation/ fallow No N/ A Note: Alternatives not found technically feasible were not assessed for economic viability. 8 Table 3b. Technical and Economic Assessments of Methyl Bromide Alternatives for Vineyard ( Table Grape) Replant. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Assessment of Technical Feasibility Assessment of Economic Feasibility Sodium tetrathiocarbonate No N/ A Biofumigation No N/ A Solarization No N/ A Steam No N/ A Biological control No N/ A Cover crops and mulching No N/ A Crop rotation/ fallow No N/ A Crop residue and compost No N/ A Substrate/ plug plants No N/ A Plowing/ tillage No N/ A Resistant cultivars No N/ A Grafting/ resistant rootstock No N/ A Physical removal No N/ A Organic amendments/ compost No N/ A Integrated Pest Management No N/ A Note: Alternatives not found technically feasible were not assessed for economic viability.

1,3 Dichloropropene; 1,3 Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin; and 1,3 Dichloropropene + Metam sodium.

These three alternatives were considered conditionally " technically feasible" for orchard ( although not vineyard) replant since they appeared to provide effective management of replant disorder, but generally only among orchards with light, sandy type soils. Studies indicated that 1,3 dichloropropene , alone or in conjunction with chloropicrin or metam sodium, may, in some circumstances, be feasible. 1,3 dichloropropene is currently used in some situations ( for example, in orchards with sandy soils), and the specific situations in which it could be used were factored into a final decision on the level of the U. S. nomination in this sector. However, the efficacy or potential of 1,3 dichloropropene use as an alternative is limited by several technical and/ or regulatory factors. Specifically, 1,3 dichloropropene alternatives are not technically feasible alternatives for orchard replant in medium and heavy, clay soils ( comprising approximately 65 percent of California orchards). Research done on almond and peach rootstocks indicate that the typical rate of 333 liters/ ha would not provide adequate control of the replant problem in heavier soils. Researchers suggest that there may not be a quality loss using this regimen, but there likely would be a yield loss.

Field trials of methyl bromide alternatives are on going. In some field trials ( Browne et al., 2001; Browne et al., 2002), all of the trees had to be replaced due to ineffective disease control with alternatives. Under less than optimal conditions ( e. g., poor soil preparation, poor moisture content, medium and heavy soils), 1,3 dichloropropene does not diffuse throughout the root zone to be effective in disease management. More tillage and supplemental irrigations are required than with methyl 9 bromide to ensure optimal efficacy of the alternative compounds. These additional activities prolong replant preparation time, causing a delay in fumigation and potentially preventing application prior to the rainy season. This can result in up to a year's delay in establishing an orchard ( with the exception of walnuts where harvest comes too late for replanting even with methyl bromide use).

In addition to chemical limitations of the three alternatives, the California Department of Food and Agriculture has imposed restrictions that limit the amount of 1,3 dichloropropene that can be applied in a given area (" township cap"), because it has been implicated as a potential carcinogen. Within these specific townships, growers of all crops compete for the limited allowable amount of 1,3 dichloropropene ( under the cap) that can used in the year. Once the 1,3 dichloropropene capacity is reached, 1,3 dichloropropene will no longer be available, and therefore not an " alternative" to methyl bromide. As a result, growers with orchards in the identified townships with 1,3 dichloropropene restrictions may require an effective replacement ( methyl bromide).

California also restricts the amount of 1,3 dichloropropene that can be used in certain locations because it is a hazardous air pollutant and a ground water contaminant. If the township cap is exceeded early in the year when most of the crops are planted, 1,3 dichloropropene will not be available for use later in the year. The California township regulations for 1,3 dichloropropene have been implemented relatively recently making it difficult to predict the availability of 1,3 dichloropropene throughout the year.

As a result, the U. S. views a portion of the nomination for California for a methyl bromide critical use exemption as a " contingent nomination." In situations where 1,3 dichloropropene is technically feasible, if California's 1,3 dichloropropene township caps limit the availability for orchard replant growers, there would be a critical need for methyl bromide for use on orchard replant crops. If, the 1,3 dichloropropene township cap is not reached, in areas where 1,3 dichloropropene is effective, the orchard replant growers would not require methyl bromide.

Dazomet ( Basamid ® ) . In spite of nearly 50 years experience with methyl isothiocyanate ( MITC) products   the breakdown active ingredient of both dazomet and metam sodium   efficacy has been unpredictable. This may be due to the significantly lower vapor pressure of MITC compared to methyl bromide, which affects the movement of gases through soils. Uniformity of fumigants throughout the soil is necessary for consistent and predictable results. MITC producing products, while at times effective, have been associated with inconsistent production performance and performance appears to be highly dependent on specific soil type and preparation.

Dazomet is not technically feasible for orchard replant because it has yielded inconsistent results in field trials, especially when trials were conducted in orchards with diverse soil types. Dazomet, because of its low vapor pressure, requires high soil moisture to ensure the product will diffuse through the target area. Obtaining this moisture content requires additional irrigation systems, since standard irrigation in an orchard is concentrated toward the individual tree, through drip or furrow systems, in order to reduce water requirements. Dazomet was only assessed for the orchard replant situations and not for the grape vineyard scenario ( because is not identified as an alternative for vineyards by MBTOC).

Metam Sodium ( Vapam ® , Busan ® ) . Metam sodium alone is not technically feasible for orchard replant because national restrictions on application rates are far below the quantity that would be needed to address the replant disorder. The use rate of metam sodium would need to be around 365 kg/ ha to provide control to a depth of 90 150 cm that would be necessary in the orchard situation. In 10 addition, this substance was not deemed feasible due to its lack of ability to control nematodes, which are a major part of the replant disorder in California. Like dazomet, metam sodium requires that the soil be irrigated to near field capacity in order for the chemical to diffuse properly and control at the depths necessary. Diffusion in medium and heavy soils is particularly problematic.

6d. Economic Feasibility of In Kind ( Chemical) Alternatives An economic assessment was made for 1,3 dichloropropene, 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin, and 1,3 dichloropropene + metam sodium, which were alternatives that were assessed as conditionally technically feasible ( see Table 3a). The economic assessment of feasibility for pre plant uses of methyl bromide, such as for orchard replant, included an evaluation of economic losses from three basic sources: ( 1) yield losses, referring to reductions in the quantity produced, ( 2) quality losses, which generally affect the price received for the goods, and ( 3) increased production costs, which may be due to the higher cost of using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/ or resulting shifts in other production or harvesting practices.

The economic reviewers analyzed crop budgets for pre plant sectors to determine the likely economic impact if methyl bromide were unavailable. Various measures were used to quantify the impacts, including the following:

( 1) Losses as a percent of gross revenues. This measure has the advantage that gross revenues are usually easy to measure, at least over some unit, e. g., a hectare of land or a storage operation. However, high value commodities or crops may provide high revenues but may also entail high costs. Losses of even a small percentage of gross revenues could have important impacts on the profitability of the activity. ( 2) Absolute losses per hectare. For crops, this measure is closely tied to income. It is relatively easy to measure, but may be difficult to interpret in isolation.

( 3) Losses per kilogram of methyl bromide requested. This measure indicates the value of methyl bromide to crop production but is also useful for structural and post harvest uses.

( 4) Losses as a percent of net cash revenues. We define net cash revenues as gross revenues minus operating costs. This is a very good indicator as to the direct losses of income that may be suffered by the owners or operators of an enterprise. However, operating costs can often be difficult to measure and verify.

( 5) Changes in profit margins. We define profit margin to be profits as a percentage of gross revenues, where profits are gross revenues minus all fixed and operating costs. This measure would provide the best indication of the total impact of the loss of methyl bromide to an enterprise. Again, operating costs may be difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult.

These measures represent different ways to assess the economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide use in orchard replant. Because producers ( suppliers) represent an integral part of any definition of a market, we interpret the threshold of significant market disruption to be met if there is a significant impact on commodity suppliers using methyl bromide. The economic measures provide the basis for making that determination.

For orchard replant uses, reviewers analyzed the economic losses that might arise from substitution of 1,3 dichloropropene alone or in combination with chloropicrin or metam sodium. These alternatives 11 are technically feasible only on light soils, which represent about one third of the area on which orchards are maintained. No listed alternatives, however, were found to be feasible for use on medium to heavy soils or for vineyard replant uses.

Losses originate from a number of different sources. Quantifiable losses arise from changes in fumigation costs and from planting delays due to soil moisture requirements. In addition, yield losses have been observed in trees planted on land fumigated with 1,3 dichloropropene since some trees produce so little that they must be replaced. Unfortunately, sufficient data were not available to estimate long term yield losses or the percentage of trees that would be replaced. Therefore, we used a low estimate range of yield loss for the economic analysis. Minimal losses were analyzed, and suggested that significant economic losses were likely to result. Tables 4, 5, and 6 indicate the biological measures of impact used in the analyses and the range of cost changes.

Establishing an orchard requires a high initial investment in land preparation and planting. Production does not begin for several years but continues for a long period of time. Fumigation only occurs as part of land preparation. Therefore, the analyses examined the net present value ( NPV) of the orchard under different fumigation alternatives. NPV calculates the value today of a stream of costs and income over a period of time, where future costs and income are discounted. The figures in Tables 4, 5, and 6 represent a 5 percent discount rate. A higher discount rate puts more emphasis on current costs and less on future income and results in lower NPV. The opposite is true for a lower discount rate. Different discount rates were examined. The absolute value of the investments changes with the discount rate, but changes make little difference in relative results, i. e., absolute or percentage change in value per hectare or kilogram of methyl bromide.

