Several climatic factors appeared to contribute to increases in plant pathogens, e. g., Southern stem blight, caused by the soil borne fungus ( Sclerotium rolfsii) across the production area, even with methyl bromide. Variations in rainfall and soil and air temperatures may predispose developing plants to diseases caused by plant pathogenic fungi. Furthermore, in the fall, temperature and rainfall patterns favor high levels of nematode infestation. Page 58 FLORIDA  12. HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE, AND/ OR MIXTURES CONTAINING METHYL BROMIDE, FOR WHICH AN EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED FLORIDA  TABLE 12.1 HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR AS MANY YEARS AS POSSIBLE AS SHOWN SPECIFY: 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 AREA TREATED ( hectares) 9,429 ha 8,903 ha 8,903 ha 8,741 ha 8,741 ha 8,195 ha RATIO OF FLAT FUMIGATION METHYL BROMIDE USE TO STRIP/ BED USE IF STRIP TREATMENT IS USED 100% strip treatments are used in this region AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED ( total kilograms) 1,727,644 1,630,376 1,644,501 1,431,639 1,406,135 1,315,417 FORMULATIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE ( methyl bromide / chloropicrin) A 98: 2 & 67: 33 98: 2 & 67: 33 98: 2 & 67: 33 67: 33 67: 33 67: 33 METHOD BY WHICH METHYL BROMIDE APPLIED ( e. g. injected at 25cm depth, hot gas) A Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep APPLICATION RATE OF FORMULATIONS, ( kg/ ha) A 186.7 or 273 186.7 or 273 186.7 or 273 244.8 240.3 240.3 ACTUAL DOSAGE RATE OF FORMULATIONS ( g/ m2)* Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available DOSAGE RATE*( G/ M 2) OF FORMULATION USED TO CALCULATE REQUESTED KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 27.3 27.3 27.5 24.5 24 24 APPLICATION RATE OF STRIP/ BED, G MB/ M 2 15.9   18.2 15.9   18.2 15.9   18.2 15.9   18.2 15.9   18.2 15.9   18.2 * For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may be the same. A Sources: personal communication, Professor J. W. Noling, November 25, 2003; M. Aerts, December 2, 2003. Page 59 Florida  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION FLORIDA  13. REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE FLORIDA   TABLE 13.1: REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES 1,3   D 1,3 D provides control of nematode populations, but poor control of plant pathogens and weeds. Control of nematodes is erratic, due to poor distribution of the fumigant in the sandy soils of Florida. 1,3 D's use is prohibited due to groundwater contamination in key pepper growing areas with karst geology, which is estimated to be about 40% in of FL pepper area in 2002. In Dade County, a major pepper production area, 100% of pepper acreage is affected by a label prohibition put in place due to groundwater contamination concerns. In areas where 1,3 dichloropropene use is allowed, set back restrictions (~ 100 meters from occupied structures; ~ 30 meters for emulsified formulations applied via chemigation) may limit the proportion of the field that can be treated. In addition, the 28 day waiting period between application and planting can cause delays/ adjustments in production schedules that could lead to missing specific higher end market windows . No Metam sodium Provides limited and erratic performance at suppressing all major pepper pathogens and pests. Does not work under high pest pressure. Considered the best available alternative for Dade County only, where 1,3 D use is prohibited ( Aerts, 2003). However, this is at best a treatment complementary to other fumigants and herbicides, and not as a stand alone option ( Noling, 2003). Metam sodium has a lower vapor pressure than methyl bromide, and therefore cannot penetrate and diffuse throughout the soil as effectively as methyl bromide. In addition, the effectiveness of metam sodium is very dependent on the organic matter and moisture content of the soil. No NON CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Page 60 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Solarization Solarization is not technically feasible as a methyl bromide alternative for control of nutsedges. Research indicates that the lethal temperature for nutsedge tubers is 50 oC or higher ( Chase et al. 1999. Trials conducted in mid summer in Georgia resulted in maximal soil temperatures of 43 oC at 5 cm depth. Thus, solarization, even in the warmer months in southern states, did not result in temperatures reliably high enough to destroy nutsedge tubers, and tubers lodged deeper in the soil would be completely unaffected. Response of Cyperus species to solarization is sporadic and not well understood and data show solarization to provide, at best, suppression of nutsedge populations ( Chase et al. 1999). In addition, solarization will take fields out of production since it would be needed during the spring and into the summer months, which are optimal for pepper production. No Steam Steam is not a technically feasible alternative for open field pepper production because it requires sustained heat over a required period of time ( UNEP 1998). While steam has been used effectively against fungal pests in protected production systems, such as greenhouses, there is no evidence that it would be effective in open field pepper crops. Any such system would also require large amounts of energy and water to provide sufficient steam necessary to sterilize soil down to the rooting depth of field crops ( at least 20 50 cm). No Biological Control Biological control agents alone cannot control nutsedge and/ or the soil pathogens that afflict peppers. The bacterium Burkholderia cepacia and the fungus Gliocladium virens have shown some potential in controlling some fungal plant pathogens ( Larkin and Fravel 1998). However, no biological control agent has been identified to effectively control nutsedge or Phytophthora. Therefore, biological control is not a stand along replacement for methyl bromide in pepper crops. Only a limited number of biological organisms are effectively used to manage soil borne plant pathogens and pests. No Cover crops and mulching Cover crops and mulches have been integrated to solanaceous crop production management. However there is no evidence these practices effectively substitute for the control methyl bromide provides against nutsedges ( Burgos and Talbert 1996). Some cover crops that have been shown to reduce weed populations also reduced or delayed crop maturity and/ or emergence, as well as yields ( Burgos and Talbert 1996, Galloway and Weston 1996). Mulching has also been shown to be ineffective in controlling nutsedges, since these plants are able to penetrate through both organic and plastic mulches ( Munn 1992, Patterson 1998). No Page 61 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Crop rotation and fallow land Crop rotation/ fallow is not a technically feasible alternative to methyl bromide because it does not provide adequate control of nutsedges or fungal pathogens. The crop rotations available to growers are also susceptible to fungi; fallow land can still harbor fungal oospores ( Lamour and Hausbeck 2003). As regards to nutsedges, tubers of these perennial species provide new plants with larger energy reserves than the annual weeds that can be frequently controlled by crop rotations and fallow land ( Thullen and Keeley 1975). Furthermore, nutsedge plants can produce tubers within 2 weeks after emergence ( Wilen et al. 2003). This enhances their survival across different cropping regimes that can disrupt other plants that rely on a longer undisturbed growing period to produce seeds to propagate the next generation. No Flooding/ Water management South Florida is generally subject to natural flooding during summer months, but other areas cannot be flooded because of lack of a shallow, impermeable layer. Although flooding is a pest management tool that has been used effectively to manage various soil borne pest and plant pathogens, nutsedges have shown tolerance to this treatment. Submergence of nutsedge tubers for periods of 8 days to 4 weeks showed no effect on the sprouting capabilities of the tubers ( Horowitz, 1972). Studies in Florida ( Allen, 1999) showed ineffective nematode, plant pathogen, and nutsedge control. Regulatory issues concerning water management, as well as economic feasibility, also preclude its viability as an alternative to methyl bromide. Land structure, frequent and severe droughts, and the economics of developing and managing flood capabilities will prevent flooding from being a viable, cost effective alternative in the Southeastern states. No Grafting/ resistant rootstock/ plant breeding/ soilless culture/ organic production/ substrates/ plug plants. Due to the paucity of scientific information on the utility of these alternatives as methyl bromide replacements in peppers, they have been grouped together for discussion in this document. The U. S. was unable to locate any studies showing any potential for grafting, resistant rootstock or plant breeding as technically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide control of nutsedges. Plug plants are extensively used on high value vegetable crops like pepper but they do not control competition from nutsedges. There are no studies documenting the commercial availability of resistant rootstock immune to the fungal pathogens listed as major pepper pests. Grafting and plant breeding are thus also rendered technically infeasible as methyl bromide alternatives for control of Phytophthora and Fusarium fungi. Soilless culture, organic production, and substrates/ plug plants are also not technically viable alternatives to methyl bromide for fungi. Various aspects of organic production   e. g., cover crops, fallow land, and steam sterilization  have already been addressed in this document and assessed to be technically infeasible methyl bromide alternatives. No Page 62 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES Metam sodium + Chloropicrin This combination has been used in Florida since the 1970s. It is being investigated as a leading alternative to methyl bromide in Dade County because of label restrictions for 1,3 D, which is not registered for use in Dade County. However, it has shown erratic performance suppressing weeds, nematodes, and plant pathogens in the sandy soils of Florida. Methyl bromide has higher vapor pressure than metam sodium, therefore can penetrate and diffuse throughout the soil more effectively than metam sodium. Trials in tomato have shown inconsistent efficacy of this formulation against fungal pests, though it is generally better than metam sodium alone ( Locascio and Dickson 1998, Csinos et al. 1999). Low efficacy in even small plot trials indicates that this is not a technically feasible alternative for commercially produced peppers at this time. No 1,3 D + chloropicrin This combination is not effective in cases with high/ moderate nutsedge pressure because it needs to be coupled with an herbicide to provide season long control. Trials comparing Flat Fumigation applications with standard in row applications indicated the need to increase the amount of chloropicrin to compensate for the potential decrease in efficacy of 1,3 dichloropropene applied via Flat Fumigation. Applications via micro irrigation systems have yielded mixed results, probably due to poor lateral distribution of the chemical in the soil ( Martin 2003; Dungan and Yates, 2003). In addition, 1,3 D's use is prohibited due to groundwater contamination in key pepper growing areas with karst geology which is estimated to be about 40% in of FL pepper area in 2002. In Dade County this formulation cannot be used at all, due to a label prohibition. No 1,3 D + Metam sodium Trials in tomato have shown inconsistent efficacy of this formulation against fungal pests, though it is generally better than metam sodium alone ( Csinos et al. 1999). Low efficacy in even small plot trials indicates that this is not a technically feasible alternative for commercially produced peppers at this time. In addition, 1,3 D's use is prohibited due to groundwater contamination in key pepper growing areas with karst geology which is estimated to be about 40% in of FL pepper area in 2002. In Dade County 100% of pepper acreage is affected by this limitation. No * Regulatory reasons include local restrictions ( e. g. occupational health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of registration. Page 63 FLORIDA  14. LIST AND DISCUSS WHY REGISTERED ( and Potential) PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ARE CONSIDERED NOT EFFECTIVE AS TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE:

