U. S. A. TOBACCO NURSERY TRAYS TRANSPLANT TRAYS USED IN FLOAT BED CULTURE TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 Critical Need for Methyl Bromide............................................................................................... 2 Response to Questions from MBTOC/ TEAP .............................................................................. 2 Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 6 References .................................................................................................................................. 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Region, Key Pests, and Critical Need for Methyl Bromide. .......................................... 2 Table 2. Historical Use of Methyl Bromide in the Seedling Transplant Tray Sector.................... 4 Table 3. Calculation of the Nominated Amount of Methyl Bromide in the Seedling Transplant Tray Sector........................................................................................................................... 4 Page 2 INTRODUCTION The U. S. nursery tray CUE nomination requests use of a small amount of methyl bromide ( MB) to allow continued use of a float bed transplant system instead of field grown transplants. Growers in North Carolina, anticipating a need to reduce their reliance on MB, switched to float bed cultivation several years ago, resulting in a reduction in MB consumption by over 99% as compared to field grown transplants. Alternatives that would allow phase out the final 1% of MB use in this sector are not deemed to be feasible at this time. The only fungicide registered for use on tobacco transplants, etridiazole, has not been shown to be effective against Rhizoctonia spp., which is one of the major target pests in transplant trays.

Table 1. REGION, KEY PESTS, AND CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE.

U. S. Region / States Key Pests Critical Need for Methyl Bromide Tobacco Growers Association of North Carolina ( CUE 02 0025) Diseases: Rhizoctonia spp.; Pythium spp.; Phytophthora spp. There are no registered alternatives that can control the pathogens in polystyrene transplant trays. MB applications in transplant trays are typically made using 98: 2 mixtures with chloropicrin under plastic tarps. The quantity nominated represents a 99% reduction in the amount of MB used in the past for field grown transplants.

CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE The North Carolina tobacco seedling industry has reduced its MB use to 1% of its previous use by implementing a float bed transplant system instead of field grown transplants. Prior to the 1990s, tobacco transplants were produced in outdoor soil plant beds, which were fumigated with MB at a rate of 6 to 8 kg of active ingredient ( a. i.) per 165 m2, sufficient for establishing one hectare of tobacco ( 6 7 lb per 720 ft2 to establish one acre). If bed fumigation were still in use, it would require over 454,500 kg ( 1,000,000 lb) of MB to fumigate sufficient plant beds for 2002 levels of tobacco production in North Carolina, the major producing state. During the 1990s, however, direct seeded systems were developed to raise tobacco seedlings in a float system in greenhouses and the system was rapidly adopted throughout North Carolina.

The float bed transplant system is a modified hydroponic/ subsurface watering system. Each tray contains 200 338 cells with each cell containing one seedling. The use of polystyrene trays is necessary because the trays must float in the nutrient media. After plants are transplanted, trays are disinfected and stored until next season. The polystyrene trays are stacked, tarped and then MB is applied at a rate of about 1 kg per 21 m3 ( 3 lb per 1000 ft2). At the current application rate, making the adjustments discussed in Table 3, it will take 1,323 kg ( 3,000 lb) of MB to sterilize the trays needed to produce sufficient transplants for the tobacco crop of North Carolina. This is 1 percent of the amount that would have been needed to raise tobacco seedlings under the previous field bed production system.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM MBTOC/ TEAP 1. " MBTOC noted that alternatives are in common use in similar circumstances in several countries. These alternatives include chlorine, irradiation, fungicides, steam, and quaternary ammonium compounds Page 3 The United States has not found evidence that alternatives are in common use in similar circumstances. Statements in the literature about the effectiveness of alternatives pertain to one of two situations: either hard plastic trays are being used rather that the floating system of polystyrene trays, or fungicides are registered in those countries that are effective against these pathogens. For the system of seedling production in current use, the suggested alternatives are not effective. Specifically,

Chlorine: The United States finds that liquid chlorine does not penetrate the spaces within the polystyrene transplant trays to kill the fungal pathogens. Chlorine will penetrate the trays with a surfactant added. Unfortunately, with a surfactant the liquid cannot be drained from the spaces within the tray resulting in plant phytotoxicity and/ or sinking of the transplant trays. Also, salt residues can cause serious problems resulting in plant kills ( personal communication, Thomas A. Melton, Ph. D., Philip Morris Professor, North Carolina State University).