The NPV of an orchard was calculated under the various alternatives and it was compared with the NPV of an orchard when fumigating with methyl bromide. Data for the analysis come from crop budgets prepared by the University of California Cooperative Extension ( Buchner et al., 2002; Day et al., 2000a/ b; Duncan et al., 2002; Grant et al., 2001; Klonsky et al., 1997). Unfortunately, these studies indicate that some of the orchards, particularly peach/ nectarine, plums and almonds, are not profitable. Therefore, while we have confidence in the measures of absolute losses, the losses as a percentage of NPV should be viewed with caution.

Losses due to the delay in planting are equivalent to a 5 percent yield loss in stone fruits and about 3 percent for almonds. These losses arise from the fact that land must stay in production one additional year in order to achieve the same total productions. Stone fruit tree production time is typically 20 years and almonds are 25 years. There are no delays in walnuts with alternatives relative to methyl bromide. The reviewers analyzed replacement rates between 5 and 18 percent of the trees. With methyl bromide, growers expect to replace about 2 percent of the trees, mostly due to problems with the seedling, rather than with soil pests. We evaluated the impacts of yield losses from reduced vigor between 1 to 8 percent in comparison to methyl bromide. Losses were assumed to be slightly higher in walnuts because historical data showed use of a higher rate of methyl bromide, while the rates for the alternatives, except for metam sodium, were identical for all orchard crops. For all orchard crops, the budget data indicated that harvest costs were proportional to yields and comprised a major proportion of annual operating costs. These costs were reduced in proportion to the yield losses.

The lowest cost alternative to methyl bromide was 1,3 dichloropropene and ranged from a savings of US$ 8 to US$ 1,700/ ha, including the cost of application. We assumed that this alternative is associated with the higher yield losses and replacement rate since it provides narrower control than when it is used in conjunction with chloropicrin or metam sodium ( see Table 4). Economic losses in this scenario arise 12 primarily from higher establishment costs caused by the necessity of replacing trees that succumb to the replant disorder. Additional losses occur due to the delay in establishing the orchard and in yield losses suffered by trees that are weakened, but not killed, by the pest complex comprising the replant problem. Despite reductions in fumigation costs, economic losses over the life span of the orchards could range from US$ 1,600/ ha in walnuts to nearly US$ 7,000/ ha in stone fruit and represent between 15 and 93 percent of value of the orchard.

Table 4. Economic Impacts of Substituting 1,3 Dichloropropene Alone for Methyl Bromide. Stone Fruits Walnuts Almonds Delay in establishment ( yield loss equivalent) 5% 0% 3% Yield loss 5 to 8% 6 to 8% 5 to 8% Replacement rate 10 to 15% 12 to 18% 10 to 15% Change in fumigation costs ( US$/ ha) US$ 5 less US$ 1,700 less US$ 1,130 less Economic loss per ha US$ 2350 to 6,960 US$ 1,610 to 2,870 US$ 1,810 to 3,370 Loss per kg of Methyl Bromide US$ 12 to 35 US$ 4 to 7 US$ 6 to 10 Impact as percent of NPV 1 31 to 93% 15 to 27% 17 to 32% 1Stone fruit impact based on NPV of cherries. Available crop budget data for peaches/ nectarines, plums, prunes and almonds indicate negative NPV at 5 percent discount rate, even with methyl bromide. At a lower discount rate, NPV was positive for prunes and almonds with methyl bromide, but not with alternatives. Available data indicate that annual returns at full production are negative for peaches/ nectarines and plums.

The highest cost option was with 1,3 dichloropropene + metam sodium, which one study suggested provides nearly equivalent control of the replant problem in light soils compared to methyl bromide. Therefore we assumed lower yield losses and replacement rates were associated with this option compared to the other two alternatives. Use of metam sodium requires some additional capital expenditure on temporary irrigation equipment, which was included in these cost figures. Table 5 presents the results of the assessment. Fumigation costs are considerably higher than for methyl bromide and contribute significantly to the increase in establishment costs that, combined with the costs of replacing dead or poorly performing trees, form an important share of the total economic losses. The extra costs make this alternative particularly unattractive for the nut crops, although it may be the best option for stone fruits. Losses range from slightly more than US$ 2,000/ ha in stone fruits to over US$ 5,500/ ha in almonds and could comprise over half of the value of the orchards. 13 Table 5. Economic Impacts of Substituting 1,3 Dichloropropene with Metam Sodium for Methyl Bromide. Stone Fruits Walnuts Almonds Delay in establishment ( yield loss equivalent) 5% 0% 3% Yield loss 1 to 2% 2 to 3% 1 to 2% Replacement rate 5 to 8% 8 to 10% 5 to 8% Change in fumigation costs ( US$/ ha) US$ 930 more US$ 2,830 more US$ 3,430 more Economic loss per ha US$ 2,070 to 4,500 US$ 4,290 to 4,830 US$ 4,820 to 5,600 Loss per kg of Methyl Bromide US$ 9 to 20 US$ 10 to 11 US$ 13 to 15 Impact as percent of NPV 1 28 to 60% 41 to 46% 46 to 53%

1Stone fruit impact based on NPV of cherries. Available crop budget data for peaches/ nectarines, plums, prunes and almonds indicate negative NPV at 5 percent discount rate, even with methyl bromide. At a lower discount rate, NPV was positive for prunes and almonds with methyl bromide, but not with alternatives. Available data indicate that annual returns at full production are negative for peaches/ nectarines and plums.

The final alternative, 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin, is somewhat more expensive to use than methyl bromide, but is less costly than 1,3 dichloropropene + metam sodium. The assessment is shown in Table 6. Again, total economic losses are primarily driven by increases in establishment costs, including the fumigation and replacement of trees. Losses could be as low as US$ 800/ ha in walnuts but could be nearly US$ 5,500/ ha in stone fruit and represent between eight and 73 percent of the value of the orchards. 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin may be the best available alternative to methyl bromide in sandy soils, but enough uncertainty exists that its use is economically risky. Considering the high investment costs of establishing an orchard and the slow returns over 20 to 40 years, more information is needed to determine that no serious economic consequences will result from the loss of methyl bromide.

Table 6. Economic Impacts of Substituting 1,3 Dichloropropene with Chloropicrin for Methyl Bromide. Stone Fruits Walnuts Almonds Delay in establishment ( yield loss equivalent) 5% 0% 3% Yield loss 2 to 5% 3 to 5% 2 to 5% Replacement rate 8 to 10% 10 to 15% 8 to 10% Change in fumigation costs ( US$/ ha) US$ 490 more US$ 1,240 more US$ 630 more Economic loss per ha US$ 1,830 to 5,470 US$ 800 to 2,020 US$ 1,060 to 2,360 Loss per kg of Methyl Bromide US$ 8 to 24 US$ 2 to 5 US$ 3 to 6 Impact as percent of NPV 1 24 to 73% 8 to 19% 10 to 22% 1Stone fruit impact based on NPV of cherries. Available crop budget data for peaches/ nectarines, plums, prunes and almonds indicate negative NPV at 5 percent discount rate, even with methyl bromide. At a lower discount 14 rate, NPV was positive for prunes and almonds with methyl bromide, but not with alternatives. Available data indicate that annual returns at full production are negative for peaches/ nectarines and plums.

6e. Technical Feasibility of " Not In Kind" MBTOC Alternatives This section summarizes the analysis of the " not in kind" ( non chemical) methyl bromide alternatives identified by MBTOC for orchard replant. Table 3a and Table 3b contain a summary of the technical assessment, which is that none of the " not in kind" alternatives were found to be technically feasible, and therefore no economic assessment was conducted. A general cost analysis was done for the alternatives and is reported in Appendix B. A description of each these alternatives follows:

Nematicides. Nematicides are not technically feasible by themselves in controlling all the other pests contributing to the replant problem in California. In particular, they are ineffective in controlling fungal pathogens, namely Armillaria spp. and Phytophthora spp. that affect California orchards.

Sodium tetrathiocarbonate. Sodium tetrathiocarbonate is not technically feasible in managing the pest complex because of inadequate penetration to old rootstock, which harbor various fungal pathogens and nematodes. The use of this product alone will not provide adequate control of the pest complex in the grape vineyards. This product is being used by some growers, not as a replacement for methyl bromide for replant use, but as a means to maintain low pest population levels in established vineyards. This product can be integrated with other pest management practices, but it does not control the replant problem.

Biofumigation, Solarization, Crop rotation/ fallow, Crop residue and compost, Substrate/ plug plants, Plowing/ tillage, Resistant cultivars, Grafting/ resistant rootstock, Physical removal. Each of the above " not in kind" ( non chemical) alternatives for orchard and vineyard replant was deemed technically infeasible as a substitute for methyl bromide. However, many of these alternatives are currently being employed in orchards in addition to methyl bromide. They serve as a useful measure to optimize and limit the amount of methyl bromide needed for replant uses. Some of these alternatives, such as biofumigation and solarization are not feasible due to conflicts in planting times or the inability to achieve sufficient biomass for efficacy ( biofumigation). In general, the effective soil depth of these alternatives is insufficient relative to where the pest management must occur. These alternatives can work in conjunction with other practices to improve orchard health, but are not sufficient alternatives to methyl bromide.