FLORIDA   TABLE 14.1: TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION NAME OF ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION Halosulfuron methyl For nutsedges: potential crop injury; plant back restrictions. Efficacy is lowered in rainy conditions ( which are common in this region). Also, a 24 month plant back restriction may cause significant economic disruption if growers must rely on this control option. Halosulfuron is registered for use in row middles only.

Glyphosate For nutsedges: Non selective; will not control nutsedge in the plant rows; does not provide residual control Paraquat For nutsedges: Non selective; will not control nutsedge in the plant rows; does not provide residual control. Another weed, nightshade, has shown resistance to paraquat, a dangerous development since this plant serves as a reservoir for many insects ( e. g., whiteflies), that are vectors of pepper diseases ( Aerts, 2004)

Other than those options discussed in Table 13.1 and elsewhere in this document, no alternative exists for the control of the key pests and fungi affecting pepper production. Non chemical alternatives and chemical alternatives to methyl bromide have been or are being investigated and when suitable, incorporated into current pepper production practices.

Nutsedge management has proven to be difficult due to the perennial growth habit of nutsedge and tubers as primary means of propagation. There are no herbicides which control nutsedge in the crop row. Paraquat and glyphosate will suppress emerged nutsedge, but cannot be used in the crop row because of potential crop injury ( SE Pepper Consortium CUE 02 0041). Research suggests that metam sodium can, in some situations, provide effective pest management for certain plant pathogens and weeds. However, even though there have been nearly 50 years experience with metam sodium, ( which breaks down to methyl isothiocyanate) nutsedge control results have been unpredictable.

Since methyl bromide has been used effectively to manage minor crop production, there are limited pesticide alternatives due primarily to the small market share and the high cost associated with pesticide registration. Labeling of these products in minor crops could be more expensive than returns from potential sales, and therefore pesticide manufactures have been reluctant to register pesticides for minor crop uses. Methyl bromide will be needed until a cost effective alternative regimen is in place. Page 64 FLORIDA  15. LIST PRESENT ( and Possible Future) REGISTRATION STATUS OF ANY CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES:

FLORIDA   TABLE 15.1: PRESENT REGISTRATION STATUS OF ALTERNATIVES NAME OF ALTERNATIVE PRESENT REGISTRATION STATUS REGISTRATION BEING CONSIDERED BY NATIONAL AUTHORITIES? ( Y/ N) DATE OF POSSIBLE FUTURE REGISTRATION:

Iodomethane Pre plant soil fumigant. Not registered yet Yes Unknown Trifloxysulfuron sodium Herbicide  recently registered for tomato in FL only. Crop injury potential exist No Unknown Fosthiazate Not registered No Unknown Furfural ( Multigard

) Not registered No Unknown Sodium azide Not registered. No registration application received. No Unknown Propargyl bromide Not registered. No registration application received. No Unknown Paecilomyces lilacinus Biological nematicide; not registered Yes Unknown FLORIDA  16. STATE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF RELEVANT ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE SPECIFIC KEY TARGET PESTS AND WEEDS FOR WHICH IT IS BEING REQUESTED:

FLORIDA  TABLE 16.1. FUMIGANT ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE FOR POLYETHYLENE MULCHED TOMATO ( LOCASCIO ET AL. 1997) )

Chemicals Rate (/ ha) Average Nutsedge Density (#/ m2) Average Marketable Yield ( ton/ ha) % Yield Loss ( compared to MB)

Untreated ( control)  300 ab 20.1 a 59.1 MB + Pic ( 67 33), chisel injected 390 kg 90 c 49.1 b

1,3 D + Pic ( 83 17), chisel injected 327 l 340 a 34.6 c 29.5 Metam Na, Flat Fumigation 300 l 320 a 22.6 a 54.0 Metam Na, drip irrigated 300 l 220 b 32.3 c 34.2 Notes: ( 1) Numbers followed by the same letter ( within a column) are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability, using Duncan's multiple range test. ( 2) Data shown are from the Gainesville/ Horticultural Unit site, 1994 season ( this was one of three sites included in this study). This site had relatively high nutsedge pressure, and data for both pest pressure and marketable yields for all treatments shown. All fumigants were injected 15 20 cm deep, with three chisels per bed, 30 cm apart Page 65 Locascio et al. ( 1997) studied MB alternatives on tomatoes grown in small plots at two Florida locations with high nutsedge infestation. The data from the tomato study are being cited because pepper data are not available.

Various treatments were tested on plots that had multiple pests. At the Bradenton site there was moderate to heavy Fusarium infestation; heavy purple nutsedge infestation and light root knot nematode pressure. At Gainesville there was heavy infestation of yellow and purple nutsedge and moderate infestation of root knot nematode. The treatments at both locations included MB ( 67%) + chloropicrin ( 33%) chisel injected at 390 kg/ ha; metam sodium ( chisel injected) at 300L/ ha; metam sodium drip irrigated at 300L/ ha; and 1,3 D + 17% chloropicrin chisel injected at 327L/ ha. In pairwise statistical comparisons, the yield was significantly lower in metamsodium treatments compared to MB at both sites. At Bradenton, the average yield from both metam sodium treatments was 33% of the MB yields, suggesting a 67% yield loss from not using MB. At Gainesville, the average yield of the two metam sodium treatments was 56% of the MB yield, suggesting a 44% yield loss from not using MB. The yield of the 1,3 D treatment at Gainesville was 71% of the MB standard suggesting a 29% loss by not using MB ( yield data for 1,3 D were not reported for Bradenton). In considering 1,3 D results, one must keep in mind that this MB alternative cannot be used in areas where karst geology exists, or anywhere in Dade county, a major production area.

FLORIDA  ALTERNATIVES YIELD LOSS DATA SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE LIST TYPE OF PEST RANGE OF YIELD LOSS BEST ESTIMATE OF YIELD LOSS 1,3 D + chloropicrin Nutsedges, fungal pathogens 20  100 29 Metam sodium ( with or without chloropicrin) Nutsedges, fungal pathogens 30  55 44 OVERALL LOSS ESTIMATE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES TO PESTS 29 % if 1,3 D + pic is used; 44 % if metamsodium is used FLORIDA  17. ARE THERE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES UNDER DEVELOPMENT WHICH ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO REPLACE METHYL BROMIDE?

Iodomethane is being considered for registration as a methyl bromide replacement. Its registration date is not known. Please refer to Table 15.1 for details. Page 66 FLORIDA 18. ARE THERE TECHNOLOGIES BEING USED TO PRODUCE THE CROP WHICH AVOID THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE?

The U. S. EPA is unaware of large scale, commercial greenhouse operations for peppers or other technologies that could reduce methyl bromide use. There may be local or small community organic or hothouse pepper production that targets fresh market and/ or temporal ( seasonal) sectors.

Grafting has not been evaluated for vegetable production due to the high cost and the large number of plants that would be needed. In addition this alternative is primarily used for nematode and plant pathogen management, but there is no evidence that it applies to competition from weeds. Plug plants are extensively used on high value vegetable crops like pepper but they do not control competition from nutsedges.

