METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE NOMINATION FOR PREPLANT SOIL USE FOR TOMATO GROWN IN OPEN FIELDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY: DATE RECEIVED BY OZONE SECRETARIAT:

YEAR: CUN:

NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION: Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Pre plant Soil Use for Tomato Grown in Open Fields ( Prepared in 2005)

NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS Contact Person: John E. Thompson, Ph. D. Title: International Affairs Officer Address: Office of Environmental Policy U. S. Department of State 2201 C Street N. W. Room 4325 Washington, DC 20520 U. S. A. Telephone: ( 202) 647 9799 Fax: ( 202) 647 5947 E mail: ThompsonJE2@ state. gov Following the requirements of Decision IX/ 6 paragraph ( a)( 1), the United States of America has determined that the specific use detailed in this Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market disruption.

Yes

No Signature Name Date Title: U. S. Tomatoes ii CONTACT OR EXPERT( S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS Contact/ Expert Person: Steve Knizner Title: Acting Division Director Address: Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 7503C Washington, DC 20460 U. S. A. Telephone: ( 703) 305 6903 Fax: ( 703) 308 8090 E mail: knizner. steve@ epa. gov LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION PACKAGE List all paper and electronic documents submitted by the Nominating Party to the Ozone Secretariat 1. PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of Paper Documents and Appendices Number of Pages Date Sent to Ozone Secretariat 2. ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of Electronic Files Size of File ( kb) Date Sent to Ozone Secretariat U. S. Tomatoes iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: SUMMARY ____________________________________________________________ 8 1. Nominating Party _________________________________________________________ 8 2. Descriptive Title of Nomination______________________________________________ 8 3. Crop and Summary of Crop System___________________________________________ 8 4. Methyl Bromide Nominated _________________________________________________ 8 5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use ___________________ 9 6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible_____________________________ 10 7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide _____________________________ 10 8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use __________________________ 11 9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity Nominated for Each Region___________________________________________________________________ 12 California  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE ______________ 12 California  10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request______________________________________________ 12 California  11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate _____________________ 13 California  12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/ or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested ____________________________ 14 CALIFORNIA  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION ____________________________________ 14 California  13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible _________________________ 15 California  14. List and Discuss Why Registered ( and Potential) Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: ___________ 17 California  15. List Present ( and Possible Future) Registration Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives _______________________________________________________ 17 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 ___ 17 California  17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide? __________________________________ 18 California  18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?___________________________________________________ 18 California  Summary of Technical Feasibility ___________________________________ 19 Michigan  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE _______________ 19 Michigan  10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request_____________________________________________________ 19 Michigan  11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate _____________________ 20 Michigan  12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/ or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested ____________________________ 21 MICHIGAN  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION _____________________________________ 22 Michigan  13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible _________________________ 22 Michigan  14. List and Discuss Why Registered ( and Potential) Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: ___________ 23 Michigan  15. List Present ( and Possible Future) Registration Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives _______________________________________________________ 24 U. S. Tomatoes iv Michigan  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 ___ 24 Michigan  17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide? __________________________________ 25 Michigan  18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?___________________________________________________ 25 Michigan  Summary of Technical Feasibility ____________________________________ 26 South Eastern United States  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE 26 South Eastern United States  10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request _________________________________ 26 South Eastern United States  11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate_______ 27 South Eastern United States  12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/ or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested___________________ 28 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION ___________________ 29 South Eastern United States  13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible __________ 29 South Eastern United States  14. List and Discuss Why Registered ( and Potential) Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 32 South Eastern United States  15. List Present ( and Possible Future) Registration Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives _________________________________________ 32 South Eastern United States  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 ___________________________________________________________ 34 South Eastern United States  17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide? ______________ 35 South Eastern United States  18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide? _____________________________________ 35 South Eastern United States  Summary of Technical Feasibility _____________________ 36 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL ___________________________________________________ 37 19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions in the Particular Use ________________________________________________________ 37 20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State Reasons_____________________ 37 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT________________________________________________ 39 21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3 Year Period____________ 39 22. Gross and Net Revenue___________________________________________________ 39 Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives _____________________ 40 Summary of Economic Feasibility _____________________________________________ 42 PART F. FUTURE PLANS _______________________________________________________ 45 23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy Alternatives for This Crop? ________________________________________________________________________ 45 24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the Critical Use in the Future? __________________________________________________________________ 46 25. Additional Comments on the Nomination ____________________________________ 46 26. Citations ______________________________________________________________ 47 U. S. Tomatoes v APPENDIX A. 2007 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI).________________ 49 APPENDIX B. 2006 Methyl Bromide Reconsideration for Tomatoes. _________________ 53 U. S. Tomatoes vi LIST OF TABLES PART A: SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________ 8 Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated ____________________________________________ 8 Table A. 1: Executive Summary for Tomatoes _______________________________________ 9 Table 7.1: Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide _________________________ 10 Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use______________________ 11 CALIFORNIA  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE ________________ 12 California  Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide Request__ 12 California  Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System___________________________ 13 California  Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule ___________________ 13 California  Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide _____________________ 14 CALIFORNIA  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION ______________________________________ 14 California   Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible ____________________ 15 California   Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion _________________ 17 California   Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives _____________________ 17 California   Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives   Key Pest 1 _____________________ 18 California   Table C. 1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary ________________________ 18 MICHIGAN  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE __________________ 19 Michigan  Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide Request __ 19 Michigan  Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System ___________________________ 20 Michigan  Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule____________________ 20 Michigan  Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide ______________________ 21 MICHIGAN  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION________________________________________ 22 Michigan   Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible ____________________ 22 Michigan   Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion __________________ 23 Michigan   Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives _____________________ 24 Michigan   Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives   Key Pest 1 _____________________ 24 Michigan   Table C. 1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary ________________________ 25 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE_ 26 South Eastern United States  Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide Request_________________________________________________________ 26 South Eastern United States  Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System ____________ 27 South Eastern United States  Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule_____ 27 South Eastern United States  Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide _______ 28 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION_______________________ 29 South Eastern United States   Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible _____ 29 South Eastern United States   Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion ___ 32 South Eastern United States   Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives ______ 33 South Eastern United States   Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives   Key Pest 1 ______ 35 South Eastern United States   Table C. 1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary _________ 35 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL ____________________________________________________ 37 Table 19.1: Techniques to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions ________________ 37 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT _________________________________________________ 39 Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3 Year Period _______ 39 Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue ________________________________________ 39 U. S. Tomatoes vii Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue ________________________________________ 40 Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue ________________________________________ 40 California  Table E. 1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives _______________ 40 Michigan  Table E. 2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives _______________ 41 Southeastern US  Table E. 3: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives _________ 41 PART F. FUTURE PLANS ________________________________________________________ 45 APPENDIX A. 2007 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). __________________ 49 Page 8 PART A: SUMMARY 1. NOMINATING PARTY:

The United States of America ( U. S.)

2. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Pre plant Soil Use for Tomato Grown in Open Fields ( Prepared in 2005)

3. CROP AND SUMMARY OF CROP SYSTEM Tomato Crops Grown in Open Fields for Fruit. In California, Michigan and South Eastern United States ( Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee). These crops are grown in open fields on plastic tarps, often followed by various other crops. Harvested fruit is destined for the fresh market.

4. METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED:

TABLE 4.1: METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED YEAR NOMINATION AMOUNT ( KG)* NOMINATION AREA ( HA)

2007 2,334,047 15,235 * Includes research amount Page 9 5. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE Currently registered alternatives to methyl bromide do not consistently provide effective control of nutsedge weed species and more time is needed to evaluate relationship between fumigant alternatives, various mulches, and herbicide systems under different growing conditions.

The US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are not suitable. In US tomato production there are several factors that make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable. These include:  pest control efficacy of alternatives: the efficacy of alternatives may not be comparable to methyl bromide in some areas, making these alternatives technically and/ or economically infeasible for use in tomato production.  geographic distribution of key target pests: i. e., some alternatives may be comparable to methyl bromide as long as key pests occur at low pressure, and in such cases the US is only nominating a CUE for tomato where the key pest pressure is moderate to high such as nutsedge in the Southeastern US.  regulatory constraints: e. g., telone use is limited in California due to townships caps and in Florida due to the presence of karst geology.  delay in planting and harvesting: e. g., the plant back interval for telone+ chloropicrin is two weeks longer than methyl bromide+ chloropicrin, and in Michigan an additional delay would occur because soil temperature must be higher to fumigate with alternatives. Delays in planting and harvesting result in users missing key market windows, and adversely affect revenues through lower prices.  unsuitable topography: e. g., alternatives that must be applied with drip irrigation may not be suitable in areas with rolling or sloped topography due to uneven distribution of the fumigant.

TABLE A. 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR TOMATOES *

Region California Region Michigan Region South Eastern United States AMOUNT OF APPLICANT REQUEST 2007 Kilograms 40,823 30,391 4,651,126 AMOUNT OF NOMINATION*

2007Kilograms 40,823 10,333 2,277,389 * See Appendix A for complete description of how the nominated amount was calculated. Page 10 6. SUMMARIZE WHY KEY ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT FEASIBLE:

Research results confirm that methyl bromide alternatives options provide inconsistent control of nutsedge weed species. Nutsedge is an extremely competitive weed in tomato and can cause significant yield losses in the Southeast. Methyl bromide alternatives also provide incomplete control of soil pathogens in Michigan.

In addition, there is a regulatory prohibition on the use of 1,3 D on karst geology in the South Eastern United States, including Florida. In Michigan, 1,3 D can only be used when soil temperature are higher than required for using methyl bromide, and this results in a planting/ harvesting/ marketing delay. In California, alternatives that must be applied with drip irrigation may not be suitable in areas with rolling or sloped topography due to uneven distribution of the fumigant.