The following alternatives are described with consideration of the technical feasibility for orchard replant:

Biological Control. Biological control is already being used by orchard managers as part of integrated pest management ( IPM) programs, but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide. There are limited biological control organisms that are effectively used to manage soil borne diseases and pests in orchards. California orchard managers use biological control organisms primarily for insect management, but use for complex disease problems such as replant disorder is only in the research stage of development.

Cover crops/ mulching. Cover crops/ mulching is already being used in orchards as a part of IPM programs, but it does not offer adequate nematode or replant disorder control by itself. 15 Flooding and water management. Flooding and water management is not technically feasible for addressing orchard replant concerns. In California, use of flooding is not practical because of limited water resources, and the uneven topographic features of many production areas prevent complete flooding of the higher areas. Furthermore, there are no data to suggest that replant disorder can be successfully managed with flooding.

General IPM ( Integrated Pest Management). General IPM is currently being used, but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide. IPM practices include monitoring, field sanitation to limit inoculum buildup, crop rotation to provide non host periods, and breeding for resistance to pathogens. IPM practices do not offer adequate measures that address problems associated with replanting orchards..

Organic amendments/ compost. Organic amendments/ compost is already being used in orchards for replant, but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide. Composting does not offer adequate management of orchard replant disorder, although it provides improvement of soil texture and fertility.

Steam. Steam for soil sterilization is impractical in large scale, open field production areas characteristic of orchard replant. A United Nations Environment Programme assessment ( UNEP, 1998) indicated that this alternative is only practical in small scale production areas.

7. Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Orchard Replant The critical use exemption nomination for methyl bromide is for replanting orchards and vineyards on orchard land that was previously planted with stone fruit, almonds, walnuts, and/ or grapes ( Appendix A). The U. S. is not nominating methyl bromide for orchard establishment on virgin land; in fact, the U. S. nomination represents less than 1 percent of the total bearing area of this crop. Methyl bromide for replanting stone fruit, almond, and walnut orchards and grape vineyards in California had an actual amount requested of 1.3 million kg to be applied to approximately 3,778 hectares of orchards to be replanted in 2005 ( Table 7). Similar areas are expected to be replanted in 2006 and 2007 and the requested amount was the same for each year. The available alternatives to methyl bromide do not adequately control the orchard replant disease complex to ensure that new trees and vines are established and become sufficiently productive to realize profitable returns on the investments.

Table 7. Methyl Bromide Use and Request for Orchard Replant. Year Amount ( kg) Area ( ha) Rate ( kg/ ha) 1997 2000 average 1,690,640 5,772 293 2001 1,218,144 3,944 259 2005 request 1,256,223 3,778 341 The U. S. nomination has been determined based first on consideration of the requests we received and an evaluation of the supporting material. This evaluation, which resulted in a reduction in the amount being nominated, included careful examination of issues including the area infested with the key target ( economically significant) pests for which methyl bromide is required, the extent of regulatory constraints on the use of registered alternatives ( buffer zones, township caps), environmental concerns such as soil based restrictions due to potential groundwater contamination, and historic use rates, among other factors. 16 Table 8. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Orchard Replant Year Total Request by Applicant ( kilograms) U. S. Sector Nomination ( kilograms) 2005 1,256,223 706,176 8. Availability of Methyl Bromide from Recycled or Stockpiled Sources In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, Parties must discuss the potential that the continued need for methyl bromide can be met from recycled or stockpiled sources. With regard to recycling of methyl bromide, it is fair to say that the U. S. concurs with earlier TEAP conclusions that recycling of methyl bromide used in soil fumigation is not currently feasible. The U. S. has been investigating the level of the existing stockpile, and we believe that whatever stockpile may now exist will likely be fully depleted by 2005 when the need for the critical use exemption will start.

9. Use/ Minimizing Emissions of Methyl Bromide in the United States.

In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, we will now describe ways in which we strive to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. While each sector based nomination includes information on this topic, we thought it would be useful to provide some general information that is applicable to most methyl bromide uses in the country.

The use of methyl bromide in the United States is minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl bromide is regulated as a restricted use pesticide in the United States. As a consequence, methyl bromide can only be used by certified applicators who are trained at handling these hazardous pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl bromide is applied by a limited number of very experienced applicators with the knowledge and expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level possible to achieve the needed results. In keeping with both local requirements to avoid " drift" of methyl bromide into inhabited areas, as well as to preserve methyl bromide and keep related emissions to the lowest level possible, methyl bromide is machine injected into soil to specific depths. In addition, as methyl bromide has become more scarce, users in the United States have, where possible, experimented with different mixes of methyl bromide and chloropicrin. Specifically, in the early 1990s, methyl bromide was typically sold and used in methyl bromide mixtures made up of 98% methyl bromide and 2% chloropicrin, with the chloropicrin being included solely to give the chemical a smell enabling those in the area to be alerted if there was a risk. However, with the outset of very significant controls on methyl bromide, users have been experimenting with significant increases in the level of chloropicrin and reductions in the level of methyl bromide. While these new mixtures have generally been effective at controlling target pests, it must be stressed that the long term efficacy of these mixtures is unknown. Reduced methyl bromide concentrations in mixtures, more mechanized soil injection techniques, and the extensive use of tarps to cover land treated with methyl bromide has resulted in reduced emissions and an application rate that we believe is among the lowest in the world.

In terms of compliance, in general, the United States has used a combination of tight production and import controls, and the related market impacts to ensure compliance with the Protocol requirements on methyl bromide. Indeed, over the last   years, the price of methyl bromide has increased substantially. As Chart 1 in Appendix D demonstrates, the application of these policies has led to a more rapid U. S. phasedown in methyl bromide consumption than required under the Protocol. This accelerated phasedown on the consumption side may also have enabled methyl bromide production to be stockpiled 17 to some extent to help mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with the Protocol's 2003 and 2004 70% reduction. We are currently uncertain as to the exact quantity of existing stocks going into the 2003 season that may be stockpiled in the U. S. We currently believe that the limited existing stocks are likely to be depleted during 2003 and 2004. This factor is reflected in our requests for 2005 and beyond.

At the same time we have made efforts to reduce emissions and use of methyl bromide, we have also made strong efforts to find alternatives to methyl bromide. The section that follows discusses those efforts.

10. U. S. Efforts to Find, Register and Commercialize Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Over the past ten years, the United States has committed significant financial and technical resources to the goal of seeking alternatives to methyl bromide that are technically and economically feasible to provide pest protection for a wide variety of crops, soils, and pests, while also being acceptable in terms of human health and environmental impacts. The U. S. pesticide registration program has established a rigorous process to ensure that pesticides registered for use in the United States do no present an unreasonable risk of health or environmental harm. Within the program, we have given the highest priority to rapidly reviewing methyl bromide alternatives, while maintaining our high domestic standard of environmental protection. A number of alternatives have already been registered for use, and several additional promising alternatives are under review at this time. Our research efforts to find new alternatives to methyl bromide and move them quickly toward registration and commercialization have allowed us to make great progress over the last decade in phasing out many uses of methyl bromide. However, these efforts have not provided effective alternatives for all crops, soil types and pest pressures, and we have accordingly submitted a critical use nomination to address these limited additional needs.

Research Program When the United Nations, in 1992, identified methyl bromide as a chemical that contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer and the Clean Air Act committed the U. S. to phase out the use of methyl bromide, the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) initiated a research program to find viable alternatives. Finding alternatives for agricultural uses is extremely complicated compared to replacements for other, industrially used ozone depleting substances because many factors affect the efficacy such as: crop type, climate, soil type, and target pests, which change from region to region and among localities within a region.

Through 2002, the USDA Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) alone has spent US$ 135.5 million to implement an aggressive research program to find alternatives to methyl bromide ( see Table 1 below). Through the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA has provided an additional $ 11.4m since 1993 to state universities for alternatives research and outreach. This federally supported research is a supplement to extensive sector specific private sector efforts, and that all of this research is very well considered. Specifically, the phaseout challenges brought together agricultural and forestry leaders from private industry, academia, state governments, and the federal government to assess the problem, formulate priorities, and implement research directed at providing solutions under the USDA's Methyl Bromide Alternatives program. The ARS within USDA has 22 national programs, one of which is the Methyl Bromide Alternatives program ( Select Methyl Bromide Alternatives at this web site: http:// www. nps. ars. usda. gov). The resulting research program has taken into account these inputs, as well as the extensive private sector research and trial demonstrations of alternatives to methyl 18 bromide. While research has been undertaken in all sectors, federal government efforts have been based on the input of experts as well as the fact that nearly 80 percent of preplant methyl bromide soil fumigation is used in a limited number of crops. Accordingly, much of the federal government preplant efforts have focused on strawberries, tomatoes, ornamentals, peppers and nursery crops, ( forest, ornamental, strawberry, pepper, tree, and vine), with special emphasis on tomatoes in Florida and strawberries in California as model crops.