There has been extensive research on alternatives for solanaceous crops, and methyl bromide minimizing practices have been incorporated into pepper production systems where possible. However, the effectiveness of chemical and non chemical alternatives designed to fully replace methyl bromide must still be characterized as preliminary. Weeds, particularly nutsedge, are the major pests of Florida peppers that drive the need for methyl bromide. There are no registered herbicides compatible with pepper production. Although s metolachlor ( Dual Magnum) and napropamide ( Devrinol) were cited as herbicides with some potential to control nutsedges, the efficacy of these herbicides in sub tropical Florida is inconsistent ( Noling, 2003). When nutsedge pressure is moderate to severe, 1,3 D + chloropicrin is not technically feasible because it needs to be coupled with an effective herbicide to provide control for the entire growing season ( U. S. EPA, 2002). Frank et al ( 1992) reported that weeds in pepper for 40 to 60 days could reduce yields by 10 to 50 percent. Stall and Morales Payan reported that tomato must be nutsedge free for 2 to10 weeks to keep yield reductions below 5 percent. There are no herbicides which control nutsedge in the crop row. Paraquat and glyphosate will suppress emerged nutsedge, but cannot be used in the crop row because of potential crop injury ( SE Pepper Consortium CUE 02 0041).

In addition, labeling of 1,3 dichloropropene products restricts its use in key pepper growing areas of the U. S. where karst topography exists due to ground water contamination concerns. In areas where 1,3 dichloropropene use is allowed, set back restrictions and 28 day waiting periods between application and planting cause delays/ adjustments in production schedules that could lead to missing specific market windows, thus reducing profits on pepper crops. For example, peppers produced during the winter fetch a higher price than peppers produced during warmer months, and many growers rely on this price premium to maintain profitability. Page 67 Metam sodium provides limited and erratic performance at suppressing all major solanaceous pathogens and pests. Data indicate that metam sodium is not an effective alternative to methyl bromide for nutsedge control in bell pepper fields ( Webster et al. ( 2002). A 21 day planting delay is also recommended for this chemical. In addition there is evidence that both 1,3 dichloropropene and methyl isothiocynate ( the breakdown product of metam sodium) levels decline more rapidly, thus further compromising efficacy, in areas where these are repeatedly applied ( Smelt et al. 1989, Ou et al. 1995, Gamliel et al. 2003). This is due to enhanced degradation of these chemicals by soil microbes ( Dungan and Yates 2003).

Diseases caused by soil borne plant pathogenic fungi, ( e. g., Phytophthora spp., Verticillium spp., Pythium spp. and Rhizoctonia solani ) commonly reside in many production areas, since many pepper production areas are old tomato production fields. Fungicides such as chlorothalonil, and azoxystrobin are considered to be only prophylactic, and may not offer sufficient pest management. Resistance of Phytophthora spp to metalaxyl and mefanoxem ( Ridomil and Ridomil Gold, respectively) has been reported in tomato crop areas, and most recently pepper ( Lamour and Hausbeck 2003).

Nematodes, such as the root knot nematode species of Meloidogyne were third, following weeds and fungal pathogens, in order of causing yield and economic losses in Florida peppers. Preplant control of nematodes is very important because root feeding and damage may predispose the plant tissues to fungal pathogens or bacterial wilt which can lead to significant yield loss. Fumigant alternatives such as metam sodium ( Vapam, K pam) have proven inconsistent. ( Noling, 2003; CUE # 03 0017).

Research on the effectiveness of non chemical alternatives to methyl bromide is still in a preliminary stage, particularly for high value, minor use crops. Page 68 CALIFORNIA  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE CALIFORNIA  10. KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS FOR WHICH METHYL BROMIDE IS REQUESTED AND SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST CALIFORNIA  TABLE 10.1: KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS AND REASON FOR METHYL BROMIDE REQUEST REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED KEY DISEASE( S) AND WEED( S) TO GENUS AND, IF KNOWN, TO SPECIES LEVEL) SPECIFIC REASONS WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NEEDED ( e. g. Effective herbicide available, but not registered for this crop; mandatory requirement to meet certification for disease tolerance)

California Crown and root rots caused by soilborne fungi   particularly Phytophthora capsici. Plant parasitic nematodes, primarily root knot ( Meloidogyne spp.) Registered alternative fumigants, fungicides, and nematicides are not as cost effective and do not provide the same level of pest control as methyl bromide. One application of methyl bromide can last more than a year ( within a particular field), whereas alternative chemicals must be applied annually.

CALIFORNIA  11. ( i) CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM AND CLIMATE CALIFORNIA TABLE 11.1: CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS CALIFORNIA CROP TYPE: ( e. g. transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings) Pepper transplants for fruit production ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL CROP: (# of years between replanting) Annual; generally 1 year TYPICAL CROP ROTATION ( if any) AND USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR OTHER CROPS IN THE ROTATION: ( if any) Pepper may be followed by pepper, celery, broccoli or leafy vegetables SOIL TYPES: ( Sand, loam, clay, etc.) Sandy loam; clay loam FREQUENCY OF METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION: ( e. g. every two years) 1 time every 2 years OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: High land costs and urban encroachment increasing near production areas. Very few crops can be rotated with peppers that will provide an economic return. Page 69 CALIFORNIA  TABLE 11.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATE AND CROP SCHEDULE MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB CLIMATIC ZONE USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 9b RAINFALL ( mm) A, B 16.0 29.7 72.1 112.3 17.3 16.0 0 0 T 17.2 1.0 T T 0 0 T 44.7 74.9 56.9 273.1 9.9 36.3 30.5 62.2 OUTSIDE TEMP. ( ° C) A 14.4 13.2 14.8 12.4 20.8 14.9 25.7 17.1 30.3 17.2 27.4 19.1 25.1 18.2 18.4 16.3 13.4 14.2 9.6 11.4 10.3 2.1 10.6 11.2 FUMIGATION SCHEDULE C X* X* X*

PLANTING SCHEDULE C X X KEY MARKET WINDOW X X X X X Notes: * Fumigation occurs in these months, but only every other year, typically. A Air temperatures and rainfall data were collected from weather stations in Fresno ( top number) and at the San Francisco Airport ( bottom number) from September to December 2002 and January to August, 2003. BA " T" in the column denotes trace amount of rainfall recorded C The above cycle is if another pepper crop followed the first planting of peppers. If other crops follow pepper, then planting of the other crops ( e. g., a leafy vegetable) would begin in October and harvest would be in in December, January and February.

CALIFORNIA   11. ( ii) INDICATE IF ANY OF THE ABOVE CHARACTERISTICS IN 11. ( i) PREVENT THE UPTAKE OF ANY RELEVANT ALTERNATIVES?

Urban encroachment and concomitant buffer zones and local ( township) caps restrict the use of the MB alternative 1,3 D ( with or without chloropicrin). Essentially this prevents the use of this alternative on approximately 10 % of the pepper growing area in California, according to the applicant. The applicant is requesting MB only for this proportion of their total pepper acreage. Page 70 CALIFORNIA  12. HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE, AND/ OR MIXTURES CONTAINING METHYL BROMIDE, FOR WHICH AN EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED In California, the soil injection of MB under tarps has increased from approximately 68% of the area using this fumigant in 1997 to 93% in 2003. The depth of methyl bromide application varies from 15 to 36 cm centimeters below tarps. The low MB dosage rate is due in large part to a shift by all growers to formulations lower than the 98: 2 ratio that was used in the mid 1990s. The formulations most commonly in use currently are 75: 25 or 67: 33 mixture of methyl bromide: chloropicrin. ( Melban 2003). Please see Table 12.1 for further information.