7. ( i) PROPORTION OF CROPS GROWN USING METHYL BROMIDE TABLE 7.1: PROPORTION OF CROPS GROWN USING METHYL BROMIDE REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED TOTAL CROP AREA AVERAGE OF 2001 AND 2003 ( HA) PROPORTION OF REQUEST FOR METHYL BROMIDE IN 2003 (%) California Region 13,355 3 Michigan Region 769 33 South Eastern United States 26,703 100 NATIONAL TOTAL : * 51,506 63 * National total includes other regions not requesting methyl bromide 7. ( ii) IF ONLY PART OF THE CROP AREA IS TREATED WITH METHYL BROMIDE, INDICATE THE REASON WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NOT USED IN THE OTHER AREA, AND IDENTIFY WHAT ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ARE USED TO CONTROL THE TARGET PATHOGENS AND WEEDS WITHOUT METHYL BROMIDE THERE.

The primary reason that some tomatoes may be grown without methyl bromide in all three regions is the absence of key target pests ( i. e., nutsedge in the Southeast, soil pathogens in Michigan, and pathogens and nematodes in California).

In Florida, areas without karst geology and having low nutsedge pressure can successfully employ a fumigation system relying on 1,3 D and chloropicrin.

In Michigan, the majority of tomato producing acres do not have Phytopthora spp., and do not use methyl bromide.

In California, areas with flat terrain successfully employ 1,3 D with chloropicrin as a fumigant. Page 11 7. ( iii) WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE TO EXPAND THE USE OF THESE METHODS TO COVER AT LEAST PART OF THE CROP THAT HAS REQUESTED USE OF METHYL BROMIDE? WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THIS?

No, areas that use methyl bromide do so because hilly terrain, cold soil temperatures, and heavy pest pressure preclude the use of fumigants that are employed when these conditions are not present.

8. AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE REQUESTED FOR CRITICAL USE TABLE 8.1: AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE REQUESTED FOR CRITICAL USE REGION: California Michigan South Eastern U. S.** YEAR OF EXEMPTION REQUEST 2007 KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 40,823 30,391 4,722,340 USE: BROADCAST OR STRIP/ BED TREATMENT Broadcast Strip/ Bed Mostly Strip/ Bed FORMULATION ( ratio of methyl bromide/ chloropicrin mixture) TO BE USED FOR THE CUE 67: 33 or 50: 50 67/ 33 Mostly 67/ 33 TOTAL AREA TO BE TREATED WITH THE METHYL BROMIDE OR METHYL BROMIDE/ CHLOROPICRIN FORMULATION ( m2 or ha) 364 253 29,255 DOSAGE RATE* ( g/ m2) OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED TO CALCULATE REQUESTED KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 18.0 13.1 15.0 * Only 36.7% percent of an hectare receives this amount of methyl bromide formulation ** Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee Page 12 9. SUMMARIZE ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE METHYL BROMIDE QUANTITY NOMINATED FOR EACH REGION:

The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the US was calculated as follows:

  The percent of regional hectares in the applicant's request was divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request. Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of additional varieties in the applicant's request that were not included in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service surveys of the crop.   Hectares counted in more than one application or rotated within one year of an application to a crop that also uses methyl bromide were subtracted. There was no double counting in this sector.   Growth or increasing production ( the amount of area requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically treated) was subtracted. The three applicants that included growth in their request had the growth amount removed.   Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the area in the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. Not applicable in this sector.   Only the acreage experiencing one or more of the following impacts were included in the nominated amount: moderate to heavy key pest pressure, regulatory impacts, karst geology, buffer zones, unsuitable terrain, and cold soil temperatures.

CALIFORNIA REGION  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE CALIFORNIA REGION  10. KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS FOR WHICH METHYL BROMIDE IS REQUESTED AND SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST CALIFORNIA REGION  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 California Fusarium wilt Verticillium wilt Root Knot nematodes Pythium spp. Registered alternatives do not provide consistent, efficient and economical control of listed pests. Page 13 CALIFORNIA REGION  11. ( i) CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM AND CLIMATE CALIFORNIA REGION  TABLE 11.1: CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS CALIFORNIA REGION CROP TYPE: ( e. g. transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings) Transplants for tomato fruit production ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL CROP: (# of years between replanting) Annual TYPICAL CROP ROTATION ( if any) AND USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR OTHER CROPS IN THE ROTATION: ( if any) Tomato   Strawberry or Barley or fallow SOIL TYPES: ( Sand, loam, clay, etc.) Sandy to Loam FREQUENCY OF METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION: ( e. g. every two years) Annual OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: No additional information was provided CALIFORNIA REGION  TABLE 11.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATE AND CROP SCHEDULE MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB CLIMATIC ZONE ( Plant Hardiness Zone) 9A, 9B, 10A RAINFALL ( mm) 0.25 0.00 0.25 3.05 51.8 2.29 OUTSIDE TEMP. ( ° C)* 17.8 20.5 22.2 20.0 14.4 11.7 FUMIGATION SCHEDULE ( DATES) X X X X X PLANTING SCHEDULE ( DATES) X X X X KEY MARKET WINDOW ( DATES) X X X X X X * Norton et al., 2000.

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

Telone fumigation controls nematodes. Chloropicrin controls fungal pathogens. A combination of telone and chloropicrin may be a technically feasible alternative for methyl bromide on flat terrain. However, this portion of the CUE for California is only for hilly, rolling terrain where these alternatives would not be uniformly distributed by the irrigation systems.

Metam sodium alone or metam sodium plus chloropicrin will not control root knot nematodes. In addition, rolling field topography having varied soil textures does not allow uniform application of metam sodium. This may result in pockets of high and low concentrations of metam sodium. High concentrations of metam sodium can be phytotoxic to the tomatoes, limiting its usefulness as an alternative in areas of hilly or rolling terrain. The surviving fungal pathogen populations can build up quickly to kill tomato plants ( Burnette, 2003). Page 14 CALIFORNIA REGION  12. HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE, AND/ OR MIXTURES CONTAINING METHYL BROMIDE, FOR WHICH AN EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED CALIFORNIA REGION  TABLE 12.1 HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR AS MANY YEARS AS POSSIBLE AS SHOWN SPECIFY: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 AREA TREATED ( hectares) 1,039 671 1,087 693 1,089 677 1,080 683 900 624 546 RATIO OF FLAT FUMIGATION USE TO STRIP/ BED USE IF STRIP TREATMENT IS USED 100% flat fumigation 100% flat fumigation 100% flat fumigation 100% flat fumigation 100% flat fumigation 100% flat fumigation AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED ( total kilograms) 85,102 85,667 83,795 79,688 73,607 64,632 FORMULATIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE ( methyl bromide / chloropicrin) 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 METHOD BY WHICH METHYL BROMIDE APPLIED ( e. g. injected at 25cm depth, hot gas) Mostly Shank at 25 30 cm depth Mostly Shank at 25 30 cm depth Mostly Shank at 25 30 cm depth Mostly Shank at 25 30 cm depth Mostly Shank at 25 30 cm depth Mostly Shank at 25 30 cm depth APPLICATION RATE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT IN kg/ ha* 127 124 124 117 118 118 ACTUAL DOSAGE RATE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT ( g/ m2) 12.7 12.4 12.4 11.7 11.8 11.8 CALIFORNIA REGION  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION Page 15 CALIFORNIA REGION  13. REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE CALIFORNIA REGION   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 dichloropropene Effective against nematodes but not against fungal plant pathogens. Not effective on hilly, rolling terrain. No Metam sodium Effective against fungal plant pathogen if applied uniformly. The petitioner states that metam sodium cannot be applied uniformly because of uneven land topography and soil texture, which results in pockets of very high and very low metam sodium concentrations. Surviving populations of the fungal pathogen can build up quickly and kill tomato plants ( Burnette, 2003). In addition, the applicant claims that high concentration can be phytotoxic and low concentrations do not control fungal pathogens ( data not submitted). No Chloropicrin Chloropicrin is effective against many soil pathogens, but not against nematodes when it is applied alone. No NON CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Soil solarization The CUE is for tomatoes grown in the coastal areas of California, where mild weather conditions ( 15  25 ° C temperatures) prevail. These weather conditions restrict soil solarization as alternative to methyl bromide. No 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 tomato fields. Any such system would also require large amounts of energy and water to provide sufficient steam necessary to pasteurize 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 and/ or nematodes. While biological control may have utility as part of plant pathogen management strategy, by itself this approach cannot be a methyl bromide alternative No Cover crops and mulching There is no evidence that these practices effectively substitute for the control methyl bromide provides against fungal pathogens and nematodes. No Crop rotation and fallow land The land is very expensive in this region, and there are not enough hectares in tomato growing areas to rotate. Furthermore, since fungal pathogens survive for many years in soil, rotation is not a viable option. No Endophytes No information is available on tomato endophytes that will control fungal and plant pathogens. No Page 16 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Flooding/ Water management Flooding is not technically feasible as an alternative because it does not have any suppressive effect on fungal plant pathogens and nematodes. In addition, it is prohibitively expensive and there are water management restrictions. No Grafting, resistant rootstock, soilless culture, plant breeding, organic production, substrates, plug plants. There are no studies documenting the commercial availability of resistant rootstock immune to the fungal pathogens listed as target pests. Grafting and plant breeding are thus also rendered technically infeasible as methyl bromide alternatives for control of fungal pathogens and nematodes. No COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES Metam sodium + Chloropicrin Undulating land topography and variable soil texture will result in uneven concentration of metam sodium through drip irrigation that may affect field performance and can result in phytotoxicity to tomato transplants. This mixture will not control nematodes. No Metam sodium + Crop rotation Same as metam sodium No 1,3 D + Metam sodium This mixture may control fungi and nematodes, but undulating land topography will result in uneven concentration of metam sodium through drip irrigation that may result in phytotoxicity to tomato transplants. No 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Telone is effective against nematodes. Chloropicrin is effective against fungal plant pathogens. The combination is a technically feasible alternative to methyl bromide, but undulating topography can reduce its uniformity of application and, hence, its effectiveness. No 1,3 D + metam sodium + pebulate This mixture cannot be used as a methyl bromide alternative because pebulate is no longer registered in the United States ( during 2002 its registration expired and the manufacturer went out of business). No * Regulatory reasons include local restrictions ( e. g. occupational health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of registration. Page 17 CALIFORNIA REGION  14. LIST AND DISCUSS WHY REGISTERED ( and Potential) PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ARE CONSIDERED NOT EFFECTIVE AS TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE:

CALIFORNIA REGION   TABLE 14.1: TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION NAME OF ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION None Foliar fungicides are not suitable because the key pests are soil borne and afflict the belowground portion of the tomato plant. There are no other alternatives that exist for the control of these key pests on hilly or rolling terrain when they are present in the soil. A number of fungicides are available that may control fungal pathogens when they attack aerial plant parts. Fusarium spp. results in plant wilting and there is no remedy once plant is systemically infected.