Irradiation: Currently no producers of tobacco seedlings in the United States use irradiation to sterilize their trays. The United States has been unable to find data indicating that irradiation is effective and does not damage the polystyrene trays. Additionally, the United States estimates that the cost of irradiation plus transportation to the facility is extremely high, $ 100 1,000/ kg of MB replaced.

Fungicides: Etridiazole has recently been registered, under the trade name Terrazole, to control pathogens in tobacco float beds. It is applied in the water upon which the plastic beds float about two to eight weeks after seeding. However, it has not been shown to be effective against Rhizoctonia spp., which is one of the major target pests in transplant trays ( personal communication, Thomas A. Melton, Ph. D., Philip Morris Professor, North Carolina State University). Etridiazole did not provide adequate control of Phytophthora spp., a cause of damping off in tobacco plants ( Nesmith 2003). No other fungicides are labeled for use on tobacco transplants in the United States.

Steam: Some studies suggest that the difference between effective steam sterilization of the polystyrene trays and melting of the trays is 2 degrees Celsius. This method has not been successful on the commercial scale because of problems maintaining sufficient control of the steam to hold the proper temperature for the prescribed amount of time to sterilize the trays without damage to the trays ( personal communication, Thomas A. Melton, Ph. D., Philip Morris Professor, North Carolina State University).

Quaternary Ammonia: The U. S. finds that liquid quaternary ammonium compounds do not penetrate the spaces within the polystyrene transplant trays to kill the fungal pathogens. Also, salt residues can cause serious problems resulting in plant kills. Quaternary ammonium compounds work better with a surfactant added. Unfortunately, with a surfactant the liquid cannot be drained from the spaces within the tray resulting in plant phytotoxicity and/ or sinking of trays ( personal communication, Thomas A. Melton, Ph. D., Philip Morris Professor, North Carolina State University). Page 4 TABLE 2. HISTORICAL USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE SEEDLING TRANSPLANT TRAY SECTOR Historical Use Average Use Rates ( kg/ 1,000 m3) Total Amount ( kg) Volume Treated ( 1,000 m3)

1997 47 3,397 72 1998 47 2,733 58 1999 47 2,656 56 2000 47 2,345 50 2001 48 3,294 69 * Acres planted in U. S. and percent of U. S. acreage requested is not available. Information taken from CUE application.

TABLE 3. CALCULATION OF THE NOMINATED AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE SEEDLING TRANSPLANT TRAY SECTOR.

Calculation of Nominated Amount 0025   Tobacco Growers Association of North Carolina Volume ( 1,000 m3) 98 % of Regional Volume ( 1,000 m3)( A) Not Available Applicant Request for 2005 Kilograms ( kg) of MB 4,612 Double Counted Volume ( 1,000 m3)( B)   Growth / Increasing Production ( 1,000 m3)( C) 29 Quarantine and Pre Shipment Volume ( 1,000 m3)( D) 41 Adjustments to Request Adjusted Volume Requested ( 1,000 m3)( E) 27 Key Pest Impacts (%)( F) 100 Regulatory Impacts (%)( G) 0 Soil Impacts (%)( H) 0 Impacts to Adjusted Hectares Total Combined Impacts (%)( I) 100 Qualifying Volume ( 1,000 m3)( J) 27 Use Rate ( kg/ 1,000 m3)( K) 47 CUE Amount Nominated ( kg)( L) 1,291 % Reduction from Initial Request ( M) 72 Sum of all CUE Nominations in Sector ( kg)( N) 1,291 Multiplier for Margin of Error( O) 1.0244 Total U. S. Sector Nomination ( kg)( P) 1,323 Page 5 Footnotes for Table 3:

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

A. Percent of regional volume is the volume in the applicant's request divided by the total volume used in the region covered by the request. This information is unavailable for this sector B. Double counted volume is the volume counted in more than one application. There was no double counting in this sector. C. Growth / increasing production volume is the amount of volume requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically treated or treated at a higher use rate. D. Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) volume is the volume in the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments and therefore excluded from this CUN. E. Adjusted volume requested is the volume in the applicant's request minus the volume affected by double counting, growth / increasing production, and quarantine and pre shipment. F. Key pest impacts is the percent (%) of the requested volume with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. Rhizoctonia spp. And phytophtora spp. affect the entire tobacco seedling crop and are not controlled by alternatives. G. Regulatory impacts is the percent (%) of the requested volume where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., buffer zones or township caps). H. Soil impacts is the percent (%) of the requested volume where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance of some alternatives). I. Total combined impacts is the percent (%) of the requested volume where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, or soil impacts. In each case the total area impacted is the area which is impacted by one or more of the individual impacts. For each application the assessment was made by biologists familiar with the specific situation and able to make judgments about the extent of overlap of the impacts. For example, in some situations the impacts are mutually exclusive   in heavy clay soils 1,3D will not be effective because it does not penetrate these soils evenly, but none of the heavy soil areas will be impacted by township ( regulatory) caps because no one will use 1,3D in this situation, so this soils impact must be added to the township cap regulatory impact in a California application. In other words there is no overlap. In other situations one area of impact might be a subset of another impact. In these cases, the combined impact is equal to the largest individual impact. J. Qualifying volume is calculated by multiplying the adjusted volume requested by the total combined impacts. K. Use rate is the requested use rate for 2005. This rate may be adjusted downward based on historical use patterns. L. CUE amount nominated is calculated by multiplying the qualifying volume by the use rate. M. Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. N. Sum of all CUE nominations in sector. Self explanatory. O. Multiplier for margin of error. This amount is one percentage point of the original ( 1991) baseline amount. This factor is intended to compensate for the compounding influence of using the low end of the range for all input parameters in the calculation of the US nomination ( i. e., using the lowest percent impact on the lowest number of acres at the lowest dosage is likely to result in values that are unrealistically too small). The U. S. nominated included some sectors for 100% of the amount requested, therefore the portion of the multiplier from these sectors were added equally across all other sectors resulting in a final multiplier of 1.0244, or a 2.44% increase from the calculated amount, to these sectors. P. Total U. S. sector nomination is calculated by multiplying the sum of nominations within the sector by the margin of error multiplier. Page 6 DEFINITIONS Source of yield loss estimates Where published studies of yield losses under conditions of moderate to severe key pest pressure were not available ( the situation for which the U. S. is requesting continued use of MB), the U. S. developed such estimates by contacting university professors conducting experiments using MB alternatives in the appropriate land grant institutions. The experts were asked to develop such an estimate based on their experience with MB and with alternatives. The results of this process were used when better data were not available.

Source of buffer restriction implications for methyl bromide use Estimates of the impact of buffers required when using some MB alternatives on the proportion of acreage where such alternatives could be used were developed from confidential information submitted to EPA in support of a registration application for a MB alternative. Because at the time of the analysis, a request to reduce the size of the required buffer for some alternatives was under consideration, a smaller buffer was selected for the analysis. Since that time the size of the regulatory buffer has been reduced so that it now conforms to the Source of area impacted by key pests estimates One of the important determinants of the amount of MB requested has been the extent of area infested with ` key pests', that is, pests that cannot be controlled by alternatives to MB when such pests are present at moderate to severe levels. Because there are few surveys that cover substantial portions of the areas for which MB is requested, we have relied on a variety of sources in addition to the surveys. These sources include websites of land grant universities; discussions with researchers, both those employed by USDA in the Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) and those at land grant universities; discussions with growers whose operations cover widely different locations encompassing different incidences of key pests; information from pesticide applicators; and, information taken from the applications themselves.

Source of area impacted by regulations estimates There are two main sources used to develop the estimate of area impacted by regulations. First, for the impact of Township caps in California we have used a series of papers by Carpenter, Lynch, and Trout, supplemented by discussions with Dr. Trout to ensure that any recent regulatory changes have been properly accounted for. Second, the estimate of the area impacted by buffers, is described above.