CALIFORNIA TABLE 12.1 HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR AS MANY YEARS AS POSSIBLE AS SHOWN SPECIFY: 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 AREA TREATED ( hectares) 726 864 1,226 995 447 Not available RATIO OF FLAT FUMIGATION METHYL BROMIDE USE TO STRIP/ BED USE IF STRIP TREATMENT IS USED Ratio of Flat Fumigation treatments versus bed applications is not known. Two methods of application are used: Flat fumed type, and methyl bromide is injected, and sealed with plastic ground cover. If buffer zones are strict ( e. g., in southern Santa Clara County), then almost all applications are flat fumed, Flat Fumigation. The second type of application involves bed fumed (~ 0.67 A, or 29,000 sq. ft) AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED ( total kilograms) 184.4 211.6 201.6 171.7 142.0 Not available FORMULATIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE ( methyl bromide / chloropicrin) 75: 25 or 67: 33 75: 25 or 67: 33 75: 25 or 67: 33 75: 25 or 67: 33 75: 25 or 67: 33 75: 25 or 67: 33 METHODS BY WHICH METHYL BROMIDE APPLIED ( e. g. injected at 25cm depth, hot gas) Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep APPLICATION RATE OF FLAT FUMIGATION ; FLATFUMED KG A. I./ ha* 336.3 336.3 336.3 336.3 336.3 336.3 APPLICATION RATE OF FLAT FUMIGATION ; BEDFUMED KG A. I./ ha* 224.0 224.0 224.0 224.0 224.0 224.0 DOSAGE RATE*( G/ M 2) OF FORMULATION USED TO CALCULATE REQUESTED KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 APPLICATION RATE OF STRIP/ BED, G MB/ M 2 Page 71 California  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION CALIFORNIA  13. REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE CALIFORNIA   TABLE 13.1: REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES 1,3 D + chloropicrin In small plot trials conducted in Michigan, this formulation showed some efficacy against the P. capsici. It should be noted that these trials had not been completed at the time results were submitted to the EPA. Plant loss was about 6 % as compared to 0 % with MB ( Hausbeck and Cortright 2003). While this suggests that it may be technically feasible against fungal pests, large scale trials have not been conducted to confirm the results. This formulation has shown effectiveness equivalent to that of MB against nematodes, the other type of key pest cited by California ( Eger 2000). California also has township caps on the amount of 1, 3 D and chloropicrin that can be used near urban areas and a mandatory buffer ( approx. 100 m) around treated areas, factors that may result in significant areas remaining untreated no Metam Sodium Control of the key fungal pest is inconsistent at best ( Martin 2003). A small plot trial in progress on solanaceous crops in Michigan indicates that plots with metam sodium had higher plant loss than the untreated check plots ( Hausbeck and Cortright 2003). It should be noted that these trials had not been completed at the time results were submitted to the EPA. Gilreath et al. ( 1994) found that metam sodium treatments did not match MB in terms of plant vigor at the end of the season; Fusarium was one of several pests present no NON CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Soil solarization California's coastal climate is typically cool ( less than 16 oC frequently through December), rainy, and cloudy, particularly early in the pepper growing season when control of the key pests is particularly important. Since solarization has shown some potential in other crops and regions ( e. g., tomatoes in Florida), the potential for adoption exists ( Schneider et al. 2003). However, at this time it is technically infeasible for California coastal peppers. No Page 72 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Steam While steam has been used effectively against fungal pests in protected production systems, such as greenhouses, there is no evidence that it would be effective in open field pepper crops in California. Any such system would also require large amounts of energy and water to provide sufficient steam necessary to sterilize soil down to the rooting depth of field crops ( at least 20 50 cm). No Biological Control Biological control agents are not technically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide because they alone cannot control the soil pathogens that afflict peppers in California. The bacterium Burkholderia cepacia and the fungus Gliocladium virens have shown some potential in controlling some fungal plant pathogens ( Larkin and Fravel 1998). However, in a test conducted in Michigan, P. capsici was not controlled adequately in summer squash by either of these beneficial microorganisms. Tests in California peppers have apparently not been conducted. No Cover crops and mulching There is no evidence these practices effectively substitute for the control methyl bromide provides against P. capsici. Plastic mulch is already in widespread use in California vegetables, and regional crop experts state that it is not an adequate protectant when used without methyl bromide. The longevity and resistance of P. capsici oospores renders cover crops ineffective as a stand alone management alternative to methyl bromide. No Crop rotation and fallow land The crop rotations available to growers in the coastal California region are also susceptible to these fungi, particularly to P. capsici. Fallow land can still harbor P. capsici oospores ( Lamour and Hausbeck 2003). Thus fungi would persist and attack peppers if crop rotation/ fallow land was the main management regime. The same phenomenon applies to nematodes, another important soil pest in this region. No Endophytes Though these organisms ( fungi that grow symbiotically or as parasites within plants) have been shown to suppress some plant pathogens in cucumber, there is no such information for the pepper crops grown in California. Furthermore, the pathogens involved did not include Phytophthora species, which are arguably the greatest single threat to California peppers. No Flooding/ Water management Flooding is not technically feasible as an alternative because it does not have any suppressive effect on P. capsici ( Allen et al. 1999), and is likely to be impractical for California pepper growers. It is unclear whether irrigation methods in this region could be adapted to incorporate flooding or alter water management for pepper fields. In any case, there appears to be no supporting evidence for its use against the hardy oospores of P. capsici. No Page 73 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Grafting/ resistant rootstock/ plant breeding/ soilless culture/ organic production/ substrates/ plug plants. Due to the paucity of scientific information on the utility of these alternatives as methyl bromide replacements in peppers, they have been grouped together for discussion in this document. There are no studies documenting the commercial availability of resistant rootstock immune to the fungal pathogens listed as major pepper pests. Grafting and plant breeding are thus also rendered technically infeasible as methyl bromide alternatives for control of Phytophthora and Fusarium fungi. Soilless culture, organic production, and substrates/ plug plants are also not technically viable alternatives to methyl bromide for fungi. P. capsici can spread through water ( Gevens and Hausbeck 2003), making it difficult to keep any sort of area ( with or without soil) plant pathogen free. Various aspects of organic production   e. g., cover crops, fallow land, and steam sterilization  have already been addressed in this document and assessed to be technically infeasible methyl bromide alternatives. No COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES Metam sodium + Chloropicrin Trials in tomato have shown inconsistent efficacy of this formulation against fungal pests, though it is generally better than metam sodium alone ( Locascio and Dickson 1998, Csinos et al. 1999). Low efficacy in even small plot trials indicates that this is not a technically feasible alternative for commercially produced cucurbits at this time. These studies apparently did not measure yield impacts, and did not involve cucurbits. No 1,3 D + Metam sodium Trials in tomato have shown inconsistent efficacy of this formulation against fungal pests, though it is generally better than metam sodium alone ( Csinos et al. 1999). Low efficacy in even small plot trials indicates that this is not a technically feasible alternative for commercially produced cucurbits in Michigan at this time. These studies apparently did not measure yield impacts, and did not involve cucurbits. No * Regulatory reasons include local restrictions ( e. g. occupational health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of registration.

CALIFORNIA  14. LIST AND DISCUSS WHY REGISTERED ( and Potential) PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ARE CONSIDERED NOT EFFECTIVE AS TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE:

NAME OF ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION Other than those options discussed elsewhere, no alternatives exist for the control of the key pests when they are present in the soil and/ or afflict the belowground portions of pepper plants. A number of effective fungicides are available for treatment of these fungi when they infect Page 74 aerial portions of crops. However, these infections are not the focus of MB use, which is meant to keep newly planted transplants free of these fungi. Page 75 California 15. LIST PRESENT ( and Possible Future) REGISTRATION STATUS OF ANY CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES:

CALIFORNIA   TABLE 15.1: PRESENT REGISTRATION STATUS OF ALTERNATIVES NAME OF ALTERNATIVE PRESENT REGISTRATION STATUS State if registered for this crop, registered for crop but use restricted, registered for other crops but not target crop, or not registered REGISTRATION BEING CONSIDERED BY NATIONAL AUTHORITIES? ( Y/ N) DATE OF POSSIBLE FUTURE REGISTRATION:

Methyl iodide Not registered Yes Unknown Furfural Not registered No Unknown Sodium azide Not registered. No registration application received. No Unknown Propargyl bromide Not registered. No registration application received. No Unknown CALIFORNIA 16. STATE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF RELEVANT ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE SPECIFIC KEY TARGET PESTS AND WEEDS FOR WHICH IT IS BEING REQUESTED:

As far as EPA can ascertain, virtually none of the studies on key MB alternatives has focused on peppers in coastal California's growing conditions. One exception to this situation can be summarized first, although this study was ongoing at the time it was submitted to EPA. This study is a field trial, conducted in small plots in 2003 in Michigan by M. K. Hausbeck and B. D. Cortright of Michigan State University. The study focused on a number of vegetable crops, including bell peppers. As of July 31, 2003, results indicated that 1,3 D + 35 % chloropicrin treatments ( shank injected at 56.7 liters/ ha) showed approximately 6 % plant loss ( due to P. capsici)   less than the 7 % loss seen in the untreated control plots. Metam sodium ( drip applied at 58.7 kg/ ha) showed a 13 % loss. Methyl iodide with either 50 % or 33 % chloropicrin ( shankinjected at either 46.1 or 36.8 kg/ ha, respectively) showed only 2 % plant loss. However, methyl iodide is not registered for this crop in the U. S. at present. It should also be noted that ( 1) since the trial had not yet ended, statistical analysis on these figures was not conducted, ( 2) plant loss figures are for all vegetable crops combined, and ( 3) these plots were being carefully monitored and managed with post plant prophylactic foliar fungicides ( e. g., chlorothalonil and myclobutanil)   an optimal management scheme that will require time to enable growers to adopt. Page 76 In studies with other vegetable crops, 1,3 D + chloropicrin has generally shown better control of fungi than metam sodium formulations ( though still not as good as control with MB). For example, in a study using a bell pepper/ squash rotation in small plots  conducted in the much warmer conditions of Georgia and without P. capsici as a component of the pest complex  Webster et al. ( 2001) found significantly lower fungal populations with 1,3 D + 35 % chloropicrin ( drip irrigated or chisel injected, 146 kg/ ha of 1,3 D), as compared to the untreated control. However, MB ( 440 kg/ ha, shank injected) lowered fungal populations even more. Methyl iodide had no significant suppressive effect, as compared to the untreated control. In another study, conducted on tomatoes in Florida, Gilreath et al. ( 1994) found that metam sodium treatments did not match MB in terms of plant vigor at the end of the season; Fusarium was one of several pests present.