CALIFORNIA REGION  15. LIST PRESENT ( and Possible Future) REGISTRATION STATUS OF ANY CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES:

CALIFORNIA REGION   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:

Methyl Iodide Application submitted to the US EPA during February 2002. Not registered Yes Unknown Sodium azide No application submitted to the US EPA till date. Not registered No Unknown Propargyl bromide No application submitted to the US EPA till date. Not registered No Unknown CALIFORNIA REGION  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:

For California there are results of two field trials conducted in San Diego and Ventura counties on the efficacy of methyl bromide and its alternatives in controlling listed pests ( Fusarium wilt, Verticillium wilt, Root knot nematode, and Pythium spp.). Metam sodium and 1,3 D are both not viable options because of hilly, rolling terrain. Varied soil texture and undulating land topography can create high and low concentration spots of metam sodium and 1,3 D, affecting its efficacy in controlling the pests ( Burnette, 2003). Low concentrations may results in lower efficacy and high concentration in phytotoxicity. Growers may suffer 15 20% yield losses. The applicant did not submit any data on the effect of low and high concentration spots of metam sodium on tomato yield. Therefore, we are unable to validate whether or not these losses are reasonable. Page 18 CALIFORNIA REGION   TABLE 16.1: EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES   KEY PEST 1 No additional information is available to present.

CALIFORNIA REGION   TABLE C. 1: ALTERNATIVES YIELD LOSS DATA SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE LIST TYPE OF PEST RANGE OF YIELD LOSS BEST ESTIMATE OF YIELD LOSS Metam sodium Fusarium wilt Verticillium wilt Root Knot nematodes Pythium spp. 15 20%, based on professional opinion 15 20%

1,3 D As above Not a viable option because of hilly, rolling terrain. 1,3 D + Chloropicrin As above Not a viable option because of hilly, rolling terrain. 1,3 D + metam sodium + Chloropicrin As above Not a viable option because of hilly, rolling terrain.

OVERALL LOSS ESTIMATE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES TO PESTS 15 20%

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

Methyl iodide, sodium azide and propargyl bromide are potential alternatives to MB that could be used in California to control fungal pathogens and nematodes. However, none of them have been widely tested in the fields or registered for use in any crop by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

CALIFORNIA REGION  18. ARE THERE TECHNOLOGIES BEING USED TO PRODUCE THE CROP WHICH AVOID THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE?:

Tomatoes are grown in fields. It is neither technically feasible nor economically viable to grow tomatoes in soil less culture or in containers. Page 19 CALIFORNIA REGION  SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY The US EPA has determined that in flat terrain, only 1,3 D + chloropicrin and metam sodium + chloropicrin can be technically feasible against the key pests of tomatoes grown in California. Metam sodium alone will not control nematodes and may be phytotoxic to plants because of undulating land topography of tomato fields. A mixture of metam sodium and chloropicrin will not control nematodes. In addition, this mixture may also be phytotoxic due to undulating land topography. A mixture of 1,3 D and chloropicrin is unreliable in undulating topography because of uneven distribution of the fumigant through drip irrigation systems. Currently unregistered alternatives, such as methyl iodide, sodium azide or propargyl bromide have shown good efficacy against the key pests. However, even if registration is pursued soon the commercial tomato growers will need transition period for adoption in California.

There are no non chemical alternatives that are currently viable for MB replacement for commercial tomato growers.

MICHIGAN REGION  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE MICHIGAN REGION  10. KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS FOR WHICH METHYL BROMIDE IS REQUESTED AND SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST MICHIGAN REGION  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 NEEDED Michigan Region 1. Crown, root and fruit rot caused by Phytophthora capsici 2. Fusarium oxysporum wilt MB is currently the only product that can control these soil borne pathogens and allow MI growers to deliver their produce during premium priced early market windows. Other control measures have plant back restrictions that put MI tomatoes outside the premium priced fresh market. Resistant varieties have not been identified. Page 20 MICHIGAN REGION  11. ( i) CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM AND CLIMATE MICHIGAN REGION  TABLE 11.1: CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS MICHIGAN REGION CROP TYPE: ( e. g. transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings) Transplant tomatoes to produce fruit ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL CROP: (# of years between replanting) Annual TYPICAL CROP ROTATION ( if any) AND USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR OTHER CROPS IN THE ROTATION: ( if any) Squash, cucumber, eggplant and melons. All are susceptible to Phytpphthora capsici.

SOIL TYPES: ( Sand, loam, clay, etc.) Sandy to Loam FREQUENCY OF METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION: ( e. g. every two years) Annual OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: Low soil temperatures during late March do not allow effective soil fumigation with telone, telone+ chloropicrin or metam sodium for tomato planting in April.

MICHIGAN REGION  TABLE 11.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATE AND CROP SCHEDULE MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB CLIMATIC ZONE ( Plant Hardiness Zone) 5B SOIL TEMP. ( ° C)* < 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 10 15 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 RAINFALL ( mm)* * 40 72 101 48 47 32 17 31 36 20 6 8 OUTSIDE TEMP. ( ° C) * * 0.2 7.4 12.1 17.7 20.6 20.9 18.1 8.0 2.4  2.9  8.0  7.0 FUMIGATION SCHEDULE X PLANTING SCHEDULE X X KEY MARKET WINDOW X X X * HAUSBECK AND CORTRIGHT ( 2003). ** DATA SOURCE " http:// www. crh. noaa. gov/ grr/ climate/ f6/ preliminary. php? site= LAN"

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

In Michigan, low soil temperatures during late March to early April make the use of in kind ( metam sodium, 1,3 D + chloropicrin) fumigants impractical because soil temperatures may be below the labeled minimums or plant back restrictions may be too long ( 14 to 30 days) to allow April transplanting of tomato seedlings in the field. Page 21 MICHIGAN REGION  12. HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE, AND/ OR MIXTURES CONTAINING METHYL BROMIDE, FOR WHICH AN EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED MICHIGAN REGION  TABLE 12.1 HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR AS MANY YEARS AS POSSIBLE AS SHOWN SPECIFY: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 AREA TREATED ( hectares) 191 195 233 260 270 256 RATIO OF FLAT FUMIGATION METHYL BROMIDE USE TO STRIP/ BED USE IF STRIP TREATMENT IS USED 100% strip 100% strip 100% strip 100% strip 100% strip AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED ( total kg) 22,964 23,493 28,003 31,235 32,461 30,781 FORMULATIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE ( methyl bromide / chloropicrin) 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 METHOD BY WHICH METHYL BROMIDE APPLIED Injected 20 25 cm Injected 20 25 cm Injected 20 25 cm Injected 20 25 cm Injected 20 25 cm Injected 20 25 cm ACTUAL DOSAGE RATE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT ( g/ m2)* 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 * Only 36.7 percent land area is treated in the form of beds and therefore dosage rate ( g/ m2) is higher. Page 22 MICHIGAN REGION  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION MICHIGAN REGION  13. REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE MICHIGAN REGION   TABLE 13.1: REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE + CITATIONS** IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES 1,3 D It is not effective against fungal plant pathogens. No Metam sodium Metam sodium is effective against soil fungi. However, Michigan soil temperatures during April are too low to use this fumigant for an early fresh market tomato crop. Product label states that tomatoes cannot be transplanted to the field for up to 21 days after fumigation. Technically, it is MB alternative, but economically it is not a viable alternative. No Chloropicrin Chloropicrin is ineffective as a soil fumigant when applied alone. No NON CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Soil solarization Michigan is a northern state with cold weather conditions and therefore it is not a viable option. No 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 the open tomato fields. Any such system would also require large amounts of energy and water to provide sufficient steam necessary to pasteurize 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 MB because they alone cannot control the soil pathogens and/ or nematodes. While biological control may have utility as part of plant pathogen management strategy, it can not be a methyl bromide alternative No Cover crops and mulching There is no evidence that these practices effectively substitute for the control MB provides against fungal pathogens and nematodes. No Crop rotation and fallow land The land is very expensive and there are not enough hectares in tomato growing areas to rotate. The fungal pathogen survive for many years in soil and therefore crop rotation and fallow are not a viable options ( Lamour and Hausbeck, 2003*) No Endophytes No information is available on tomato endophytes that will control fungal and plant pathogens. No Page 23 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE + CITATIONS** IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Flooding/ Water management Flooding is not technically feasible because it does not suppress fungal plant pathogens and nematodes. No Grafting/ resistant rootstock/ plant breeding/ soilless culture/ organic production/ substrates/ plug plants. There are no studies documenting the commercial availability of resistant rootstock immune to the fungal pathogens listed as target pests. Grafting and plant breeding are thus also rendered technically infeasible as MB alternatives for control of fungal pathogens and nematodes. No COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES Telone + chloropicrin Telone is effective against nematodes. Chloropicrin is effective against fungal plant pathogens. Their combination is a technically feasible alternative, but Michigan's low soil temperature does not allow soil fumigation during April months for early fresh market tomato crop. No Metam sodium + crop rotation Same as for metam sodium. No * Regulatory reasons include local restrictions ( e. g. occupational health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of registration.