Source of area impacted by soil type estimates First, for the area impacted by karst topography, estimates were developed and mapped by he Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The area of California used for agriculture and which is made of clay soils unsuitable for pest control with a MB alternative has been determined by discussions with agricultural researchers and agricultural extension agents in California, and discussion with other knowledgeable individuals such as pesticide applicators. The estimates for California understate the areas in which alternatives to MB are not suitable because no effort was made to estimate the extent of hilly terrain where currently available substitutes cannot be applied at uniform dosages. Page 7 Source of area impacted by combined impacts estimate Combined impacts were determined on a case by case basis for each specific crop/ location combination after consultation with individuals knowledgeable with the specific circumstances. The nature of the individual impacts is such that in some situations they are independent of each other, in some they are mutually exclusive, and in some cover identical areas. It was not, therefore, possible to have a formula that would arrive at an appropriate estimate of combined impacts. A more complete description is found in the footnotes to the ` calculation' table REFERENCES Nesmith, W.; 2003. Chemical options for disease control in burley and dark tobacco transplant production systems   2003 crop. Available at http:// www. uky. edu/ Agriculture/ kpn/ kyblue/ kyblu03/ related/ rtd0301. htm


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26023-26024]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10566]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7856-027]

Willow Creek Hydro, LLC; Notice of Termination Of License (Minor
Project) by Implied Surrender and Soliciting Comments and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric proceeding has been
initiated by the Commission:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Termination of license by implied surrender.
    b. Project No.: 7856-027.
    c. Date Initiated: April 29, 2015.
    d. Licensee: Willow Creek Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name and Location of Project: The Potosi Power Company Water
Power Project, is located on the South Willow and Potosi Creeks, in
Madison County, Montana and occupies 0.3 acres of federal lands within
the Beaverhead National Forest.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Standard Article 24.
    g. Licensee Contact Information: Ms. Jane Joslin, Willow Creek
Hydro, LLC., 1 South Willow Creek, Pony, Montana 59747 and Mr. Darrin
Brooks, Willow Creek Hydro, LLC., P.O. Box 267, Pony, Montana 59747,
(406) 685-3330.
    h. FERC Contact: Ashish Desai,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. Deadline for filing comments and protests is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice by the Commission. Please file your
submittal electronically via the Internet (eFiling) in lieu of paper.
Please refer to the instructions on the Commission's Web site under
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp and filing instructions in
the Commission's Regulations at 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii). To assist
you with eFilings you should refer to the submission guidelines
document at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/user-guide.pdf.
In addition, certain filing requirements have statutory or regulatory
formatting and other instructions. You should refer to a list of these
``qualified documents'' at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing.pdf. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. Please include the project number (P-7856-027) on
any documents or motions filed. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings; otherwise, you should submit an original and seven
copies of any submittal to the following address: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mail Code: DHAC, PJ-12, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    j. Description of Project Facilities: (1) A 6-foot-high diversion
structure; (2) a 2,300-foot-long penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing
two generating units with a combined installed capacity of 300 kW; (4)
a 10,000-foot-long underground transmission line; (5) a 2.5-mile-long,
12.5-kV overhead transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
    k. Description of Proceeding: The licensee is in violation of
Article 24 of its license, which was issued October 7, 1985 (33 FERC ]
62,017). Article 24 states in part: If the Licensee shall abandon or
discontinue good faith operation of the project or refuse or neglect to
comply with the terms of the license and the lawful orders of the
Commission, the Commission will deem it to be the intent of the
Licensee to surrender the license.
    Commission records indicate that the project has not operated since
the project penstock ruptured in 1994. After several years of
correspondence regarding restoring project operation, the licensee has
become non-responsive. The licensee most recently filed a plan and
schedule to restore project operation with the Commission on February
6, 2014. By letter dated March 6, 2014, the Commission acknowledged the
filing and required the licensee to file progress reports January 1 and
June 1 of each year to ensure the licensee's continued progress towards
restoring project operation. The licensee did not file the first
progress report due on June 1, 2014. By letter dated November 12, 2014,
the Commission indicated the licensee must file the overdue progress
report, failure to do so would result in an implied surrender of the
project license. To date, the licensee has not filed a response and the
project remains inoperable.
    l. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
Docket number (P-7856-027) excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the notice. You may also register online
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should

so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments and Protests--Anyone may submit comments or protests in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210 and 385.211. In determining the appropriate action to take,
the Commission will consider all protests filed. Any protests must be
received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular
proceeding.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS or ``PROTEST,'' as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the project number of the
proceeding to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address,
and telephone number of the person commenting or protesting; and (4)
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through
385.2005. All comments or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All
comments or protests should relate to project works which are the
subject of the termination of license. A copy of any protest must be
served upon each representative of the licensee specified in item g
above. A copy of all other filings in reference to this notice must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described proceeding. If any agency does not
file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments.

    Dated: April 29, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10566 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P