CALIFORNIA   TABLE C. 1: ALTERNATIVES YIELD LOSS DATA SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE LIST TYPE OF PEST RANGE OF YIELD LOSS BEST ESTIMATE OF YIELD LOSS 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Soil borne fungal plant pathogens 0   6 % 6 %

Metam sodium ( with or without chloropicrin) Soil borne fungal diseases 0 100 % 100 %

OVERALL LOSS ESTIMATE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES TO PESTS 6   100 %; 6 % likely with the best alternative ( 1,3 D + chloropicrin)

CALIFORNIA  17. ARE THERE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES UNDER DEVELOPMENT WHICH ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO REPLACE METHYL BROMIDE?

Work underway in Michigan peppers ( summarized in Table 17 for Michigan) will produce results likely to be applicable to coastal California pepper production. However, it should be noted that the many of the MB alternatives under study under study are not yet registered for peppers in the U. S., and it is unclear when ( if ever) commercial entities will pursue such registration ( see table 15.1, California or Michigan regions, for registration status). Page 77 CALIFORNIA  18. ARE THERE TECHNOLOGIES BEING USED TO PRODUCE THE CROP WHICH AVOID THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE?

No. Soilless systems and greenhouse production are not in use for peppers in this region, and quick adoption is probably economically infeasible. Growers apply MB on fields with a history of pest contamination, but it appears that most growing acreage in this region has moderate to severe infestations, particularly of P. capsici and other soil borne fungi, which thrive in cool and moist climates.

CALIFORNIA  SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY Without methyl bromide, pepper producers in cool weather climates of Ventura and Santa Clara Counties would most likely use a mixture of 1,3 D and chloropicrin ( Telone C 35) to manage the nematode and fungal pathogen populations prior to transplanting pepper. There is evidence from numerous small plot and large scale trials to indicate that these MB alternatives, in combination, will control nematodes to the extent that MB does nematodes.( e. g. Eger 2000). However, EPA believes that there is no comparable set of research results to indicate that fungal pests, particularly P. capsici, will be controlled to a similar extent. To wit, no large plot studies have yet been performed to show commercial feasibility against fungal pests in coastal California peppers. Important regulatory constraints on 1,3 D and chloropicrin must also be kept in mind: township caps on the amounts used ( which may affect the use rate and hence efficacy), mandatory 100 m buffers near inhabited structures   both of which will cause negative economic impacts that are likely to make the use of these MB alternatives infeasible for the near future. These planting restrictions may thus be important factors inhibiting widespread grower adoption of this MB alternative.

Currently unregistered alternatives, such as furfural and sodium azide, have shown good efficacy against the key pests involved. However, even if registration is pursued soon ( and the EPA has no indications of any commercial venture planning to do so) these options will need more research on how to adapt them to commercial pepper production in California. There are also no non chemical alternatives that are currently viable for MB replacement for commercial pepper growers. In sum, while the potential exists for a combination of chemical and non chemical alternatives to replace MB use in California pepper, this goal appears be at least a few years away. Page 78 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL 19. TECHNIQUES THAT HAVE AND WILL BE USED TO MINIMIZE METHYL BROMIDE USE AND EMISSIONS IN THE PARTICULAR USE:

TABLE 19.1: TECHNIQUES TO MINIMIZE METHYL BROMIDE USE AND EMISSIONS TECHNIQUE OR STEP TAKEN VIF OR HIGH BARRIER FILMS METHYL BROMIDE DOSAGE REDUCTION INCREASED % CHLOROPICRIN IN METHYL BROMIDE FORMULATION LESS FREQUENT APPLICATION WHAT USE/ EMISSION REDUCTION METHODS ARE PRESENTLY ADOPTED? Currently some growers use HDPE tarps. Growers have switched from a 98% MB formulation to a 67 % formulation. Between 1997 and 2001, the U. S. has achieved a 36 % reduction in use rates. From 2 % to 33 % No WHAT FURTHER USE/ EMISSION REDUCTION STEPS WILL BE TAKEN FOR THE METHYL BROMIDE USED FOR CRITICAL USES? Research is underway to develop use in commercial production systems Research is underway to develop use of a 50 % MB formulation in Michigan commercial production systems. Not known if other regions are planning similar work. Research is underway to develop use of a 50 % MB formulation in Michigan commercial production systems. Not known if other regions are planning similar work. The U. S. anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to try less frequent applications.

OTHER MEASURES ( please describe) Examination of promising but presently unregistered alternative fumigants and herbicides, alone or in combination with nonchemical methods, is planned in all regions ( Please see Section 17 for each region for details) Measures adopted in Michigan will likely be used in the other regions when fungi are the only key pests involved Measures adopted in Michigan will likely be used in the other regions when fungi are the only key pests involved Unknown Page 79 20. IF METHYL BROMIDE EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNIQUES ARE NOT BEING USED, OR ARE NOT PLANNED FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE NOMINATION, STATE REASONS In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, each party is required to describe ways in which it strives to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. The use of methyl bromide in the growing of peppers in the United States is minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl bromide has, for the last 40 years, been 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 application for cucurbits is most often machine injected into soil to specific depths.

As methyl bromide has become 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 95% methyl bromide and 5% 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, at low to moderate levels of infestation, it must be stressed that the long term efficacy of these mixtures is unknown.

Tarpaulin ( high density polyethylene) is also used to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. In addition, pepper growers utilize cultural practices.

Reduced methyl bromide concentrations in mixtures, cultural practices, and the extensive use of tarpaulins 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 for the uses described in this nomination. Page 80 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT The following economic assessment is organized by MB critical use application. Cost of MB and alternatives are given first in table 21.1. This is followed in table 22.1 by a listing of net and gross revenues by applicant. Expected losses when using MB alternatives are then further decomposed in tables E1 through E5.

Reader please note that in this study net revenue is calculated as gross revenue minus operating costs. This is a good measure as to the direct losses of income that may be suffered by the users. It should be noted that net revenue does not represent net income to the users. Net income, which indicates profitability of an operation of an enterprise, is gross revenue minus the sum of operating and fixed costs. Net income should be smaller than the net revenue measured in this study. We did not include fixed costs because it is often difficult to measure and verify.

21. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD:

TABLE 21.1: PEPPERS  COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD ALTERNATIVE YIELD* COST IN YEAR 1 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 2 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 3 ( US$/ ha)

California Methyl Bromide 100% $ 5,903 $ 5,903 $ 5,903 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 94% $ 5,903 $ 5,903 $ 5,903 Florida Methyl Bromide 100% $ 2,656 $ 2,656 $ 2,656 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 71% $ 3,501 $ 3,501 $ 3,501 Metam Sodium 56% $ 3,326 $ 3,326 $ 3,326 Georgia Methyl Bromide 100% $ 3,642 $ 3,642 $ 3,642 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 71% $ 3,242 $ 3,242 $ 3,242 Metam Sodium 56% $ 3,027 $ 3,027 $ 3,027 Michigan Methyl Bromide 100% $ 1,475 $ 1,475 $ 1,475 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 94% $ 1,772 $ 1,772 $ 1,772 Southeast U. S.

Methyl Bromide 100% $ 2,214 $ 2,214 $ 2,214 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 71% $ 2,585 $ 2,585 $ 2,585 Metam Sodium 56% $ 2,585 $ 2,585 $ 2,585 * As percentage of typical or 3 year average yield, compared to methyl bromide. Page 81 22. GROSS AND NET REVENUE:

TABLE 22.1: PEPPERS   YEAR 1, 2, AND 3 GROSS AND NET REVENUES YEAR 1, 2, AND 3 ALTERNATIVES ( as shown in question 21) GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) California Methyl Bromide $ 21,344 $ 4,098 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 20,063 $ 2,903 Florida Methyl Bromide $ 29,498 $ 9,158 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 20,944 $ 2,433 Metam Sodium $ 16,519  $ 479 Georgia Methyl Bromide $ 35,176 $ 6,553 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 24,975  $ 816 Metam Sodium $ 19,698  $ 3,900 Michigan Methyl Bromide $ 24,056  $ 6,751 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 20,916  $ 9,379 Southeastern U. S. Methyl Bromide $ 30,579 $ 11,822 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 21,711 $ 2,867 Metam Sodium $ 17,124 $ 393 NOTE: Year 1 equals year 2 and 3. Page 82 MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES CALIFORNIA PEPPER  TABLE E1: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES CALIFORNIA PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 6%

YIELD PER HECTARE 787 739 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 27 $ 27 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 21,344 $ 20,063  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 17,246 $ 17,160 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 4,098 $ 2,903 LOSS MEASURES 1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 1,194 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 8 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 6%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE (%) 0% 29%

FLORIDA PEPPER  TABLE E. 2: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES FLORIDA PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN METAMSODIUM YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 29% 44%

YIELD PER HECTARE 2,922 2,074 1,636 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 29,498 $ 20,944 $ 16,519  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 20,341 $ 18,510 $ 16,999 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 9,158 $ 2,433  $ 479 LOSS MEASURES 1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 6,724 $ 9,637 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 45 $ 64 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 23% 33%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE (%) 0% 73% 105% Page 83 GEORGIA PEPPER  TABLE E. 3: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES GEORGIA PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN METAMSODIUM YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 29% 44%