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

MICHIGAN REGION   TABLE 14.1: TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION NAME OF ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION None Other than those options discussed above, there are no alternatives that may control the key pest. Registered fungicides ( such as azoxystrobin, mefenoxam and mancozeb) may control aerial infections of Phytophthora capsici, but are not effective against crown and root rot phase of this pathogen. Soil fumigation with methyl bromide kills soil borne primary inoculum of this pest and therefore fungicide use is also reduced ( Lamour and Hausbeck, 2003*) Page 24 MICHIGAN REGION  15. LIST PRESENT ( and Possible Future) REGISTRATION STATUS OF ANY CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES:

MICHIGAN REGION   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:

Methyl Iodide Not registered. Yes Unknown Sodium azide Not registered. No registration package has been received. No Unknown Furfural Not registered. Registration package has been received. No Unknown Propargyl Bromide Not registered. No registration package has been received. No Unknown MICHIGAN REGION  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:

In 2003, the applicant submitted the results of one small scale field trial on the efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives in controlling Phytophthora capsici and its effect on tomato yield ( Hausbeck and Cortwright, 2003). This study focused on tomato and a number of vegetable crops ( cucurbits, winter squash, and melons). As of July 2003, results showed that methyl bromide+ chloropicrin ( 67/ 33, shank injected @ 390 Kg/ Hectare), metam sodium ( drip applied) @ 355 KG ai/ ha), 1, 3 D+ chloropicrin ( 65/ 35, shank injected @ 150 liters/ ha) resulted in 0, 12.9, 6.4 percent plant loss. Untreated control suffered 7.1% plant loss. The fields were treated on May 15 and 16, 2003, and the weather was unusually cooler than normal during May and early June of the year 2003. Results were inconclusive. The state expert claims that the growers may suffer 6.4 and 12.9 percent yield losses using 1, 3 D + chloropicrin and metam sodium if fields are fumigated in early May instead of April ( using methyl bromide + chloropicrin). In addition, growers may also experience revenue losses if they miss early tomato market when prices are higher.

This study was repeated during the 2004 growing season. Results show that yields from tomato plots treated with metam potassium ( K Pam), alone or in combination with chloropicrin, and from plots treated with 1,3 D + chloropicrin ( Telone C35) are not significantly different from yields from plots treated with MB + chloropicrin or from yields from untreated control plots ( Hausbeck and Cartright, 2004). As for the 2003 trial discussed above, results of the 2004 study are still inconclusive, probably because of the occurrence of low pest pressure in the study area.

MICHIGAN REGION   TABLE 16.1: EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES   KEY PEST 1 No additional information is available. Page 25 MICHIGAN REGION   TABLE C. 1: ALTERNATIVES YIELD LOSS DATA SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE LIST TYPE OF PEST RANGE OF YIELD LOSS BEST ESTIMATE OF YIELD LOSS methyl bromide+ chloropicrin Phytophthora capsici 0.0   0.0 0.0 metam sodium Phytophthora capsici 0.0   12.9 12.9 1, 3 D+ chloropicrin Phytophthora capsici 0.0   6.4 6.4 chloropicrin Phytophthora capsici 0.0   6.4 6.4 OVERALL LOSS ESTIMATE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES TO PESTS 0  13 % plus revenue losses due to planting delays; Most likely losses are 6 % using 1,3 D + chloropicrin ( the best alternative)

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

In Michigan the critical use exemption application states that 1,3 D + chloropicrin, metamsodium methyl iodide, sodium azide, and furfural will continue to be under investigation as methyl bromide alternatives. Most of these alternatives are currently unregistered for use on tomato, and there are presently no commercial entities pursuing registration in the United States. The timeline for developing the above mentioned MB alternatives in Michigan is as follows: 2003   2005: Test for efficacy ( particularly against the more prevalent Phytophthora) 2005   2007: Establish on farm demonstration plots for effective MB alternatives 2008   2010: Work with growers to implement commercial use of effective alternatives.

Research is also under way to optimize the use of a 50 % methyl bromide: 50 % chloropicrin formulation to replace the currently used 67: 33 formulation. In addition, field research is being conducted to optimize a combination of crop rotation, raised crop beds, black plastic, and foliar fungicides. Use of virtually impermeable film ( VIF) will also be investigated as a replacement for the currently used low density polyethylene ( LDPE).

MICHIGAN REGION  18. ARE THERE TECHNOLOGIES BEING USED TO PRODUCE THE CROP WHICH AVOID THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE?:

Tomatoes are grown in fields. In Michigan, it is neither technically feasible nor economically viable to grow tomatoes in soil less culture or in containers. Page 26 MICHIGAN REGION  SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY Although metam sodium and a combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin can control the key target pest, Phytophthora, the resulting planting and harvesting delays due to cold soil temperatures and longer plant back interval lead to a shorter growing season and missing key market windows when commodity prices are most favorable. These alternatives have plant back restriction that delay tomato harvest by 14 28 days, resulting in lower net revenues per acre because tomato prices decline as season progresses.

Currently unregistered alternatives, such as methyl iodide, sodium azide, propargyl bromide and furfural have good efficacy against the key pests involved. However, even if registration is pursued, the growers will need transition time to adopt them.

SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  10. KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS FOR WHICH METHYL BROMIDE IS REQUESTED AND SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  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 NEEDED South Eastern United States Nutsedges ( Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus)

Root Knot nematodes Phytophthora Crown and Root Rot. Fusarium Wilt ( F. oxysporum) None of the listed MBTOC alternatives is effective in controlling the key pests in the South Eastern United States. Page 27 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  11. ( i) CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM AND CLIMATE SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  TABLE 11.1: CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES CROP TYPE: ( e. g. transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings) Transplant for tomato fruit production ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL CROP: (# of years between replanting) Annual TYPICAL CROP ROTATION ( if any) AND USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR OTHER CROPS IN THE ROTATION: ( if any) Tomato. Tomato Cucumber or Squash or Watermelon or Cantaloupe. Tomato Cucurbits.

SOIL TYPES: ( Sand, loam, clay, etc.) Sandy to loam, over karst geology in many areas FREQUENCY OF METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION: ( e. g. every two years) Annual OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: No other information provided.

SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  TABLE 11.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATE AND CROP SCHEDULE MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB CLIMATIC ZONE ( Plant Hardiness Zone) 6b, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9b, 10a, 10b SOIL TEMP. ( ° C) ** 17 20 17 21 21 24 22 26 25 29 26 29 27 30 28 32 27 29 25 27 21 23 19 21 RAINFALL ( mm)* 51 203 51 203 51 203 51 203 102 203 102 203 51 203 51 203 25 102 25 102 25 102 25 102 OUTSIDE TEMP. ( ° C)* 11 22 16 23 21 25 25 28 26 28 25 28 23 25 17 25 10 22 7 19 7 19 8 19 FUMIGATION SCHEDULE X X X X X X X X PLANTING SCHEDULE X X X X X X X KEY MARKET WINDOW X X X X X X X X * JACOB ( 1977). ** FLORIDA SOIL TEMPERATUTES SOURCE IS WWW. IMOK. UFL/ EDU/ WEATHER/ ARCHIVES/ 200/ CLIM00 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES   11. ( ii) INDICATE IF ANY OF THE ABOVE CHARACTERISTICS IN 11. ( i) PREVENT THE UPTAKE OF ANY RELEVANT ALTERNATIVES?