Table 1: Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research Funding History Year Expenditures by the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( US$ Million) 1993 $ 7.255 1994 $ 8.453 1995 $ 13.139 1996 $ 13.702 1997 $ 14.580 1998 $ 14.571 1999 $ 14.380 2000 $ 14.855 2001 $ 16.681 2002 $ 17.880 The USDA/ ARS strategy for evaluating possible alternatives is to first test the approaches in controlled experiments to determine efficacy, then testing those that are effective in field plots. The impact of the variables that affect efficacy is addressed by conducting field trials at multiple locations with different crops and against various diseases and pests. Alternatives that are effective in field plots are then tested in field scale validations, frequently by growers in their own fields. University scientists are also participants in this research. Research teams that include ARS and university scientists, extension personnel, and grower representatives meet periodically to evaluate research results and plan future trials.

Research results submitted with the CUE request packages ( including published, peer reviewed studies by ( primarily) university researchers, university extension reports, and unpublished studies) include trials conducted to assess the effectiveness of the most likely chemical and non chemical alternatives to methyl bromide, including some potential alternatives that are not currently included in the MBTOC list.

As demonstrated by the table above, U. S. efforts to research alternatives for methyl bromide have been substantial, and they have been growing in size as the phaseout has approached. The United States is committed to sustaining these research efforts in the future to continue to aggressively search for technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. We are also committed to continuing to share our research, and enable a global sharing of experience. Toward that end, for the past several years, key U. S. government agencies have collaborated with industry to host an annual conference on alternatives to methyl bromide. This conference, the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach ( MBAO), has become the premier forum for researchers and others to discuss scientific findings and progress in this field.

Government funded studies related to U. S. orchard replant production that are currently on going include the following: 19 1. Etiology, Epidemiology and Management of Diseases of Deciduous Tree Fruits and Nuts, and Small Fruit ( Nov., 1999 to July, 2004) Determine the etiology and epidemiology of Phytophthora root and crown rots, bacterial, virus and virus like disease of tree fruits and nuts, grapevines and strawberries. Develop improved reliable methods to detect and identify the pathogens associated with these diseases. Develop safe, effective, environmentally sound disease management strategies, including alternatives to methyl bromide preplant soil fumigation.

2. Sustainable Systems for Control of Soilborne Diseases in Tree Fruit AgroEcosystems ( Nov., 2002 to Nov., 2007) The fundamental goal of this research program is the development of sustainable methods for the control of soilborne diseases of fruit trees. Thus, the objectives are to examine the plant genotype specific induction of disease suppressive soils with attention to the operative soil microbial communities and host factors contributing to this phenomenon, investigate the role of soil microbial communities in disease suppression attained through incorporation of Brassicaceae plant residues, evaluate clonal rootstocks, and elements of the Malus germplasm, in terms of tolerance or resistance towards Rhizoctonia solani and Pythium spp., as well as the ability to support plant beneficial microbial communities, and develop and field validate biologically sustainable management strategies for control of soilborne diseases, with emphasis on apple replant disease, in conventional and organic production systems.

3. Biology and Management of Soilborne Diseases and Beneficial Soil and Root Inhabiting Microorganisms ( March, 1998 to March, 2003) Develop and evaluate biologically based strategies for the management of soilborne diseases and parasitic nematodes of small fruit and nursery crops. Characterize mechanisms of biological control of soilborne plant diseases. Evaluate the etiology and epidemiology of soilborne diseases of small fruit and nursery crops and the biology of causal pathogens. Develop management practices that optimize mineral nutrient use and root development and function of grapevines.

4. Soil Solarization Component of Integrated Program to Control Phytophthora Root Rot of Red Raspberry ( July, 2001 to July, 2006) To evaluate soil solarization alone and in combination with raised beds and gypsum soil amendment in an integrated plan for controlling root rot on red raspberry.

5. Factors Affecting the Production and Processing of Small Fruit Or Nursery Crops in the Pacific Northwest ( U. S.) ( Sept., 1999 to Sept., 2003) The objective of this cooperative research project is to determine factors that can improve the production and processing practices used for horticultural crops ( especially nursery crops and small fruit crops) grown in the Pacific Northwest, including cultural practices, propagation methods, environmental stresses, diseases, insects ( and mites), soil fertility and fertilization, organic amendments, irrigation, pruning, and irrigation.

6. Non Chemical Pest Control in Fruits and Nuts Using Electromagnetic Energy ( Sept., 2000 to Sept., 2004) Conduct research on quality of grapefruit, conduct research on Mexican fruit fly and apple maggot. Conduct pilot scale testing using RF equipment to develop process protocols for fruits ( grapefruit and orange) of interest to Texas. Coordinate large scale testing in Texas. 20 7. Development of an IPM Framework for Implementation of Methyl Bromide Alternatives into Orchard and Vineyard Replant Settings ( UC Riverside/ CSREES Oct., 2000 to Sept., 2005) Evaluate newly developed strategies and tactics that will replace methyl bromide use in commercial vineyards, orchards and nurseries.

Research results submitted with the critical use exemption request packages ( including published, peerreviewed studies by ( primarily) university researchers, university extension reports, and unpublished studies) include trials conducted to assess the effectiveness of the most likely chemical and nonchemical alternatives to methyl bromide, including some potential alternatives that are not currently included in the MBTOC list.

Field research programs are being conducted to determine and demonstrate the efficacy of alternatives for orchard replant. This research will give growers greater information for decisions about which alternative regime will work in particular circumstances. By the nature of orchards and vineyards this research is necessarily long term. Research is also being done on a county by county basis in California to determine how regulations effect the adoption of the alternatives. Total use of 1,3 dichloropropene is limited across all crops and buffer zones are required for the use of metam sodium. A large source of uncertainty is that results from research plots are difficult to transfer to full scale orchards.

The University of California has been working with other universities across the country on a biological control agent for the fungal pathogen Armillaria mellea. This is a promising area of research that might be incorporated into an IPM program. In addition, predictive models are being tested to help growers anticipate the level of infestation likely in a field that is to be replanted.

Research in application technology ( e. g., injection methods and application rates) may improve the uniformity of soil movement of chemicals, such as metam sodium. Non chemical alternatives have been incorporated and methods such as IPM, mulching, solarization, and biofumigation are being examined as part of an overall strategy to manage orchard replanting.

In addition to the aforementioned research, applicants to the U. S. government for inclusion in the nomination for critical uses have cited the following research plans as ones they are funding or otherwise participating in.

Table Grapes: The table grape industry provides research funding to Dr. Michael McKenry, University of California ( UC), Riverside, Department of Nematology and UC Kearney Agricultural Center, Parlier, CA for the continuing research project entitled " Evaluation of Two New Delivery Methods and a Variety of Products Indicated to be Nematicidal." The table grape industry recognizes and supports, at about US$ 15,000 annually, research efforts to test viable alternatives to methyl bromide to control nematodes and other soil pests. Some of the potential alternatives include fosthiazate, Oxycom, Cordon, Enzone, Admire, DiTera and Nemacur. Methods of delivering these nematicidal agents are being researched and include adapting a Patchen sensing and spraying system and a new pre plant drencher for post plant nematicides to vineyards not having drip irrigation. Dr. McKenry conducts the aforementioned research in the Central San Joaquin Valley, primarily at the UC Kearney Agricultural Center, Parlier, CA where he is based. The current research project mentioned above is in its fourth year and will likely continue for several years. 21 Walnuts: The walnut industry is conducting ongoing evaluations of existing field trials testing 1,3 dichloropropene , metam sodium and dazomet on nematode control. This three year study on nematode resistance by Mike McKenry is currently in the second year. The Walnut Marketing Board has allocated US$ 30,000 per year to this research.

Stone Fruit and Almonds: The almond industry supports the following research, also by Mike McKenry, to find alternative methods for controlling replant disorder. In 2003, stone fruit and walnut will be replanted after methyl iodide ( iodomethane), metam sodium, sodium azide and several other treatments. The stone fruit plantings include replanting on peach almond hybrid versus nemaguard rootstocks ( both used in the almond industry as well). Growth will be monitored for at least three years to determine the efficacy of the trials compared to methyl bromide and no pre plant soil treatments. Current funding for this project is US$ 20,000 per year.

Studies are being conducted to determine if injection of chloropicrin at 0.23 0.45 kg into planting holes is effective for controlling the fungal component of replant disorder and to determine if hole injection methods for 1,3 dichloropropene are effective. This continues work that was started in 2000. A new trial will be planted in northern Central Valley of California in 2003, comparing the efficacy of 1,3 dichloropropene , iodomethane ( methyl iodide), chloropicrin and methyl bromide applied to tree holes during 2002 on the disease component of replant disorder and tree growth. First growth results are expected for the fall of 2003, and growth of trees will be monitored for several years.

Plans to expand testing to the central and southern sections of the Central Valley include comparing the efficacy of treatment of tree sites, tree row strips and broadcast treatments of methyl bromide and several alternatives. Treatments would occur in the fall of 2003 and plantings occur in the spring of 2004. Funding is US$ 17,000 to 18,000 per year from the Almond Board. While the U. S. government's role to find alternatives is primarily in the research arena, we know that research is only one step in the process. As a consequence, we have also invested significantly in efforts to register alternatives, as well as efforts to support technology transfer and education activities with the private sector.