YIELD PER HECTARE 4,440 3,152 2,486 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 35,176 $ 24,975 $ 19,698  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 28,623 $ 25,790 $ 23,598 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 6,553  $ 816  $ 3,900 LOSS MEASURES 1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 7,368 $ 10,453 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 49 $ 70 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 21% 30%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE (%) 0% 112% 160%

MICHIGAN PEPPER TABLE E. 4: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES MICHIGAN PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 6%

YIELD PER HECTARE 4,530 4,258 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 5 $ 5 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 24,056 $ 20,916  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 30,807 $ 30,296 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$)  $ 6,751  $ 9,379 LOSS MEASURES 1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 2,629 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 54 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 11%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE (%) 0% 39% Page 84 SOUTHEASTERN U. S. ( EXCEPT FLORIDA & GEORGIA) PEPPER  TABLE E. 5: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES SOUTHEASTERN U. S. ( EXCEPT FLORIDA & GEORGIA) PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN METAMSODIUM YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 29% 44%

YIELD PER HECTARE 3,707 2,632 2,076 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 30,579 $ 21,711 $ 17,124  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 18,758 $ 18,844 $ 16,731 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 11,822 $ 2,867 $ 393 LOSS MEASURES 1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 8,954 $ 11,429 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 60 $ 76 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 29% 37%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE (%) 0% 76% 97%

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY There are currently few alternatives to methyl bromide for use in peppers. Furthermore, there are factors that limit existing alternatives' usability and efficacy from place to place. These include pest complex, climate, and regulatory restrictions. As described above, the two most promising alternatives to methyl bromide in Florida, Georgia, and the Southeastern U. S. for control of nutsedge in peppers ( 1,3 D + chloropicrin and metam sodium) are considered not technically feasible. This derives from regulatory restrictions and the magnitude of expected yield losses when they are used. Economic data representing the Florida, Georgia, and Southeastern U. S. pepper growing conditions are included in this section as a supplement to the biological review to illustrate the impacts of using MB alternatives, not to gauge them with respect to economic feasibility. However, in California and Michigan 1,3 D + chloropicrin is considered technically feasible.

California Yield loss in California pepper production is expected to be 6% when using MB alternatives. Growers will experience loss on a per hectare basis of approximately $ 1,200 and 6% and 29% losses in gross and net revenues, respectively. However, these measures do not clearly indicate that 1,3 D + chloropicrin an economically infeasible alternative to MB.

The economic conditions facing pepper growers were quantified as best as possible but, primarily due to limited data availability, every aspect of the economic picture was not included in the numeric assessment. Factors not accounted for are distribution of yield loss across individual growers and the yield risk associated with using MB alternatives. Page 85 Michigan The U. S. concludes that, at present, no economically feasible alternatives to MB exist for use in Michigan pepper production. Two factors have proven most important in this conclusion. These are yield loss and missed market windows, which are discussed individually below.

1. Yield Loss Expected yield losses of 6% are anticipated throughout Michigan pepper production.

2. Missed Market Windows The U. S. agrees with Michigan's assertion that growers will likely receive significantly lower prices for their produce if they switch to 1,3 D + chloropicrin. This is due to changes in the harvest schedule caused by the above described soil temperature complications and extended plant back intervals when using 1,3 D + chloropicrin.

The analysis of this effect is based on the fact that prices farmers receive for their peppers vary widely over the course of the growing season. Driving these fluctuations are the forces of supply and demand. Early in the growing season, when relatively few peppers are harvested, the supply is at is lowest and the market price is at its highest. As harvested quantities increase, the price declines. In order to maximize their revenues, pepper growers manage their production systems with the goal of harvesting the largest possible quantity of peppers when the prices are at their highs. The ability to sell produce at these higher prices makes a significant contribution toward the profitability of pepper operations.

To describe these conditions in Michigan pepper production, weekly pepper sales data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture for the previous three years was used to gauge the impact of early season price fluctuations on gross revenues. Though data availability is limiting, it is assumed that if pepper growers adjust the timing of their production system, as required when using 1,3 D + Chloropicrin, that they will, over the course of the growing season, receive gross revenues reduced by approximately 7.5%. The season average price was reduced by 7.5% in the analysis of the alternatives to reflect this. Based on currently available information, the U. S. believes this reduction in gross revenues serves as a reasonable indicator of the typical effect of planting delays resulting when MB alternatives are used in Michigan pepper production.

Florida No technically ( and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MB are presently available to the effected pepper growers. As such, the U. S. concludes that use of MB is critical in Florida pepper production.

Georgia No technically ( and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MB are presently available to Page 86 the affected pepper growers. As such, the U. S. concludes that use of MB is critical in Georgia pepper production.

Southeastern U. S. Except Georgia No technically ( and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MB are presently available to the effected pepper growers. As such, the U. S. concludes that use of MB is critical in Southeastern U. S. pepper production.

PART F. FUTURE PLANS 23. WHAT ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN TO RAPIDLY DEVELOP AND DEPLOY ALTERNATIVES FOR THIS CROP?

Since 1997, the United States EPA has made the registration of alternatives to methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because the EPA currently has more applications pending in its registration review queue than the resources to evaluate them, EPA prioritizes the applications. By virtue of being a top registration priority, methyl bromide alternatives enter the science review process as soon as U. S. EPA receives the application and supporting data rather than waiting in turn for the EPA to initiate its review.

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to methyl bromide, the Agency has worked to reduce the burdens on data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the Agency's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the Agency 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, Agency 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 U. S. EPA has also co chaired the U. S. DA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research, development and the registration of viable alternatives. This coordination has resulted in key registration issues ( such as worker and Page 87 bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and drinking water concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural Research Service's U. S.$ 15 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 each year for USDA's U. S.$ 2.5 million per year methyl bromide alternatives research has further ensured close coordination between the U. S. government and the research community.

The amount of methyl bromide requested for research purposes is considered critical for the development of effective alternatives. Without methyl bromide for use as a standard treatment, the research studies can never address the comparative performance of alternatives. This would be a serious impediment to the development of alternative strategies. The U. S. government estimates that peppers research will require 2844 kg per year of methyl bromide for 2005 and 2006. This amount of methyl bromide is necessary to conduct research on alternatives and is in addition to the amounts requested in the submitted CUE applications. One example of the research is a field study testing the comparative performance of methyl bromide, host resistance, cultural practices, pest management approaches for control of rootknot nematodes. Another example is a five year field study comparing methyl bromide to 1,3 D combined with biologically based materials including transplant treatments for control of weeds, root knot nematodes and soil borne fungal pathogens.

24. HOW DO YOU PLAN TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE CRITICAL USE IN THE FUTURE?

The U. S. wants to note that our usage rate is among the lowest in the world in requested sectors and represents efforts of both the government and the user community over many years to reduce use rates and emissions. We will continue to work with the user community in each sector to identify further opportunities to reduce methyl bromide use and emissions. Page 88 25. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE NOMINATION? Page 89 26. CITATIONS Aerts, M. 2003. Asst. Director, Environmental and Pest Management Division, FFVA ( Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association). Personal Communication with G. Tomimatsu, U. S. EPA, December 2, 2003.

Aerts, M. 2004. Asst. Director, Environmental and Pest Management Division, FFVA ( Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association). Personal Communication with A. Jones and N. Mallampalli, U. S. EPA, February 13, 2004.

Allen, L. H., S. J. Locascio, D. W. Dickson, D. J. Mitchell, and S. D. Nelson. 1999. Flooding ( soil anoxia) for control of pests of vegetables. Research Summary, U. S. DA Specific Cooperative Agreement 58 6617 6 013.

Ashley, M. G., B. L. Leigh, and L. S. Lloyd. 1963. The action of metham sodium in soil II. Factors affecting removal of methyl isothiocyanate residues. J. Sci. Food Agric. 14: 153 161.

Banks, H. J. 2002. 2002 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, 2002 Assessment. Pg 46.

Burgos, N. R. and R. E. Talbert. 1996. Weed control and sweet corn ( Zea mays var. rugosa) response in a no till system with cover crops. Weed Sci. 44 ( 2): 355   361.

Chase, C. A., T. R. Sinclair, D. G. Shilling, J. P. Gilreath, and S. J. Locascio. 1998. Light effects on rhizome morphogenesis in nutsedges ( Cyperus spp): Implications for control by soil solarization. Weed Sci. 46: 575 580.

Chellemi, D. O., R. C. Hochmuth, T. Winsberg, W. Guetler, K. D. Shuler, L. E. Datnoff, D. T. Kaplan, R. McSorley, R. A. Dunn, and S. M. Olson. 1997. Application of soil solarization to fall production of cucurbits and pepper. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110: 333 336.

Cortright, B. 2003. Field Research Associate University of Michigan. Personal Communication with G. Tomimatsu, November 24, 2003.