In the Southeastern U. S., karst geology inhibits the use of all fumigants that contain 1,3 D in a significant portion of the tomato production areas. Page 28 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  12. HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE, AND/ OR MIXTURES CONTAINING METHYL BROMIDE, FOR WHICH AN EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  TABLE 12.1 HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR AS MANY YEARS AS POSSIBLE AS SHOWN SPECIFY: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 AREA TREATED ( hectares) 24,002 25,814 27,831 28,931 29,409 29,581 RATIO OF FLAT FUMIGATION USE TO STRIP/ BED USE IF STRIP TREATMENT IS USED Approx. 50% strip Approx. 50% strip Approx. 50% strip Approx. 50% strip Approx. 50% strip Approx. 50% strip AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED ( total kg) 4,747,976 4,491,580 4,462,390 4,514,006 4,472,250 4,962,683 FORMULATIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE ( methyl bromide / Chloropicrin) 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 67/ 33 METHOD BY WHICH METHYL BROMIDE APPLIED ( e. g. injected at 25cm depth, hot gas) Mostly Injected at 25 30 cm depth Mostly Injected at 25 30 cm depth Mostly Injected at 25 30 cm depth Mostly Injected at 25 30 cm depth Mostly Injected at 25 30 cm depth Mostly Injected at 25 30 cm depth ACTUAL DOSAGE RATE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT ( g/ m2)* 19.6 17.5 16.3 15.8 15.2 16.8 Page 29 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  13. REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES   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 dichloropropene ( Telone) Effective against nematodes, but not against fungal plant pathogens and nutsedge weeds. Approximately 40% of tomato land has Karst geology. Growers with Karst geology cannot use 1,3 D because of underground water contamination. No Metam sodium/ potassium Metam ( sodium or potassium) will control many weeds, but control of nutsedge is very inconsistent, and this fumigant is not very effective against soil nematodes. No Chloropicrin Chloropicrin controls soil fungi, but may also stimulate nutsedge weed growth, and therefore it is not a viable option. It occasionally controls nutsedge as noted in the literature. Again, the issue is its inability to get consistent control ( Culpepper, 2004). No NON CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Soil solarization For nutsedge control in the southeastern U. S. states, solarization is unlikely to be technically feasible as a methyl bromide alternative. Research indicates that the lethal temperature for nutsedge tubers is 50oC or higher ( Chase et al. 1999). While this may be achieved for some portion of the autumn cropping in southern growing regions, it is very unlikely for any portion of the spring crops. Trials conducted in mid summer in Georgia resulted in maximal soil temperatures of 43oC at 5 cm depth, not high enough to destroy nutsedge tubers, and tubers lodged deeper in the soil would be completely unaffected. No Steam Steam is not a technically feasible alternative for open field tomato 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 tomato fields. Any such system would also require large amounts of energy and water to provide sufficient steam necessary to pasteurize 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, nematodes and nutsedges. No Page 30 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Cover crops and mulching Cover crops and mulches appear to reduce weed population, but not nutsedges ( Burgos and Talbert 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 Crop rotation and fallow land It is not a technically or economically ( cannot afford to take land out of production) feasible alternative to MB because it does not, by itself, provide adequate control of fungi and/ or nutsedges. Crops available for rotation to growers are also susceptible to fungi, while fallow land can still harbor fungal oospores. The nutsedge tubers provide new plants with larger energy reserves than the annual weeds that can be frequently controlled by crop rotations and fallow land. Furthermore, nutsedge plants can produce tubers within 8 weeks after emergence. 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 Endophytes This is not a technically viable option because it has never been shown to work against the key pests in tomato or similar crops. No Flooding/ Water management Flooding has never been shown to control nutsedge species. Nutsedges are much more tolerant of watery conditions than many other weed pests. For example, Horowitz ( 1972) showed that submerging nutsedge in flowing or stagnant water ( for 8 days and 4 weeks, respectively) did not affect the sprouting capacity of tubers. There are also serious practical obstacles to implementing flood management approaches in cucurbit production in the southern and southeastern U. S. states. Droughts are common in many parts of these regions, and the soil composition may not support flooding and still remain productive. No Grafting/ resistant rootstock/ plant breeding/ soil less culture/ organic production/ substrates/ plug plants. These technologies have never been shown to control listed key pests under field conditions. Resistant root stock or cultivars may control one pest, but not the other. It is almost impossible to breed or genetically engineer tomato cultivars that has all agronomic characters and is resistant to all key pests. This has no effect on managing nutsedge weeds. No COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES 1,3 D + chloropicrin+ a herbicide ( such as napropamide + smetolachlor + halosulfuron) A combination of fumigants and herbicide partners is the most promising alternative for the control of all key pests in southeastern region. The executive summary of dozens of research trials show that the growers may harvest tomato yield that is nearly equal to yields obtained using MB and chloropicrin. With this combination, in areas where it can be used, growers may lose an average of 6.2% yield ( Chellemi et al., 2001). Some combinations are promising Page 31 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Metam sodium + Chloropicrin Although this combination may be more effective than metam sodium alone in controlling fungal pests, it would not prevent yield losses caused by nutsedges and some species of nematodes. This mixture along with a herbicide ( for controlling nutsedge weeds) may be a viable MB alternative in the South Eastern United States, where growers cannot use telone due to karst geology. Further studies need to be undertaken to ascertain whether or not it is technically and economically viable. It shows promise Telone + Chloropicrin This combination is effective against nematodes and fungal plant pathogens, but not against nutsedge and other weeds. Approximately 40 and 8.0% of tomato land in Florida and Georgia, respectively, has Karst geology. Growers in these areas cannot use telone because of state regulations and underground water contamination issues. No Telone + metam sodium + herbicide ( such as napropamide + smetolachlor + halosulfuron) This mixture could provide reasonable control of pests when weed pressure is low to moderate and land does not have Karst geology. Growers will need to use one of the newly registered herbicides if they use this combination, although they will be constrained by certain limitations ( described below). No Metam sodium + Crop rotation Same as metam sodium.

Fumigant combination + herbicide partners Current research suggests that in areas of low pest pressure this combination may be suitable for some growers as an alternative for methyl bromide. In these situations growers may employ a marginal strategy without major economic dislocation if given a reasonable time frame for the transition. Yes * Regulatory reasons include local restrictions ( e. g. occupational health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of registration. Page 32 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  14. LIST AND DISCUSS WHY REGISTERED ( and Potential) PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ARE CONSIDERED NOT EFFECTIVE AS TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE:

SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES   TABLE 14.1: TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION NAME OF ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION Glyphosate It is a non selective herbicide that can be applied to row middles only, since direct application to the rows would cause injury to the tomato crop. It does not provide residual control. As a post emergence treatment, glyphosate will not provide season long control of yellow and/ or purple nutsedge in tomatoes.

Paraquat It is a non selective herbicide that will not control nutsedge in the plant rows. It does not provide residual control. Repetitive applications are required to achieve fair control of annual weeds in the row middle ( Culpepper, 2003). It may also be applied prior to crop emergence. Direct application to the rows would cause injury to the tomato crop. For perennial weeds, such as nutsedge, it will burn down the top portion of the plant, but would not affect tuber viability, allowing the weed to grow again. Thus, paraquat cannot provide season long.

SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  15. LIST PRESENT ( and Possible Future) REGISTRATION STATUS OF ANY CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES: Page 33 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES   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:

Halosulfuronmethyl There are a number of restrictions limiting the potential to use this herbicide in tomatoes in the Southeast ( see additional notes below). Among these are potential crop injury and plant back restrictions for rotational crops. Efficacy is lowered in rainy conditions ( which are common in this region). Need more time to experiment under field conditions. Yes Recently registered Pebulate For nutsedges: Was registered for use in tomatoes only, but its registration expired in December, 2002 ( the manufacturer went out of business) No Unknown S metolachlor For nutsedges: Not registered in some states of concern. It is effective against yellow nutsedge and not effective against purple nutsedge ( Culpepper, 2004). Yes Already registered Terbacil For nutsedges: Registered only in strawberries. The manufacturer claims that it is partially effective against yellow nutsedge and does not control purple nutsedge. No Unknown Rimsulfuron Registered for use on tomatoes. The product label states that it is partially effective against nutsedges. Y Already registered Trifloxysulfuron For nutsedges: Newly Registrated for use in tomato. Efficacy needs to be tested under large scale field trials. Labeled for use in Florida only. It provides good postemergence control of nutsedge but rotational restrictions may limit its large scale adoption. Y Already registered Methyl Iodide Not yet registered in the United States Y unknown Sodium azide Not registered in the United States No unknown Sulfuryl Floride It is not registered for preplant soil treatment. It is registered only for postharvest treatment of agricultural produce ( tomato not included). No unknown Additional notes on specific herbicides listed: Halosulfuron methyl In December 2002, halosulfuron methyl ( Sandea ® ) was registered for weed control ( including nutsedge) in tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, and cucurbits. This recent registration was not on the list of alternatives from MBTOC and several years are needed to see if it will be adopted. Historically, in the United States it has taken three to five years for an herbicide to be adopted by a significant number of vegetable crop growers.

Halosulfuron methyl has a number of limitations which may affect its widespread adoption, that include: ( 1) phyto toxicity with moderate rainfall immediately after application; ( 2) cool temperatures, ( 3) susceptible varieties, and ( 4) plant back restrictions. Specifically:   Rainfall or sprinkler irrigation greater than 2.5 cm, soon after a pre emergent application of halosulfuronmethyl may cause crop injury. Sudden storms with greater than 2.5 cm of rainfall are common in Florida Page 34 and other areas of the southeastern United States. In addition, rainfall within four hours after a postemergence application of halosulfuron methyl may reduce effectiveness and cause crop injury.   Under cool temperatures that can delay early seedling emergence or growth, halosulfuron methyl can cause injury or crop failure. This is especially likely to occur during the first planting of the season. In addition, not all hybrids/ varieties of tomatoes have been tested for sensitivity to halosulfuron methyl. Halosulfuron may also delay maturity of treated crops.   Halosulfuron methyl plant back restrictions are up to 36 months. Many of the vegetable crops fall within the 4 to 12 month range, although some are longer. There are label limitations for halosulfuron methyl. As per product label, halosulfuron methyl should not be applied if the crop or target weeds are under stress due to drought, water saturated soils, low fertility, or other poor growing conditions. This herbicide can not be applied to soil that has been treated with organophosphate insecticides. Foliar applications of organophosphate insecticides may not be made within 21 days before or 7 days after halosulfuron methyl application. Note: All the limitations above are listed in the US registration label for halosulfuron, which in turn is based on proprietary data submitted to EPA by the registrant company.

S metolachlor It was registered for use in tomatoes in April 2003. However, it is not registered in states of concern, and does not control purple nutsedge or nightshade species. Further, it does not provide commercially acceptable weed control in plasticulture systems.

Rimsulfuron There is evidence that rimsulfuron only provides suppressive control of yellow nutsedge ( 40 to 70 percent control) ( Nelson et al, 2002). In addition, the label warns against tank mixing with organophosphate insecticides because injury to the crop may occur. Also, for most of the vegetable crops besides tomatoes there is a 12 month plant back restriction. This plant back restriction can seriously compromise the rotational interval needed for second crop production and IPM programs.

SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  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 Telone C35 ( 1,3 D + 35 % chloropicrin) plus pebulate herbicide has been found to be the best alternative to methyl bromide in controlling listed key pests under Florida growing conditions ( Chellemi et al., 2001). Pebulate is no longer registered in the U. S., however, so another herbicide would have to be substituted into the fumigation mixture. The results of many trials show that growers may harvest tomato yields that are nearly equal to yields obtained using methyl bromide and chloropicrin. Assuming that an herbicide is used that is as effective as pebulate, growers using a 1,3 D + chloropicrin + herbicide mixture may suffer an average of 6.2 percent yield losses ( Chellemi et al., 2001). Florida and Georgia crop experts maintain that tomato yield losses using a combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin + herbicides will be higher than 6.2 percent because pebulate is no longer registered and other herbicides have limitations. However, in areas of low to moderate pest pressure, information suggests that some growers may employ a marginal strategy without major economic dislocation if given a reasonable time frame for the transition. The assessment of need was adjusted to account for this. The crop experts were unable to provide yield loss estimate without 2 3 years of field trials and maintain that more time is needed to evaluate various MB fumigant alternatives, mulches and herbicides systems to study their effects on tomato yields. Page 35 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES   TABLE 16.1: EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES   KEY PEST 1 No additional information is available.

SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES   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 + herbicide Fungi, Nematodes and Nutsedges 1.3   10.1 ( Chellemi et al., 2001) 6.2 OVERALL LOSS ESTIMATE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES TO PESTS 6.2%

SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  17. ARE THERE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES UNDER DEVELOPMENT WHICH ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO REPLACE METHYL BROMIDE?:

A combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin + pebulate appeared to be the best alternative in controlling key pests in tomato fields. Since pebulate herbicide is no longer available then the growers will have to substitute another herbicide for postemergence application, listed in table 14.1 and 15.1 ( such as halosulfuron, rimsulfuron or trifloxysulfuron to achieve similar pest control). Florida and Georgia state expert claim the yield losses using a combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin + herbicides will be higher than 6.2 losses because pebulate is no longer registered and other herbicides have limitations. The crop experts were unable to provide yield loss estimate without 2 3 years of field trials. The experts claim that more time is needed to evaluate various methyl bromide fumigant alternatives, mulches and herbicides systems to study their effects on tomato yields.

SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  18. ARE THERE TECHNOLOGIES BEING USED TO PRODUCE THE CROP WHICH AVOID THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE?

Tomatoes are grown in fields. In South eastern united states, it is neither technically feasible nor economically viable to grow tomatoes in soil less culture or in containers. Page 36 SOUTH EASTERN UNITED STATES  SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY The submitted data showed that using the above best alternative the growers are expected to suffer 6.2% yield losses ( Chellemi, Botts and Noling. 2001). A combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin + pebulate appeared to be the best alternative in controlling key pests in tomato fields. Since pebulate is no longer available then the growers will need to substitute another herbicides such as halosulfuron, rimsulfuron or trifloxysulfuron for postmergence application to control nutsedge weeds. But, these herbicides have significant limitations, as described in the notes to Table 15.1. In addition, losses will be higher in areas of Karst geology, where 1,3 D may not be used.

Florida and Georgia state experts claim that the yield losses using a combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin + other herbicides will be higher than 6.2 losses because of limitations of other herbicides ( see table 14.1 and 15.1). The experts were unable to provide yield loss estimate without 2 3 years of field trials. The experts claim that more time is needed to evaluate various methyl bromide fumigant alternatives, mulches and herbicides systems to study their effects on tomato yields. Page 37 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? Began research during 2003 Already using 67: 33 with the potential to use lower ratios in the future. Between 1997 and 2002, the US has achieved a 27 % reduction in use rates. Already using 67: 33 with the potential to use lower ratios in the future The US anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to try less frequent applications.

WHAT FURTHER USE/ EMISSION REDUCTION STEPS WILL BE TAKEN FOR THE METHYL BROMIDE USED FOR CRITICAL USES? Began research during 2003 Already using 67: 33 with the potential to use lower ratios in the future Already using 67: 33 with the potential to use lower ratios in the future Not applicable OTHER MEASURES ( please describe) Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 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 tomato 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 tomatoes is most often machine injected into soil to specific depths.

As methyl bromide has become more scarce, users in the United States have, where possible, experimented with different mixes of methyl bromide and chloropicrin. Specifically, in the early 1990s, methyl bromide was typically sold and used in methyl bromide mixtures made up of 98% Page 38 methyl bromide and 2% chloropicrin, with the chloropicrin being included solely to give the chemical a smell enabling those in the area to be alerted if there was a risk. However, with the outset of very significant controls on methyl bromide, users have been experimenting with significant increases in the level of chloropicrin and reductions in the level of methyl bromide. While these new mixtures have generally been effective at controlling target pests, 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, cultural practices are utilized by tomato growers.

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 39 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT The following economic analysis is organized by MeBr critical use application. Cost of MeBr 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 MeBr alternatives are then decomposed in tables E1 through E3.

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: COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD REGION ALTERNATIVE YIELD* COST IN YEAR 1 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 2 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 3 ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide 100 $ 50,240 $ 50,240 $ 50,240 Metam Sodium 85 $ 46,353 $ 46,353 $ 46,353 CALIFORNIA Metam Sodium 80 $ 44,626 $ 44,626 $ 44,626 Methyl Bromide 100 $ 30,559 $ 30,559 $ 30,559 1,3   D + Chloropicrin 78 $ 29,555 $ 29,555 $ 29,555 Metam Sodium 78 $ 29,739 $ 29,739 $ 29,739 MICHIGAN Chloropicrin 78 $ 29,555 $ 29,555 $ 29,555 Methyl Bromide 100 $ 26,380 $ 26,380 $ 26,380 SOUTHEASTERN US 1,3   D + Chloropicrin 83 $ 24,946 $ 24,946 $ 24,946 * As percentage of typical or 3 year average yield, compared to methyl bromide e. g. 10% more yield, write 110.

22. GROSS AND NET REVENUE:

TABLE 22.1: YEAR 1 GROSS AND NET REVENUE YEAR 1 REGION ALTERNATIVES ( as shown in question 21) GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide $ 83,367 $ 33,127 Metam Sodium ( 15%) $ 70,862 $ 24,509 CALIFORNIA Metam Sodium ( 20%) $ 66,694 $ 22,068 Methyl Bromide $ 39,996 $ 9,438 1,3   D + Chloropicrin $ 32,880 $ 3,325 Metam Sodium $ 34,931 $ 5,192 MICHIGAN Chloropicrin $ 32,880 $ 3,325 Methyl Bromide $ 40,914 $ 14,533 SOUTHEASTERN US 1,3   D + Chloropicrin $ 33,772 $ 8,825 Page 40 TABLE 22.2: YEAR 2 GROSS AND NET REVENUE YEAR 2 REGION ALTERNATIVES ( as shown in question 21) GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide $ 83,367 $ 33,127 Metam Sodium ( 15%) $ 70,862 $ 24,509 CALIFORNIA Metam Sodium ( 20%) $ 66,694 $ 22,068 Methyl Bromide $ 39,996 $ 9,438 1,3   D + Chloropicrin $ 32,880 $ 3,325 Metam Sodium $ 34,931 $ 5,192 MICHIGAN Chloropicrin $ 32,880 $ 3,325 Methyl Bromide $ 40,914 $ 14,533 SOUTHEASTERN US 1,3   D + Chloropicrin $ 33,772 $ 8,825 TABLE 22.3: YEAR 3 GROSS AND NET REVENUE YEAR 3 REGION ALTERNATIVES ( as shown in question 21) GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide $ 83,367 $ 33,127 Metam Sodium ( 15%) $ 70,862 $ 24,509 CALIFORNIA Metam Sodium ( 20%) $ 66,694 $ 22,068 Methyl Bromide $ 39,996 $ 9,438 1,3   D + Chloropicrin $ 32,880 $ 3,325 Metam Sodium $ 34,931 $ 5,192 MICHIGAN Chloropicrin $ 32,880 $ 3,325 Methyl Bromide $ 40,914 $ 14,533 SOUTHEASTERN US 1,3   D + Chloropicrin $ 33,772 $ 8,825 MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES CALIFORNIA  TABLE E. 1: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES CALIFORNIA METHYL BROMIDE METAM SODIUM PRODUCTION LOSS (%) 0% 15% 20%

PRODUCTION PER HECTARE 11,532 9,802 9,225 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 7.17 $ 7.17 $ 7.17 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 82,719 $ 70,311 $ 66,175  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$)** $ 57,004 $ 49,990 $ 48,197 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 25,712 $ 20,321 $ 17,978 FIVE LOSS MEASURES * 1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $  $ 5,391 $ 7,733 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $  $ 22 $ 32 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 7% 9%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET OPERATING REVENUE (%) 0% 21% 30%

5. OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN (%) 40% 29% 27%

** Note that the measures in the tables below must be interpreted carefully. Operating costs do not include fixed costs and net revenue equals gross revenue minus operating costs. Page 41 MICHIGAN  TABLE E. 2: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES MICHIGAN METHYL BROMIDE 1,3 D + PIC METAM SODIUM CHLOROPICRIN PRODUCTION LOSS (%) 0% 6% 13% 6% PRODUCTION PER HECTARE 4,414 4,132 3,845 4,132 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 9.44 $ 9.44 $ 9.44 $ 9.448 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 41,652 $ 38986 $ 36,279 $ 38986  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$)** $ 37,055 $ 32453 $ 31,170 $ 32,453 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 4596 $ 6,533 $ 5,109 $ 6,533 FIVE LOSS MEASURES *

1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $  $ 1,937 $ 512 $ 1,937 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $  $ 16 $ 4 $ 16 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 5% 1% 5%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET OPERATING REVENUE (%) 0% 42% 11% 42%

5. OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN (%) 11% 17% 14% 17%

** Note that the measures in the tables below must be interpreted carefully. Operating costs do not include fixed costs and net revenue equals gross revenue minus operating costs.