Registration Program The United States has one of the most rigorous programs in the world for safeguarding human health and the environment from the risks posed by pesticides. While we are proud of our efforts in this regard, related safeguards do not come without a cost in terms of both money and time. Because the registration process is so rigorous, it can take a new pesticide several years ( 3 5) to get registered by EPA. It also takes a large number of years to perform, draft results and deliver the large number of health and safety studies that are required for registration.

EPA regulates the use of pesticides under two major federal statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), both significantly amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA). Under FIFRA, EPA registers pesticides provided its use does not pose unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment. Under FFDCA, the U. S. EPA is responsible for setting tolerances ( maximum permissible residue levels) for any pesticide used on food or animal feed. With the passage of FQPA, the U. S. EPA is required to establish a single, health based standard for pesticides used on food crops and to 22 determine that establishment of a tolerance will result in a " reasonable certainty of no harm" from aggregate exposure to the pesticide.

The process by which EPA examines the ingredients of a new pesticide to determine if it is safe is called the registration process. The U. S. EPA evaluates the pesticide to ensure that it will not have any unreasonable adverse effects on humans, the environment, and non target species. Applicants seeking pesticide registration are required to submit a wide range of health and ecological effects toxicity data, environmental fate, residue chemistry and worker/ bystander exposure data and product chemistry data. A pesticide cannot be legally used in the U. S. if it has not been registered by EPA, unless it has an exemption from regulation under FIFRA.

Since 1997, the US EPA has made the registration of alternatives to methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because the US EPA currently has more applications pending in its review than the resources to evaluate them, EPA prioritizes the applications in its registration queue. By virtue of being a top registration priority, methyl bromide alternatives enter the science review process as soon as EPA receives the application and supporting data rather than waiting in turn for the EPA to initiate its review. The average processing time for a new active ingredient, from date of submission to issuance of a registration decision, is approximately 38 months. In most cases, the registrant ( the pesticide applicant) has spent approximately 7 10 years developing the data necessary to support registration.

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to methyl bromide, the US EPA has worked to reduce the burdens on data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the EPA's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the US EPA has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application, allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, US EPA scientists routinely meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants, counseling them through the preregistration process to increase the probability that the data is done right the first time and rework delays are minimized The US EPA has also co chaired the USDA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research, development and the registration of viable alternatives. The work group conducted six workshops in Florida and California ( states with the highest use of methyl bromide) with growers and researchers to identify potential alternatives, critical issues, and grower needs covering the major methyl bromide dependent crops and post harvest uses.

This coordination has resulted in key registration issues ( such as worker and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and groundwater concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural Research Service's $ 13.5 million per year research program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also EPA's participation in the evaluation of research grant proposals submitted to the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service methyl bromide alternatives research program of US$ 2.5 million per year has further ensured that critical registration issues are being addressed by the research community.

Since 1997, EPA has registered the following chemical/ use combinations as part of its commitment to expedite the review of methyl bromide alternatives:

1999: Pebulate to control weeds in tomatoes 2000: Phosphine to control insects in stored commodities 2001: Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus to control Indian meal moth in stored grains 23 2001: Terrazole to control pathogens in tobacco float beds 2001: Telone applied through drip irrigation  all crops 2002: Halosulfuron methyl to control weeds in melons and tomatoes EPA is currently reviewing several additional applications for registration as methyl bromide alternatives, with several registration eligibility decisions expected within the next year, including:

  Iodomethane as a pre plant soil fumigant for various crops   Fosthiazate as a pre plant nematocide for tomatoes   Sulfuryl fluoride as a post harvest fumigant for stored commodities   Trifloxysulfuron sodium as a pre plant herbicide for tomatoes   Dazomet as a pre plant soil fumigant for strawberries and tomatoes Again, while these activities appear promising, it must be noted that issues related to toxicity, ground water contamination, and the release of air pollutants may pose significant problems with respect to some alternatives that may lead to use restrictions since many of the growing regions are in sensitive areas such as those in close proximity to schools and homes. Ongoing research on alternate fumigants is evaluating ways to reduce emission under various application regimes and examining whether commonly used agrochemicals, such as fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors, could be used to rapidly degrade soil fumigants. For example, if registration of iodomethane or another alternative occurs in the near future, commercial availability and costs will be factors that must be taken into consideration.

It must be emphasized, however, that finding potential alternatives, and registering those alternatives is not the end of the story. Those alternatives must be trialed by users and must be finally adopted, which takes time. Allowing for users to trial alternatives, so farmers can adopt them, also involves time. As noted by TEAP, a specific alternative, once available may take two or three cropping seasons of use before efficacy can be determined in the specific circumstance of the user. In an effort to reduce related time frames, the United States government has also been involved in these steps by promoting technology transfer, experience transfer, and private sector training.

Some alternatives currently under review by EPA may be available for orchard replant in the future. These include: methyl iodide and propargyl bromide, which currently look promising in field studies. Although methyl iodide is chemically similar to methyl bromide, it photodegrades before it reaches the stratosphere, and therefore does not appear to be an ozone depleter. While methyl iodide and propargyl bromide are not currently registered in the U. S., research on these and other alternatives is on going.

11. Conclusion and Policy Issues Associated with the Nomination In summary, a review of the critical use exemption criteria in Decision IX/ 6 demonstrates that the Parties clearly understood the many issues that make methyl bromide distinctly different from the industrial chemicals previously addressed by the Parties under the essential use process. It is now the challenge of the MBTOC, TEAP and the Parties to consider the national submission of critical use nominations in the context of those criteria, and the information requirements established under Decision XIII/ 11.

In accordance with those Decisions, we believe that the U. S. nomination described in this document provides all of the information that has been requested by the Parties. On the basis of an exhaustive review by a large, multi disciplinary team of sector and general agricultural experts, we have determined that the potential alternatives identified by MBTOC for orchard replant are not technically 24 or economically feasible as covered by this exemption nomination for the orchard replant sector. Certain MBTOC alternatives ( 1,3 dichloropropene; 1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin; and 1,3 dichloropropene with metam sodium) were only effective against major pests of replanted orchards in limited situations. For instance, these chemicals were only effective against some pests associated with replant disorder, when orchards had light, sandy soils. In the orchards with medium and heavy soils ( approximately 65 percent of the orchards in California) these chemicals were not effective because of poor diffusion of fumigants into soils. Furthermore, in some areas there are restrictions in the use of 1,3 dichloropropene due to " township caps" that limit the total amount of 1,3 dichloropropene allowed. Once the limit has been reached, no further use of 1,3 dichloropropene is legally allowed. Therefore, even when alternatives containing 1,3 dichloropropene are effective, township limitations may make them unavailable for orchard use. As a result, methyl bromide is being supported for use by the orchard replant sector for those orchards that have no effective alternatives to methyl bromide, or in cases where alternatives are not available due to legal restrictions.

The U. S. expends significant efforts to find and commercialize alternatives, and potential alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for orchard replant. However, the registration process, which is designed to ensure that new pesticides do not pose unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment, is a long and rigorous one. The U. S. need for methyl bromide for orchard replant will be maintained for the period being requested.

In reviewing this nomination, we believe that it is important for the MBTOC, the TEAP and the Parties to understand some of the policy issues associated with our request. A discussion of those follows:

a. Request for Aggregate Exemption for All Covered Methyl Bromide Uses: As mandated by Decision XIII/ 11, the nomination information that is being submitted with this package includes information requested on historic use and estimated need in individual sectors. That said, we note our agreement with past MBTOC and TEAP statements which stress the dynamic nature of agricultural markets, uncertainty of specific production of any one crop in any specific year, the difficulty of projecting several years in advance what pest pressures might prevail on a certain crop, and, the difficulty of estimating what a particular market for a specific crop might look like in a future year. We also concur with the MBTOC's fear that countries that have taken significant efforts to reduce methyl bromide use and emissions through dilution with chloropicrin may be experiencing only short term efficacy in addressing pest problems. On the basis of those factors, we urge the MBTOC and the TEAP to follow the precedent established under the essential use exemption process for Metered Dose Inhalers ( MDIs) in two key areas.

First, because of uncertainties in both markets and the future need for individual active moieties of drugs, the TEAP has never provided a tonnage limit for each of the large number of active moieties found in national requests for a CFC essential use exemption for MDIs, but has instead recommended an aggregate tonnage exemption for national use. This has been done with an understanding that the related country will ensure that the tonnage approved for an exemption will be used solely for the group of active moieties/ MDIs that have been granted the exemption. We believe that the factors of agricultural uncertainty surrounding both pest pressures in future year crops, and efficacy of reduced methyl bromide application provide an even stronger impetus for using a similar approach here. The level of unpredictability in need leads to a second area of similarity with MDIs, the essential need for a review of the level of the request which takes into account the need for a margin of safety.

b. Recognition of Uncertainty in Allowing Margin for Safety: With MDIs, it was essential to address the possible change in patient needs over time, and in agriculture, this is essential to address the 25 potential that the year being requested for could be a particularly bad year in terms of weather and pest pressure. In that regard, the TEAP's Chart 2 in Appendix D demonstrates the manner in which this need for a margin of safety was addressed in the MDI area. Specifically, Chart 2 in Appendix D tracks national CFC requests for MDIs compared with actual use of CFC for MDIs over a number of years.