Culpepper, S. 2004. Survey of Infestations of Nutsedges in Georgia Vegetable Crops. ( Unpublished).

Csinos, A. S., D. R. Sumner, R. M. McPherson, C. Dowler, C. W. Johnson, and A. W. Johnson. 1999. Alternatives for methyl bromide fumigation of tobacco seed beds, pepper, and tomato seedlings. Proc. Georgia Veg. Conf. Available on the Web at http:// www. tifton. uga. edu/ veg/ Publications/ Gfvga99. pdf Dowler, C. C. 1999. Herbicide activity of metham, methyl iodide, and methyl bromide applied through irrigation systems. Proc. Southern Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 77   78. Page 90 Dungan, R. S. and S. R. Yates. 2003. Degradation of fumigant pesticides: 1,3 Dichloropropene, methyl isothiocyanate, chloropicrin, and methyl bromide. Vodose Zone Journal 2: 279 286.

Eger, J. E. 2000. Efficacy of Telone products in Florida crops: a seven year summary. Proc. Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on the web at http:// www. mbao. org/ mbrpro00. html.

FFVA. 2002. Application for the Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption, Florida Solanaceous Crops ( other than tomato). September 9, 2002.

Frank, J. R., P. H. Schwartz and W. E. Potts. 1992. Modeling the effects of weed interference periods and insects on bell peppers ( Capsicum annuum). Weed Sci. 40: 308 312.

Galloway, B. A. and L. A. Weston. 1996. Influence of cover crop and herbicide treatment on weed control and yield in no till sweet corn ( Zea mays L.) and pumpkin ( Cucurbita maxima Duch.). Weed Technol. 10 ( 2): 341   346.

Gamliel, A., S. Triki, M. Austerweil, P. DiPrimo, I. Peretz Alon, O. Heiman, M. Beniches, B. Steiner, and J. Katan. 2003. Aceelerated degradation of metam sodium in the field and its management. Proc. Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on the web at http:// www. mbao. org/ mbrpro03. html.

Gevens, A., and M. K. Hausbeck. 2003. Phytophthora capsici in irrigation water and isolation of P. capsici from snap beans in Michigan. Michigan State Univ. Vegetable Crop Advisory Team Alert Vol. 18 ( 19). Available on the Web at www. ipm. msu. edu/ CAT03_ veg/ V09 24 03. htm.

Hausbeck, M. K. and B. D. Cortright. 2003. Evaluation of fumigants for managing Phytophthora crown and fruit rot of solanaceous and cucurbit crops, plot two, 2003. Unpublished study ( MI CUE # 03 0061).

Horowitz, M. 1972. Effects of desiccation and submergence on the viability of rhizome fragments of bermudagrass, johnsongrass, and tubers of nutsedge. Israel J. Agric. Res. 22( 4): 215 220.

Kadir, J. B., R. Charudattan, W. M. Stall, and B. J. Brecke. 2000. Field efficacy of Dactylaria higginsii as a bioherbicide for the control of purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus). Weed Technol. 14 ( 1): 1   6.

Kelley, W. T. 2003, Professor, University of Georgia. Personal communication with G. Tomimatsu, November 24, 2003.

Lamour, K. H. and M. Hausbeck, 2003. Effect of Crop Rotation on the survival of Phytophthora capsici in Michigan. Plant Dis. 87: 841 845. Page 91 Larkin, R. P., and Fravel, D. R. 1998. Efficacy of various fungal and bacterial biocontrol organisms for control of Fusarium wilt of tomato. Plant Dis. 82: 1022  1028.

Lewis, C. 2003 ( President, Hy Yield Bromine). Personal communication through S. A. Toth ( steve_ toth@ ncsu. edu) , Extension Entomologist & Pest Management Information Specialist, North Carolina State University; message forwarded electronically to G. Tomimatsu, December 29, 2003.

Locascio. S. J., and D. W. Dickson. 1998. Metam sodium combined with chloropicrin as an alternative to methyl bromide. Proc. Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on the web at http:// www. mbao. org/ mbrpro98. html.

Locascio, S. J., J. P. Gilreath, D. W. Dickson, T. A. Kucharek, J. P. Jones, and J. W. Noling. 1997. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene mulched tomato. HortSci. 32: 1208 1211.

Martin, F. N. 2003. Development of alternative strategies for management of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 41: 325  350.

MBTOC ( 1994): 1994 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee for the 1995 Assessment of the UNEP Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Nairobi.

Melban, K. 2003. California Pepper Commission. Personal Communication with G. Tomimatsu. Kenny@ tabcomp. com. 11/ 26/ 2003.

Munn. D. A. 1992. " Comparison of shredded newspaper and wheat straw as crop mulches." Hort technol. 2: 361  366.

Noling, J. W. 2003. University of Florida Lake Alfred. Personal Communication with G. Tomimatsu. Jwn@ lal. ufl. edu. 11/ 25/ 2003.

Noling, J. W., E. Rosskopf, and D. L. Chellemi. 2000. Impacts of alternative fumigants on soil pest control and tomato yield. Proc. Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on the web at http:// www. mbao. org/ mbrpro00. html.

Ou, L. T., K. Y. Chung, J. E. Thomas, T. A. Obreza, and D. W. Dickson. 1995. Degradation of 1,3 dichloropropene ( 1,3 D) in soils with different histories of field applications of 1,3 D. J. Nematol. 25: 249   257.

Phatak, S. C., D. R. Sumner, H. D. Wells, D. K. Bell, and N. C. Glaze. 1983. Biological control of yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus, with the indigenous rust fungus Puccinia canaliculata. Science. 219: 1446   1448. Page 92 Patterson, D. T. 1998. Suppression of purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) with polyethylene film mulch. Weed Technology, 12: 275 280.

Schneider S. M., E. N. Rosskopf, J. G. Leesch, D. O. Chellemi, C. T. Bull, and M. Mazzola. 2003. United States Department of Agriculture   Agricultural Research Service research on alternatives to methyl bromide: pre plant and post harvest. Pest Manag Sci. 59: 814 826.

Thullen, R. J. and P. E. Keeley. 1975. Yellow nutsedge sprouting and resprouting potential. Weed Sci. 23: 333 337.

Smelt, J. H., S. J. H. Crum, and W. Teinissen. 1989. Accelerated transformation of the fumigant methyl isocyanate in soil after repeated application of metam sodium. J. Environ. Sci. Health B24: 437 455.

Stall, W. M. and J. Morales Payan. 2000. The critical period of nutsedge interference in tomato. S. W. Florida Research & Education Center. Available on the web at www. imok. ufl. edu/ liv/ groups/ IPM/ weed_ con/ nutsedge. htm UNEP ( United Nations Environment Programme). 1998. Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC) 1998 assessment of alternatives to methyl bromide. p. 49.

U. S. EPA. 2002. Peppers Field. Peppers Grown Outdoors on Plastic Mulch. CUN2003/ 058 Verhagen, C., G. Lebbink, and J. Bloem. 1996. Enhanced biodegradation of the nematicides 1,3 dichloropropene and methyl isothiocyanate in a variety of soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 28: 1753   1756.

Webster, T. M. 2002. Nutsedge eradication: impossible dream? National Nursery Proc. RMRS P 000. U. S. DA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn Res. Station, Ogden, Utah.

Webster, T. M., A. S. Csinos, A. W. Johnson, C. C. Dowler, D. R. Sumner, R. L. Fery. 2001. Methyl bromide alternatives in a bell pepper squash rotation. Crop Protection 20: 605 614.

Wilen, C. A., M. E. McGiffen, and C. L. Elmore. 2003. Nutsedge: Integrated Pest Management for Home Gardeners and Landscape Professionals. University of California IPM Publication # 4732. Available on the Web at www. ipm. ucdavis. edu. Page 93 APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). 2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average 9,854 5%

3,581 25%

2,554 89%

8,215 103%

749 44%

24,954 50%

Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 63,558 447 142 65%

82,535 550 150 63%

261,804 1,743 150 25%

1,149,588 7,654 150 7%

11,852 246 48 25%

1,569,337 10,640 147 22%

22% 20%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 179 142 0 0 0 0 100 100 26 17 0 0 0 0 150 150 0 0 0 0 80 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 150 8 8 0 0 80 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 150 40 40 1 0 80 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 0 0 0 0 75 75 0 0 0 0 75 75 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MeBr Use /

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes 1/ year 1,194 $ 8 $ 6% 29%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No + Yes 1/ year 8,954 $ 60 $ 29% 76%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No + Yes 1/ year 7,368 $ 49 $ 21% 112%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 6,724 $ 45 $ 23% 73%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No N/ A Yes 1/ year 933 $ 19 $ 4%  14%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare 67% 75%