SOUTHEASTERN US  TABLE E. 3: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES SOUTHEASTERN US METHYL BROMIDE 1,3 D + PIC PRODUCTION LOSS (%) 0% 6% PRODUCTION PER HECTARE 4,551 4,269 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 10 $ 10 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 46,986 $ 44,073  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$)** $ 26,660 $ 29,860 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 20,326 14,212 FIVE LOSS MEASURES *

1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $  $ 6,113 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $  $ 36 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 13%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET OPERATING REVENUE (%) 0% 30%

5. OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN (%) 43% 32%

** Note that the measures in the tables below must be interpreted carefully. Operating costs do not include fixed costs and net revenue equals gross revenue minus operating costs. Page 42 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY The economic analysis of the tomato application compared data on yields, crop prices, revenues and costs using methyl bromide and using alternative pest control regimens in order to estimate the loss of methyl bromide availability. The alternatives identified as technically feasible  in cases of low pest infestation  by the U. S. are: ( a) 1,3 Dichloropropene and Chloropicrin; ( b) Metam sodium; and ( c) Chloropicrin. Changes in pest control costs for tomatoes are less than 4 percent of total variable costs therefore they would have little impact on any of the economic measures used in the analysis.

The economic factors that really drives the feasibility analysis for fresh market tomato uses of methyl bromide are: ( 1) yield losses, referring to reductions in the quantity produced, ( 2) increased production costs, which may be due to the higher cost of using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/ or resulting shifts in other production or harvesting practices ( 3) quality losses, which generally affect the quantity and price received for the goods, and ( 4) missed market windows due to plant back time restrictions, which also affect the quantity and price received for the goods.

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

( 1) Loss per Hectare. For crops, this measure is closely tied to income. It is relatively easy to measure, but may be difficult to interpret in isolation.

( 2) Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide. This measure indicates the value of methyl bromide to crop production.

( 3) Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue. This measure has the advantage that gross revenues are usually easy to measure, at least over some unit, e. g., a hectare of land or a storage operation. However, high value commodities or crops may provide high revenues but may also entail high costs. Losses of even a small percentage of gross revenues could have important impacts on the profitability of the activity.

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

( 5) Operating Profit Margin. We define operating profit margin to be net operating revenue divided by gross revenue per hectare. This measure would provide the best indication of the total impact of the loss of methyl bromide to an enterprise. Again, operating costs may be difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult, therefore fixed costs were not included in the analysis. Page 43 These measures represent different ways to assess the economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide users, who are tomato producers in this case. Because producers ( suppliers) represent an integral part of any definition of a market, we interpret the threshold of significant market disruption to be met if there is a significant impact on commodity suppliers using methyl bromide. The economic measures provide the basis for making that determination.

California We conclude that, at present, no economically feasible alternatives to MeBr exist for use in California tomato production. We have quantified the economic conditions of tomato growers as best as possible but, primarily due to limited data availability, are unable to capture every aspect of the economic picture in our numeric analysis. Factors not accounted for in this analysis are distribution of yield loss across individual growers and the yield risk associated with using MeBr alternatives.

Michigan We conclude that, at present, no economically feasible alternatives to MeBr exist for use in Michigan tomato production. Three factors have proven most important in our conclusion. These are yield loss, quality loss, and missed market windows.

Our analysis of this effect is based on the fact that prices farmers receive for their tomatoes 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 tomatoes 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, tomato growers manage their production systems with the goal of harvesting the largest possible quantity of tomatoes when the prices are at their highs. The ability to sell produce at these higher prices makes a significant contribution toward the profitability of tomato operations.

To describe these conditions in Michigan tomato production, we used daily tomato sales data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture for the previous year to gauge the impact of early season price fluctuations on gross revenues. Though data availability is limiting, we assume that if tomato growers adjust the timing of their production system, as required when using 1,3 D + Chloropicrin or Metam Sodium or Chloropicrin, that they will, over the course of the growing season, accumulate gross revenues reduced by approximately 4~ 11%. We reduced the season average price by 4~ 11% in our analysis of the alternatives to reflect this. Based on currently available information, we believe this reduction in gross revenues serves as a reasonable indicator of the typical effect of planting delays resulting when MeBr alternatives are used in Michigan.

Southeastern US We conclude that, at present, no economically feasible alternatives to MeBr exist for use in Southeastern US tomato production. Two factors have proven most important in our conclusion. These are yield loss and missed market windows. Page 44 Our analysis of this effect is based on the fact that prices farmers receive for their tomatoes 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 tomatoes 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, tomato growers manage their production systems with the goal of harvesting the largest possible quantity of tomatoes when the prices are at their highs. The ability to sell produce at these higher prices makes a significant contribution toward the profitability of tomato operations.

To describe these conditions in Southeastern US tomato production, we used weekly tomato sales data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture for the previous three years to gauge the impact of early season price fluctuations on gross revenues. Though data availability is limiting, we assume that if tomato 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, accumulate gross revenues reduced by approximately 12%. We reduced the season average price by 12% in our analysis of the alternatives to reflect this. Based on currently available information, we believe this reduction in gross revenues serves as a reasonable indicator of the typical effect of planting delays resulting when MeBr alternatives are used in Southeastern US. Page 45 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 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.

As per Culpepper ( 2004), over 50 vegetable trials, focusing on weed management, were conducted by the University of Georgia. Four of these trials compared methyl bromide alternatives and another 30 trials searched for the development and labeling of new herbicides for vegetables. During 2004, these experiments will be continued to find methyl bromide alternatives.

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 tomatoes research will require 5501 kg per year of methyl bromide for 2005 and 2007. This research request also includes the amounts for asparagus, cabbage, ginseng, and nutsedge for 74 kg per year. 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 Page 46 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 root knot 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?

Georgia experts ( Culpepper, 2004) claims that the ability to reduce the use of methyl bromide will rely on the interaction of fumigant alternatives, plastic mulches and herbicide systems under specific growing conditions. More time is needed to develop these systems.

25. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE NOMINATION?)

Research efforts began in the early 1990' s to find out methyl bromide alternatives in various crops including tomato. With each year of experimentation the researchers became more familiar and efficient with methyl bromide fumigant alternatives for nutsedge management. The researchers learned strengths and weakness of each fumigant system, plastic film types, herbicide system, and various production environments. The researchers need a few more years to evaluate and refine these systems in large scale trials prior to large scale implementation at growers field level. Page 47 26. CITATIONS Chellemi, D., Botts, D. A. and Noling, J. W. 2001. Field scale demonstration/ validation studies of methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida, USDA ARS specific co operative agreement SCA # 58 6617 6 013, Executive Summary ( 1996 2001) submitted to the USEPA

Burnette, G. 2003. Personal communication, November 25, 2003.

Culpepper, Stanley. 2004. Faculty, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Comments on methyl bromide Critical use nomination for preplant soil use for tomato grown in open fields.

Florida. 2000. Florida soil temperatures. Web address: www. imok. ufl/ edu/ weather/ archive/ 200/ clim00 Hausbeck, M. and Cortright, B. 2003. Soil temperature data submitted to BEAD ( OPP, US EPA) in support of methyl bromide critical use exemption application.

Jacob, W. C. 1977. Range of mean outside temperature and rainfall in South Eastern United States. Climatic Atlas of the United States. Published by the US Department of Commerce.

Lamour, H. H. and Hausbeck, M. 2003. Effect of crop rotation on the survival of Phytophthora capsici in Michigan. Plant Disease 87: 841 845.

Locasio, S. J., Gilreath, J. P., Dickson, D. W., Kucharek, T. A., Jones, J. P. and Noling, J. W. 1997. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene mulched tomato. HortScience 32( 7) 1208 1211.

Morales, J. P., Santos, B. M., Stall, W. M. and Bewick. T. A. 1997. Effects of purple nutsedge ( Cyprus rotundus) on tomato and bell pepper vegetative growth and fruit yield. Weed Science Technology 11: 672 676.

Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2002. Yellow nutsedge ( Cyprus esculentus) control and tuber production with glyphosate and ALS inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technology 16( 3): 512 519.

Norton, J., Nelson, R. D., Nelson, M. D., Olson, B. O., Mey, B. V. and Lepez, G. 2000. Field evaluation of alternatives to methyl bromide for pre plant soil fumigant in California tomatoes. USDA IR 4 methyl bromide alternatives program for minor crop. Report submitted to the US EPA during 2003 in support of methyl bromide critical use exemption.