Chart 2 in Appendix D demonstrates several things. First, despite the best efforts of many countries to predict future conditions, it shows that due to the acknowledged uncertainty of out year need for MDIs, Parties had the tendency to request, the TEAP recommended, and the Parties approved national requests that turned out to include an appreciable margin of safety. In fact, this margin of safety was higher at the beginning   about 40% above usage   and then went down to 30% range after 4 years. Only after 5 years of experience did the request come down to about 10% above usage. While our experience with the Essential Use process has aided the U. S. in developing its Critical Use nomination, we ask the MBTOC, the TEAP and the Parties to recognize that the complexities of agriculture make it difficult to match our request exactly with expected usage when the nomination is made two to three years in advance of the time of actual use.

Chart 2 in Appendix D also demonstrates that, even though MDI requests included a significant margin of safety, the nominations were approved and the countries receiving the exemption for MDIs did not produce the full amount authorized when there was not a patient need. As a result, there was little or no environmental consequence of approving requests that included a margin of safety, and the practice can be seen as being normalized over time. In light of the similar significant uncertainty surrounding agriculture and the out year production of crops which use methyl bromide, we wish to urge the MBTOC and TEAP to take a similar, understanding approach for methyl bromide and uses found to otherwise meet the critical use criteria. We believe that this too would have no environmental consequence, and would be consistent with the Parties aim to phaseout methyl bromide while ensuring that agriculture itself is not phased out.

c. Duration of Nomination: It is important to note that while the request included for the use above appears to be for a single year, the entire U. S. request is actually for two years   2005 and 2006. This multi year request is consistent with the TEAP recognition that the calendar year does not, in most cases, correspond with the cropping year. This request takes into account the facts that registration and acceptance of new, efficacious alternatives can take a long time, and that alternatives must be tested in multiple cropping cycles in different geographic locations to determine efficacy and consistency before they can be considered to be widely available for use. Finally, the request for multiple years is consistent with the expectation of the Parties and the TEAP as evidenced in the Parties and MBTOC request for information on the duration of the requested exemption. As noted in the Executive Summary of the overall U. S. request, we are requesting that the exemption be granted in a lump sum of 9,920,965 kilograms for 2005 and 9,445,360 kilograms for 2006. While it is our hope that the registration and demonstration of new, cost effective alternatives will result in even speedier reductions on later years, the decrease in our request for 2006 is a demonstration of our commitment to work toward further reductions in our consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses. At this time, however, we have not believed it possible to provide a realistic assessment of exactly which uses would be reduced to account for the overall decrease.

12. Contact Information:

For further general information or clarifications on material contained in the U. S. nomination for critical uses, please contact: 26 John E. Thompson, Ph. D. Office of Environmental Policy US Department of State 2201 C Street NW Rm 4325 Washington, DC 20520 tel: 202 647 9799 fax: 202 647 5947 e mail: ThompsonJE2@ state. gov Alternate Contact: Denise Keehner, Director Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticides Programs US Environmental Protection Agency, 7503C Washington, DC 20460 tel: 703 308 8200 fax: 703 308 8090 e mail: methyl. bromide@ epa. gov 13. References Browne, G., L. Bulluck, J. Connell, T. Trout and S. Schneider. 2001. Determining unknown causes of replant disorder on Prunus species in California, Conference proceedings of the 2001 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, at http:// mbao. org/ 2002proc/ mbrpro01. html.

Browne, G., J. Connell, L. Bulluck, T. Trout and S. Schneider. 2002. Management of replant disorder on almond and peach, Conference proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, at http:// mbao. org/ 2002proc/ mbrpro02. html.

Buchner, R., J. Edstrom, J. Hasey, W. Krueger, W. Olson, W. Reil, K. Klonsky and R. De Moura. 2002. Sample costs to establish a walnut orchard and produce walnuts, Sacramento Valley, University of California Cooperative Extension, at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ cost studies/ WalnutSac2002. pdf Day, K., H. Andris, R. Beede, K. Klonsky, R. De Moura and P. Livingston. 2000a. Sample costs to establish a peach/ nectarine orchard and produce peaches/ nectarines, southern San Joaquin Valley, University of California Cooperative Extension, available at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ cost studies/ 2000peach. pdf.

Day, K., H. Andris, R. Beede, K. Klonsky, R. De Moura and P. Livingston. 2000b. Sample costs to establish a plum orchard and produce plums, southern San Joaquin Valley, University of California Cooperative Extension, available at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ cost studies/ Plums2000. pdf.

Duncan, R., P. Verdegaal, B. Holtz, K. Klonsky and R. De Moura. 2002. Sample costs to establish an almond orchard and produce almonds, San Joaquin Valley North, micro sprinkler irrigation, 27 University of California Cooperative Extension, at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ coststudies/ AMSPRKVN02. pdf.

Grant, J., J. Caprile, K. Kelley, K. Klonsky and R. De Moura. 2001. Sample costs to establish an orchard and produce sweet cherries, San Joaquin Valley  North, University of California Cooperative Extension, available at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ cost studies/ CherrySJVN2001. pdf.

Klonsky, K., H. Andris, B. Beede, S. Sibbett and P. Livingston. 1997. Sample costs to establish a prune orchard and produce prunes, in the southern San Joaquin Valley, University of California Cooperative Extension, available at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ coststudies 97Prunes. pdf.

UNEP ( United Nations Environment Programme), 1998. Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC) 1998 assessment of alternatives to methyl bromide. p. 49 U. S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service ( USDA/ NASS). 2001. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, 2000 Summary, July.

14. Appendices Appendix A. List of Critical Use Exemption Requests for the Orchard Replant Sector in the U. S.

CUE 02 0013, California Grape and Tree Fruit League ( Stone Fruit)

CUE 02 0014, California Grape and Tree Fruit League ( Table and Raisin Grapes)

CUE 02 0029, California Walnut Commission CUE 02 0043, Almond Hullers and Processors Association Appendix B. Spreadsheets Supporting Economic Analysis Appendix B is attached as a separate file.

Appendix C: U. S. Technical and Economic Review Team Members Christine M. Augustyniak ( Technical Team Leader). Christine has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1985. She has held several senior positions, both technical and managerial, including Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Chief of the Analytical Support Branch in EPA's office of Environmental Information and Deputy Director for the Environmental Assistance Division in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. She earned her Ph. D. ( Economics) from The University of Michigan ( Ann Arbor). Dr. Augustyniak is a 1975 graduate of Harvard University ( Cambridge) cum laude ( Economics). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Augustyniak was a member of the economics faculty at the College of the Holy Cross ( Worcester). 28 William John Chism ( Lead Biologist). Bill has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2000. He evaluates the efficacy of pesticides for weed and insect control. He earned his Ph. D. ( Weed Science) from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ( Blacksburg), a Master of Science ( Plant Physiology) from The University of California ( Riverside) and a Master of Science ( Agriculture) from California Polytechnic State University ( San Luis Obispo). Dr. Chism is a 1978 graduate of The University of California ( Davis). For ten years prior to joining the EPA Dr. Chism held research scientist positions at several speciality chemical companies, conducting and evaluating research on pesticides.

Technical Team Jonathan J. Becker ( Biologist) Jonathan has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He has held several technical positions and currently serves as a Senior Scientific Advisor within the Office of Pesticides Programs. In this position he leads the advancement of scientific methods and approaches related to the development of pesticides use information, the assessment of impacts of pesticides regulations, and the evaluation of the benefits from the use of pesticides. He earned his Ph. D. ( Zoology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville) and a Masters of Science ( Biology/ Zoology) from Idaho State University ( Pocatello). Dr. Becker is a graduate of Idaho State University. Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Becker worked as a senior environmental scientist with an environmental consulting firm located in Virginia.

Diane Brown Rytlewski ( Biologist) Diane is the Nursery and Landscape IPM Integrator at Michigan State University, a position she has held since 2000. She acts as liaison between industry and the university, facilitating research partnerships and cooperative relationships, developing outreach programs and resource materials to further the adoption of IPM. Ms. Rytlewski holds a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) and a Bachelor of Science ( Entomology), both from the University of Wisconsin ( Madison). She has over twenty year experience working in the horticulture field, including eight years as supervisor of the IPM program at the Chicago Botanic Garden.

Greg Browne ( Biologist). Greg has been with the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1995. Located in the Department of Plant Pathology of the University of California ( Davis), Greg does research on soilborne diseases of crop systems that currently use methyl bromide for disease control, with particular emphasis on diseases caused by Phytophthora species. He is the author of numerous articles on the use of alternatives to methyl bromide for the control of diseases in fruit and nut crops He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from the University of California ( Davis) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from the same institution. Dr. Browne is a graduate of The University of California ( Davis). Prior to joining USDA was a farm advisor in Kern County.

Nancy Burrelle ( Biologist). Nancy Burelle is a Research Ecologist with USDA's Agricultural Research Service, currently working on preplant alternatives to methyl bromide. She earned both her Ph. D. and Master of Science degrees ( both in Plant Pathology) from Auburn University ( Auburn).