HIGH 100%

80% Regional Hectares**

84% 90% 100%

44% 53%

LOW 100%

47% 51%

2006 Nomination Options Requested Hectares %

10% 42%

REGION REGION REGION GEORGIA FLORIDA MICHIGAN Nomination Amount % Reduction from Initial Request FLORIDA MICHIGAN MICHIGAN CALIFORNIA SOUTHEASTERN US GEORGIA CALIFORNIA Adjustments to Requested Amounts MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE 0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 6% 1,3 D + Pic 1,3 D + Pic or Metam Sodium 1,3 D + Pic or Metam Sodium CALIFORNIA SOUTHEASTERN US GEORGIA FLORIDA MICHIGAN CALIFORNIA SOUTHEASTERN US 29% or 44%

29% or 44%

29% or 44%

SOUTHEASTERN US GEORGIA FLORIDA Other Considerations 1,3 D + Pic or Metam Sodium Quality/ Time/ Market Window/

Yield Loss (%)

6% Marginal Strategy 1,3 D + Pic Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis 100%

75%

Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%) Combined Impacts (%)

Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 12%

(%) Key Pest Distribution 0% 0% 11% 1,680,317 1,125,417 12% 16% 44%

2,000,136 2,000,136 1,777,564

   1,760,876 1,760,876 1,230,822 824,651 15,803     11,852 11,852 1,230,822  89,956 52,849 347,183  8,935   284,128 172,507 224,891  112,445  () QPS HIGH LOW 181,437  101,191 16,688  63,558 63,558 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) 0%

330 48 0%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 2,000,136 13,343 136 1,918,212 12,428 130 15,803 328 48 15,924 2,282 150 0%

1,230,822 8,195 150 1,360,776 8,468 161 0%

347,183 2,312 150 342,716 447 142 0%

224,891 1,497 150 135,238 900 150 0%

181,437 1,012 179 63,558 2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

REGION 37%

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 26 Feb 2004 Average Hectares in the US: 36,007 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: PEPPERS % of Average Hectares Requested: Page 94 Footnotes for Appendix A: Values may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1. Average Hectares in the US   Average Hectares in the US is the average of 2001 and 2002 total hectares in the US in this crop when available. These figures were obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2. % of Average Hectares Requested  Percent (%) of Average Hectares Requested is the total area in the sector's request divided by the Average Hectares in the US. Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 3. 2006 Amount of Request   The 2006 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination. 4. 2001 & 2002 Average Use   The 2001 & 2002 Average Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures provided by the applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to unavailable 2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use figure is used. 5. Quarantine and Pre Shipment   Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the percentage (%) of the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. 6. Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares   Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares is the 2001 and 2002 average estimate of hectares within the defined region. These figures are taken from various sources to ensure an accurate estimate. The sources are from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and from other governmental sources such as the Georgia Acreage estimates. 7. Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage %  Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage % is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 8. 2006 Nomination Options   2006 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure. 9. Subtractions from Requested Amounts   Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount. 10. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request   Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms. 11. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting is the estimate measured in kilograms in situations where an applicant has made a request for a CUE with an individual application while their consortium has also made a request for a CUE on their behalf in the consortium application. In these cases the double counting is removed from the consortium application and the individual application takes precedence. 12. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the difference in the 2006 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE application compared with the 2006 request from the applicant's 2003 CUE application. 13. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then Page 95 multiplied by the percentage subject to QPS treatments. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, QPS = ( 2006 Request   Double Counting   Growth)*( QPS %) 14. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate Difference   Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares. 15. Adjustments to Requested Amounts   Adjustments to requested amounts were factors that reduced to total amount of methyl bromide requested by factoring in the specific situations were the applicant could use alternatives to methyl bromide. These are calculated as proportions of the total request. We have tried to make the adjustment to the requested amounts in the most appropriate category when the adjustment could fall into more than one category. 16. (%) Karst topography   Percent karst topography is the proportion of the land area in a nomination that is characterized by karst formations. In these areas, the groundwater can easily become contaminated by pesticides or their residues. Regulations are often in place to control the use of pesticide of concern. Dade County, Florida, has a ban on the use of 1,3D due to its karst topography. 17. (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones   Percentage of the acreage of a field where certain alternatives to methyl bromide cannot be used due the requirement that a 100 foot buffer be maintained between the application site and any inhabited structure. 18. (%) Key Pest Impacts  Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For example, the key pest in Michigan peppers, Phytophthora spp. infests approximately 30% of the vegetable growing area. In southern states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge. 19. Regulatory Issues (%)  Regulatory issues (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps) pursuant to state and local limits on their use. 20. Unsuitable Terrain (%)   Unsuitable terrain (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance) or terrain configuration, such as hilly terrain. Where the use of alternatives poses application and coverage problems. 21. Cold Soil Temperatures   Cold soil temperatures is the proportion of the requested acreage where soil temperatures remain too low to enable the use of methyl bromide alternatives and still have sufficient time to produce the normal ( one or two) number of crops per season or to allow harvest sufficiently early to obtain the high prices prevailing in the local market at the beginning of the season. 22. Combined Impacts (%)  Total combined impacts are the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc. In each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available ( e. g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive). For example, if 50% of the requested area had moderate to severe key pest pressure and 50% of the requested area had karst topography, then 75% of the area was assumed to require methyl bromide rather than the alternative. This was calculated as follows: 50% affected by key pests and an additional 25% ( 50% of 50%) affected by karst topography. 23. Qualifying Area  Qualifying area ( ha) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined impacts. 24. Use Rate  Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for 2006 or the historic average use rate. 25. CUE Nominated amount  CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. 26. Percent Reduction  Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. 27. Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector  Self explanatory. 28. Total US Sector Nomination  Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector. 29. Dichotomous Variables   dichotomous variables are those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no. These variables were used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination. 30. Strip Bed Treatment   Strip bed treatment is ` yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise. 31. Currently Use Alternatives   Currently use alternatives is ` yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made. Page 96 32. Research/ Transition Plans   Research/ Transition Plans is ` yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to transition to alternatives. 33. Tarps/ Deep Injection Used   Because all pre plant methyl bromide use in the US is either with tarps or by deep injection, this variable takes on the value ` tarp' when tarps are used and ` deep' when deep injection is used. 34. Pest free cert. Required  This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be certified as ` pest free' in order to be sold 35. Other Issues. Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 36. Change from Prior CUE Request This variable takes a `+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a ` 0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a `` if the current request is smaller that the previous request. 37. Verified Historic Use/ State This item indicates whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been compared to records of historic use in that area. 38. Frequency of Treatment   This indicates how often methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from multiple times per year to once in several decades. 39. Economic Analysis   provides summary economic information for the applications. 40. Loss per Hectare   This measures the total loss per hectare when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 41. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide   This measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 42. Loss as a % of Gross revenue   This measures the loss as a proportion of gross ( total) revenue. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 43. Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue  This measures loss as a proportion of total revenue minus operating costs. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. This item is also called net cash returns. 44. Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)   When this measure is available it measures the sum of losses including quality losses, non productive time, missed market windows and other yield losses when using the marginal strategy. 45. Marginal Strategy  This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. Page 97 APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF NEW APPLICANTS A number of new groups applied for methyl bromide for 2005 during this application cycle, as shown in the table below. Although in most cases they represent additional amounts for sectors that were already well characterized sectors, in a few cases they comprised new sectors. Examples of the former include significant additional country ( cured, uncooked) ham production; some additional request for tobacco transplant trays, and very minor amounts for pepper and eggplant production in lieu of tomato production in Michigan.

For the latter, there are two large requests: cut flower and foliage production in Florida and California (` Ornamentals') and a group of structures and process foods that we have termed ` Post Harvest NPMA' which includes processed ( generally wheat based foods), spices and herbs, cocoa, dried milk, cheeses and small amounts of other commodities. There was also a small amount requested for field grown tobacco.

The details of the case that there are no alternatives which are both technically and economically feasible are presented in the appropriate sector chapters, as are the requested amounts, suitably adjusted to ensure that no double counting, growth, etc. were included and that the amount was only sufficient to cover situations ( key pests, regulatory requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used.

The amount requested by new applicants is approximately 2.5% of the 1991 U. S. baseline, or about 1,400,000 pounds of methyl bromide, divided 40% for pre plant uses and 60% for postharvest needs.

The methodology for deriving the nominated amount used estimates that would result in the lowest amount of methyl bromide requested from the range produced by the analysis to ensure that adequate amounts of methyl bromide were available for critical needs. We are requesting additional methyl bromide in the amount of about 500,000 Kg, or 2% or the 1991 U. S. baseline, to provide for the additional critical needs in the pre plant and post harvest sector.

Applicant Name 2005 U. S. CUE Nomination ( lbs)

California Cut Flower Commission 400,000 National Country Ham Association 1,172 Wayco Ham Company 39 California Date Commission 5,319 National Pest Management Association 319,369 Michigan Pepper Growers 20,904 Michigan Eggplant Growers 6,968 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Transplant Trays 2,254 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Field Grown 28,980 Virginia Tobacco Growers  Transplant Trays 941 Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 4,200 Page 98 Ozark Country Hams 240 Nahunta Pork Center 248 American Association of Meat Processors 296,800 Total lbs 1,087,434 Total kgs 493,252