Linda Calvin ( Economist). Linda Calvin is an agricultural economist with USDA's Economic Research Service, specializing in research on topics affecting fruit and vegetable markets. She earned her Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of California ( Berkeley). 29 Kitty F. Cardwell ( Biologist). Kitty has been the National Program Leader in Plant Pathology for the U. S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service since 2001. In this role she administrates all federally funded research and extension related to plant pathology, of the Land Grant Universities throughout the U. S. She earned her Ph. D. ( Phytopathology) from Texas A& M University ( College Station). Dr. Cardwell is a 1976 graduate of The University of Texas ( Austin) cum laude ( Botany). For twelve years prior to joining USDA Dr. Cardwell managed multinational projects on crop disease mitigation and food safety with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Cotonou, Bénin and Ibadan, Nigeria.

William Allen Carey ( Biologist). Bill is a Research Fellow in pest management for southern forest nurseries, supporting the Auburn University Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative. He is the author of numerous articles on the use of alternative fumigants to methyl bromide in tree nursery applications. He earned his Ph. D. ( Forest Pathology) from Duke University ( Durham) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville). Dr. Carey is a nationally recognized expert in the field of nursery pathology.

Margriet F. Caswell ( Economist). Margriet has been with the USDA Economic Research Service since 1991. She has held both technical and managerial positions, and is now a Senior Research Economist in the Resource, Technology & Productivity Branch, Resource Economics Division. She earned her Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from the University of California ( Berkeley). Dr. Caswell also received a Master of Science ( Resource Economics) and Bachelor of Science ( Natural Resource Management) from the University of Rhode Island ( Kingston). Prior to joining USDA, Dr. Caswell was a member of both the Environmental Studies and Economics faculties at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Tara Chand Goyal ( Biology). Tara has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as a plant pathologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on risk reduction. He earned his Ph. D. ( Mycology and Plant Pathology) from The Queen's University ( Belfast) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology and Mycology) from Punjab University ( Ludhiana). Dr. Chand Goyal is a graduate of Punjab University. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Chand Goyal was a member of the faculty of The Oregon State University ( Corvallis) and of The University of California ( Riverside). His areas of research and publication include: the biology of viral, bacterial and fungal diseases of plants; biological control of plant diseases; and, genetic manipulation of microorganisms.

Daniel Chellemi ( Biologist). Dan has been a research plant pathologist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1997. His research speciality is the ecology, epidemiology, and management of soilborne plant pathogens. He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from The University of California ( Davis) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Hawaii ( Manoa). Dr. Chellemi is a 1982 graduate of the University of Florida ( Gainesville) with a degree in Plant Science. He is the author of numerous articles in the field of plant pathology. In 2000 Dr. Chellemi was awarded the ARS " Early Career Research Scientist if the Year". Prior to joining USDA, Dr. Chellemi was a member of the plant pathology department of The University of Florida ( Gainesville). Angel Chiri ( Biologist). Angel has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as an entomologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on benefits of pesticide use. He earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of California ( Riverside) and a Master of Science ( Biology/ Entomology) from California State University ( Long Beach). Dr. Chiri is a graduate of California State University ( Los 30 Angeles). Prior to joining EPA Dr. Chiri was a pest and pesticide management advisor for the U. S. Agency for International Development working mostly in Latin America on IPM issues.

Colwell Cook ( Biologist). Colwell has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2000. She serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as an entomologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on benefits of pesticide use. She earned her Ph. D. ( Entomology) from Purdue University ( West Lafayette) and has a Master of Science ( Entomology) from Louisiana State University ( Baton Rouge). Dr. Cook is a 1979 graduate of Clemson University. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Cook held several faculty positions at Wabash College ( Crawfordsville) and University of Evansville ( Evansville).

Julie B. Fairfax ( Biologist) Julie has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. She currently serves as a senior biologist in the Biological and Economics Analysis Division, and has previously served as a Team Leader in other divisions within the Office of Pesticides Programs. She has held several technical positions specializing in the registration, re registration, special review and regulation of fungicidal, antimicrobial, and wood preservative pesticides. Ms. Fairfax is a 1989 graduate of James Madison University ( Harrisonburg, VA) where she earned her degree in Biology. Prior to joining EPA, Julie worked as a laboratory technician for the Virginia Poultry Industry.

John Faulkner ( Economist) John has been with the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs analyzing the costs imposed by the regulation of pesticides. He earned his Ph. D. ( Economics) from the University of Colorado ( Boulder) and holds a Master's of Business Administration from The University of Michigan ( Ann Arbor). Dr. Faulkner is a 1965 graduate of the University of Colorado ( Boulder). Prior to joining EPA was a member of the economics faculty of the Rochester Institute of Technology ( Rochester), The University of Colorado ( Boulder) and of the Colorado Mountain College ( Aspen).

Clara Fuentes ( Biologist). Clara has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection agency since 1999, working in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ( Region III) office. She specializes in reviewing human health risk evaluations to pesticides exposures and supporting the state pesticide programs in Region III. She earned her Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of Maryland ( College Park) and a Master of Science ( Zoology) from Iowa State University ( Ames). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Fuentes worked as a research assistant at U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) ( Beltsville), Maryland, and as a faculty member of the Natural Sciences Department at InterAmerican University of Puerto Rico. Her research interest is in the area of Integrated Pest Management in agriculture.

James Gilreath ( Biologist). Jim has been with the University of Florida Gulf Coast Research and Education Center since 1981. In this position his primary responsibilities are to plan, implement and publish the results of investigations in weed science in vegetable and ornamental crops. One main focus of the research is the evaluation and development of weed management programs for specific weed pests. He earned his Ph. D. ( Horticulture) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville) and a Master of Science, also in Horticulture, from Clemson University ( Clemson). Dr. Gilreath is a 1974 graduate of Clemson University ( Clemson) with a degree in Agronomy and Soils.

Arthur Grube ( Economist). Arthur has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1987. He is now a Senior Economist in the Biological and Economics Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. He earned his Ph. D. ( Economics) from North Carolina State University ( Raleigh) and a Masters of Arts ( Economics) also from North Carolina State University. Dr. Grube is a 1970 31 graduate of Simon Fraser University ( Vancouver) where his Bachelor of Arts degree ( Economics) was earned with honors. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Grube conducted work on the costs and benefits of pesticide use at the University of Illinois ( Urbana). Dr. Grube has been a co author of a number of journal articles in various areas of pesticide economics LeRoy Hansen ( Economist). LeRoy Hansen is currently employed as an Agricultural Economist for the USDA Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division in the Resources and Environmental Policy Branch. He received his Ph. D. in resource economics from Iowa State University ( Ames) in 1986. During his 16 years at USDA, Dr. Hansen has published USDA reports, spoken at profession meetings, and appeared in television and radio interviews.

Frank Hernandez ( Economist). Frank has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1991. He is a staff economist at the Biological and Economic Analysis Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs. He holds degrees in Economics and Political Science from the City University of New York.

Arnet W. Jones ( Biologist). Arnet has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1990. He has had several senior technical and management positions and currently serves as Chief of the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Prior to joining EPA he was Senior Agronomist at Development Assistance Corporation, a Washington, D. C. firm that specialized in international agricultural development. He holds a Master of Science ( Agronomy) from the University of Maryland ( College Park).

Hong Jin Kim ( Economist). Jin has been an economist at the National Center for Environmental Economics at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) since 1998. His primary areas of research interest include environmental cost accounting for private industries He earned his Ph. D. ( Environmental and Resource Economics) from The University of California ( Davis) and holds a Master of Science from the same institution. Dr. Kim is a 1987 graduate of Korea University ( Seoul) with a Bachelor of Arts ( Economics). Prior to joining the U. S. EPA, Dr. Kim was an assistant professor at the University of Alaska ( Anchorage) and an economist at the California Energy Commissions. Dr. Kim is the author of numerous articles in the fields of resource and environmental economics.

James Leesch ( Biologist). Jim has been a research entomologist with the Agricultural Resarch Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1971. His main area of interest is post harvest commodity protection at the San Joaquin Valle. He earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology/ Insect Toxicology) from The University of California ( Riverside) Dr. Leesch received a B. A. degree in Chemistry from Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA in 1965. He is currently a Research entomologist for the Agricultural Research Service ( USDA) researching Agricultural Sciences Center in Parlier, CA. He joined ARS in June of 1971.

Sean Lennon ( Biologist). Sean is a Biologist interning with the Office of Pesticide Programs of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. He will receive his M. S. in Plant and Environmental Science in December 2003 from Clemson University ( Clemson). Mr. Lennon is a graduate of Georgia College & State University ( Milledgeville) where he earned a Bachelor of Science ( Biology). Sean is conducting research in Integrated Pest Management of Southeastern Peaches. He has eight years of experience in the commercial peach industry. Nikhil Mallampalli ( Biologist). Nikhil has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2001. He is an entomologist in the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch of the Biological and Economic Analysis Division. His primary duties include the assessment of pesticide efficacy in a variety of crops, 32 and analysis of the impacts of risk mitigation on pest management. Dr. Mallampalli earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of Maryland ( College Park) and holds a Master of Science ( Entomology) from the samr institution. Prior to joining the EPA, he worked as a postdoctoral research fellow at Michigan State University ( East Lansing) on IPM projects designed to reduce reliance on pesticides in small fruit production.

Tom Melton ( Biologist). Tom has been a member of the Plant Pathology faculty at North Carolina State University since 1987. Starting as an assistant professor and extension specialist, Tom has become the Philip Morris Professor at North Carolina State University. His primary responsibilities are to develop and disseminate disease management strategies for tobacco. Dr. Melton earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign) and holds a Master of Science ( Pest Management) degree from North Carolina State University ( Raleigh). He is a 1978 graduate of Norht Carolina State University ( Raleigh) Prior to joining the North Carolina State faculty, Dr. Melton was a member of the faculty at The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign).

Richard Michell ( Biologist). Rich has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1972. He is a nematologist/ plant pathologist in the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch of the Biological and Economic Analysis Division. His primary duties include the assessment of pesticide efficacy in a variety of crops, with special emphasis on fungicide and nematicide use and the development of risk reduction options for fungicides and nematicides. Dr. Michell earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology/ Nematology) from The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign) and holds a Master of Science degree ( Plant Pathology/ Nematology) from The University of Georgia ( Athens).

Lorraine Mitchell ( Economist). Lorraine has been an agricultural economist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service since 1998. She works on agricultural trade issues, particularly pertaining to consumer demand in the EU and emerging markets. Dr. Mitchell earned her Ph. D. ( Economics) from The University of California ( Berkeley). Prior to joining ERS, Dr. Mitchell was a member of the faculty of the School of International Service of The American University ( Washington) and a research assistant at the World Bank.

Thuy Nguyen ( Chemist). Thuy has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997, as a chemist in the Office of Pesticides Program. She assesses and characterizes ecological risk of pesticides in the environment as a result of agricultural uses. She earned her degrees of Master of Science ( Chemistry) from the University of Delaware and Bachelor of Science ( Chemistry and Mathematics) from Mary Washington College ( Fredericksburg, VA). Prior to joining the EPA, Ms Nguyen held a research and development scientist position at Sun Oil company in Marcus Hook, PA, then managed the daily operation of several EPA certified laboratories for the analyses of pesticides and other organic compounds in air, water, and sediments.

Jack Norton( Biologist). Jack has worked for the U. S. Department of Agriculture Interregional research Project # 4 ( IR 4) as a consultant since 1998. The primary focus of his research is the investigation of potential methyl bromide replacement for registration on minor crops. He is an active member of the USDA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Working Group. Dr, Norton earned his Ph. D. ( Horticulture) from Texas A& M University ( College Station) and holds a Master of Science ( Horticultural Science) from Oklahoma State University( Stillwater). He is a graduate of Oklahoma State University ( Stillwater). Prior to joining the IR 4 program, Dr. Norton worked in the crop protection industry for 27 years where he was responsible for the development and registration of a number of important products. 33 Olga Odiott ( Biologist) Olga has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. She has held several technical positions and currently serves as a Senior Biologist within the Office of Science Coordination and Policy. In this position she serves as Designated Federal Official and liaison on behalf of the Office of Pesticide Programs and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, an independent peer review body that provides advice to the Agency on issues concerning the impact of pesticides on health and the environment. She holds a Masters of Science ( Plant Pathology) from the University of Puerto Rico ( San Juan). Prior to joining EPA, Ms. Odiott worked for the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Craig Osteen( Economist). Craig has been with the U. S. Department of Agriculture for over 20 years. He currently is with the Economic Research Service in the Production Management and Technology Branch, Resource Economics Division. He primary areas of interest relate to issues of pest control, including pesticide regulation, integrated pest management, and the methyl bromide phase out. Dr. Osteen earned his Ph. D. ( Natural Resource Economics) from Michigan State University ( East Lansing).

Elisa Rim ( Economist). Elisa is an Agricultural Economist interning with the Office of Pesticide Programs of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. She earned her Master of Science ( Agricultural Economics) from The Ohio State University ( Columbus) and holds a Bachelor of Arts ( Political Science) from the same institution. She has conducted research in environmental economics and developed a cost analysis optimization model for stream naturalization projects in northwest Ohio.

Erin Rosskopf ( Biologist). Erin received her PhD from the Plant Pathology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville in 1997. She is currently a Research Microbiologist with the USDA, ARS and has served in this position for 5 years.

Carmen L. Sandretto ( Agricultural Economist). Carmen has been with the Economic Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture for over 30 years in a variety of assignments at several field locations, and since 1985 in Washington, DC. He has worked on a range of natural resource economics issues and in recent years on soil conservation and management, pesticide use and water quality, and small farm research studies. Mr. Sandretto holds a Master of Arts degree ( Economics) from Harvard University ( Cambridge) and a Master of Science ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of Wisconsin ( Madison). Mr Sandretto is a graduate of Michigan State University ( East Lansing). Prior to serving in Washington, D. C. he was a member of the economics faculty at Michigan State University and at the University of New Hampshire ( Durham).

Judith St. John ( Biologist). Judy has been with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service since 1967. She currently serves as Associate Deputy Administrator and as such she is responsible for the Department's intramural research programs in the plant sciences, including those dealing with pre and post harvest alternatives to methyl bromide. Dr. St. John earned her Ph. D. ( Plant Physiology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville).

James Throne ( Biologist). Jim is a Research Entomologist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and Research Leader of the Biological Research Unit at the Grain Marketing and Production Research Center in Manhattan, Kansas. He conducts research in insect ecology and development of simulation models for improving integrated pest management systems for stored grain and processed cereal products. Other current areas of research include investigating seed resistance to stored grain insect pests and use of near infrared spectroscopy for detection of insectinfested grain. Jim has been with ARS since 1985. Dr. Throne earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) in 1983 from Cornell University ( Ithaca) and earned a Master of Science Degree ( Entomology) in 1978 from 34 Washington State University ( Pullman). Dr. throne is a 1976 graduate ( Biology) of Southeastern Massachusetts University ( N. Dartmouth).

Thomas J. Trout ( Agricultural Engineer). Tom has been with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service since 1982. He currently serves as research leader in the Water Management Research Laboratory in Fresno, CA. His present work includes studying factors that affect infiltration rates and water distribution uniformity under irrigation, determining crop water requirements, and developing alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation. Dr. Trout earned his Ph. D. ( Agricultural Engineering) from Colorado State University ( Fort Collins) and holds a Master of Science degree from the same institution, also in agricultural engineering. Dr. Trout is a 1972 graduate of Case Western Reserve University ( Cleveland) with a degree in mechanical engineering. Prior to joining the ARS, Dr. trout was a member of the engineering faculty of Colorado State University ( Fort Collins). He is the author of numerous publications on the subject of methyl bromide alternatives.

J. Bryan Unruh ( Biologist). Bryan is Associate Professor of Environmental Horticulture at The University of Florida ( Milton) and an extension specialist in turfgrass. He leads the statewide turfgrass extension design team. Dr. Unruh earned his Ph. D. ( Horticulture) from Iowa State University ( Ames) and holds a Master of Science degree ( Horticulture) from Kansas State University ( Manhattan). He is a 1989 graduate of Kansas State University.

David Widawsky ( Chief, Economic Analysis Branch). David has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1998. He has also served as an economist and a team leader. As branch chief, David is responsible for directing a staff of economists to conduct economic analyses in support of pesticide regulatory decisions. He earned his Ph. D. ( Development and Applied Economics) from Stanford University ( Palo Alto), and a Master of Science ( Agricultural Economics) from Colorado State University ( Fort Collins). Dr. Widawsky is a 1987 graduate ( Plant and Soil Biology, Agricultural Economics) of the University of California ( Berkeley). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Widawsky conducted research on the economics of integrated pest management in Asian rice production, while serving as an agricultural economist at the International Rice Research Institute ( IRRI) in the Philippines.

TJ Wyatt ( Economist). TJ has been with the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency since 2001. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs analyzing the costs and benefits of pesticide regulation. His other main area of research is farmer decision making, especially pertaining to issues of soil fertility and soil conservation and of pesticide choice. Dr. Wyatt earned his Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of California ( Davis). Dr. Wyatt holds a Master of Science ( International Agricultural Development) from the same institution. He is a 1985 graduate of The University of Wyoming ( Laramie). Prior to joining the EPA, he worked at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics ( ICRISAT) and was based at the Sahelian Center in Niamey, Niger.

Leonard Yourman ( Biologist). Leonard is a plant pathologist with the Biological and Economic Analysis Division of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. He currently conducts assessments of pesticide use as they relate to crop diseases. He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from Clemson University ( Clemson) and holds a Master of Science ( Horticulture/ Plant Breeding) from Texas A& M University ( College Station). Dr. Yourman is a graduate ( English Literature) of The George Washington University ( Washington, DC). . Prior to joining EPA, he conducted research on biological control of invasive plants with USDA at the Foreign Disease Weed Science Research Unit ( Ft. Detrick, MD). He has also conducted research on biological control of post harvest diseases of apples and pears at the USDA Appalachian Fruit Research Station ( Kearneysville, WV). Research at Clemson 35 University concerned the molecular characterization of fungicide resistance in populations of the fungal plant pathogen Botrytis cinerea.

Istanbul Yusuf ( Economist). Istanbul has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1998. She serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs analyzing the costs imposed by the regulation of pesticides. She earned her Masters degree in Economics from American University ( Washington). Ms Yusuf is a 1987 graduate of Westfield State College ( Westfield) with a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration. Prior to joining EPA Istanbul worked for an International Trading Company in McLean, Virginia.

Appendix D: CHARTS Charts 1 and 2 attached as separate electronic file.