Stall, W. M. and Morales Payan, J. P. 2003. The critical period of nutsedge interference in tomato, Florida. Web address: http:// www. imok. ufl. edu/ liv/ groups/ ipm/ weed_ con/ nutsedge. htm Page 48 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Re registration Eligibility Decision ( RED) 1,3 dichloroprppene. Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ REDs/ 0328red. pdf U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Feasibility of using gas permeable tarps to reduce methyl bromide emissions associated with soil fumigation in the United States. Page 49 APPENDIX A. 2007 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). 2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 & 2002 Avg % of Request 769 34% 33%

13,355 5% 3%

26,703 109% 107%

40,827 74% 72%

HIGH LOW Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

10,333 10,333 10,333 86 120 40,823 40,823 40,823 364 112 2,665,180 2,158,264 2,277,389 14,785 154 2,716,336 2,209,420 2,328,546 15,235 153 42% 53% 51% 48% 5%

Low EPA High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW % Adopt % per Year 120 120 0% 0% 0% 0% 34% 34% 0% 0% 0% 0% 34% 34% 34% 34% 0% 0%

112 112 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 1% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0%

154 154 32% 32% 0% 0% 50% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 66% 53% 83% 10%

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 Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 16 $ 5% 42%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 22 $ 7% 21%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 36 $ 13% 30%

Pest Distribution GA used Stanley Culpepper, UGA survey. GA figures were used for FL and SE US 1 Pound = 0.453592 Kilograms High estimate adds moderate and severe, Low estimate add 1/ 2 of moderate and all severe 1 Acre = 0.404686 Hectares High 24% Low 77%

**** Adoption / Transition in the Southeastern US is the weighted average based on the weight of their request and the estimate that can be transitioned. MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE * Georgia rotates crops with solanaceous crops therefore we had to balance the distribution with the other sectors in Georgia's application. 2,453,015 48%

30,391

2007 Request Adoption / Transition****

Most Likely Impact Value:

40,823 2,401,858 *** Michigan rates are higher for 2007 based on more current information. 10,333  Regulatory Issues (%)

4%

California Southeastern US REGION California Southeastern US 40,823

4,651,126

REGION Michigan () QPS () Double Counting () Growth

() Use Rate Adjustment REGION Michigan Other Considerations % Reduction from Initial Request TOTAL Combined Impacts (%)

Cold Soil Temp (%)

Unsuitable Terrain (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts 0% 0% 4,535,675 4,535,675 3,019,356 Other Issues California Southeastern US Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst ( Telone) (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones (%) Key Pest Distribution Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N)

Michigan *** REGION Michigan California Southeastern US 4% 4% 36%

4,722,340 4,722,340 4,535,675 186,665   2,968,200 10,333  40,823

2007 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs)

4,601,624 30,088 153 0%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 4,722,340 29,255 161 4,651,126 28,638 162 4,493,128 29,170 154 0%

265 120 0%

653 117 0%

40,823 364 112 76,648 Kilograms ( kgs) Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

30,391 253 120 31,848 Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Adoption / Transition Adjustment ( kgs)

** Georgia Acreage estimates verified at http:// www. caed. uga. edu/ 2003gafgveg. pdf Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process 2007 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs)

HIGH LOW 2007 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use Quarantine and Pre Shipment Marginal Strategy 1,3 D + Pic Metam Sodium 1,3 D+ Pic+ herbicide Research Amount ( kgs) 5501 Average Hectares in the US:

% of Average Hectares Requested:

Regional Hectares** 48,603 60%

Date: Sector: 1/ 27/ 2005 TOMATOES Conversion Units:

Economic Analysis Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) 1,937 $ 5,391 $ 6,113 $ 15% Yield Loss, Range 15 to 20%

21%, 6.2% Yield Loss+ 14.8% delay Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)

22%, 6% Yield Loss + 16% delay Page 50 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. 2007 Amount of Request   The 2007 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. 2007 Nomination Options   2007 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, 2007 Request   Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2007 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 2007 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE application compared with the 2007 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 Page 51 calculated as the 2007 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then multiplied by the percentage subject to QPS treatments. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, QPS = ( 2007 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 2007 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 geology   Percent karst geology 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 geology. 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 geology, 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 geology. 23. Adaptation / Transition  Estimate of the percentage of the weighted usage that can be transitioned to a marginal strategy. This estimate is for areas of low to moderate pest pressure, where some growers may employ a marginal strategy without major economic dislocation if given a reasonable time frame for the transition. 24. Qualifying Area  Qualifying area ( ha) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined impacts. 25. Use Rate  Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for 2007 or the historic average use rate. 26. CUE Nominated amount  CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. 27. Percent Reduction  Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. 28. Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector  Self explanatory. 29. Total US Sector Nomination  Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector. Page 52 30. 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. 31. Strip Bed Treatment   Strip bed treatment is ` yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. Pest free cert. Required  This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be certified as ` pest free' in order to be sold 36. Other Issues. Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. Economic Analysis   provides summary economic information for the applications. 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. Marginal Strategy  This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. Page 53 APPENDIX B. 2006 Methyl Bromide Reconsideration for Tomatoes.

Overview of the US Nomiation The U. S. is requesting 2,844.985 metric tons of methyl bromide for use on field grown tomatoes in the following areas: Michigan ( 10.746 metric tons), California ( 102.058 metric tons), and the southeastern U. S. Florida and Georgia as well as other states in the southeast ( 2, 726.68 metric tons) with a small additional amount ( 5.501 metric tons) for research purposes.

Currently registered alternatives to methyl bromide do not consistently provide effective control of nutsedge weed species and more time is needed to evaluate relationship between fumigant alternatives, various mulches, and herbicide systems under different growing conditions.

The U. S. nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are not suitable. In U. S. tomato production there are several factors that make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable. These include:

pest control efficacy of alternatives: the efficacy of alternatives may not be comparable to methyl bromide in some areas, making these alternatives technically and/ or economically infeasible for use in tomato production.

geographic distribution of key target pests: i. e., some alternatives may be comparable to methyl bromide as long as key pests occur at low pressure, and in such cases the U. S. is only nominating a CUE for tomato where the key pest pressure is moderate to high such as nutsedge in the Southeastern US.

regulatory constraints: e. g., telone use is limited in California due to townships caps and in Florida due to the presence of karst geology.

delay in planting and harvesting: e. g., the plant back interval for telone+ chloropicrin is two weeks longer than methyl bromide+ chloropicrin, and in Michigan an additional delay would occur because soil temperature must be higher to fumigate with alternatives. Delays in planting and harvesting result in users missing key market windows, and adversely affect revenues through lower prices.

unsuitable topography: e. g., alternatives that must be applied with drip irrigation may not be suitable in areas with rolling or sloped topography due to uneven distribution of the fumigant.

MBTOC has recommended a total of 2,217.433 metric tons of methyl bromide distributed as follows: Michigan ( 10.746metric tons), the southeastern U. S. ( 2,197.5 metric tons) and California ( 9.185 metric tons). The research amount was approved.

MBTOC suggests that California can use shank injected 1,3 D/ pic and avoid the problems that drip applied poses on the hilly terrain that forms the basis for the California request. MBTOC asserts that only 9% of the California terrain is precluded from this option due to binding township caps. In the case of the southeastern states, MBTOC has indicated their view that alternatives are technically and economically feasible and applies a 20% phasein factor. MBTOC further states that the dosage can be reduced for a maximum applied rate of 200kg/ ha for the treated areas and may be further reduced if high density films, including VIF are used. Page 54 California MBTOC has suggested that shank injected 1,3 D/ Pic can be used in all areas that are not currently impacted by the township caps. In making this suggestion they are ignoring both the technical and regulatory factors described above and the actual working of the township caps in California. The township cap is a maximum that can be applied assuming that the method of application is deep shank injection. For all other forms of injection an ` application factor' is applied. The purpose of this application factor is to reduce the amount of 1,3 D that can be applied to a given area, reducing exposure to the population to a level comparable to that experienced when deep shank injection is used.

Deep shank injection cannot be used to control pests in California tomato production. Unlike Florida, where the soils are sandy to a considerable depth, in California the soils are prepared for planting to a depth of 12 18 inches1. The deep shank method injects 1,3 D below this level where the soil is not prepared and breaks into clumps. The soil must be re tilled before planting which risks introducing pathogens back into the planting zone. When shallow shank injection is used, the higher application factors mean that a much smaller area can be injected.

Dr. Legard2 of the California Strawberry Commission has estimated the impact on maximum acreage treated if 1,3 D is ( shallow) shank injected into the soil rather than drip applied a s a liquid. Using Telone C35 ® at 39 50 gallons per treated acre, 138.8 to 178.0 acres per township could be treated. When Inline ® is used at 25 gallons per acre3 473.7 acres per township can be treated. In other words, the use of drip applied 1,3 D results in 2.5 to 3 times as many treated acres. Shank injection of 1,3 D will greatly reduce the acreage treated4.

The U. S. assessment that the alternatives are not technically and economically feasible rests on two kinds of losses5: changes in yields which result in a lesser amount harvested and therefore lower revenues to farmers, and later yields which resulted in further reduced revenues to farmers 1 This corresponds to 30 45 cm. 2 Daniel Legard, PhD, personal communication. January 9, 2005. 3 The common use rate on strawberries in California 4 The main concern associated with broadcast fumigation with telone C35 is related to the telone township cap. There are different emission ratios used for the different application methods that adjusts the amount of telone applied to the township cap. The lbs used are " adjusted" by the following factors ( 1x for deep shank, 1.1x for drip applied, 1.8x for shallow shank). Hopefully, most growers would use deep shank where possible for broadcast telone applications. However, broadcast applications still involve treating approximately 40% more acreage than drip ( 2 row bed and slightly lower for 3 and 4 row beds, which are becoming more popular in the North).

5 From a theoretical perspective there are additional losses that should be included: differences in costs between methyl bromide and the alternatives and changes in yield quality. Cost differences between methyl bromide and the alternatives can occur because the prices of the materials differ, amounts used differ, equipment needs differ, additional materials are needed, such as an additional herbicide, an additional application step, either of the alternative or of some ancillary material is required, or there are additional land preparation or other costs. In practice, cost differences between methyl bromide and alternatives are generally small and can usually be ignored.

Quality difference in the yield, such as smaller, scarred, less sweet, or other differences in fruit quality would also be factors in assessing economic loss. In practice quality differences have not been reported in the available literature and so losses from his source cannot be incorporated into the analysis. Page 55 ( missed market windows, shorter harvest periods, the inability to grow a second crop). The proportion of loss attributable to each component differs from sector to sector, and within sectors, depending on the local circumstances of the nomination. As an example, for tomatoes in both Michigan and the southeastern United States, approximately 70% to 75% of the loss is attributable to missing the high value market time and 25% to 30% of the loss is attributable to lower yield Southeastern United States MBTOC has asserted that for the southeastern United States alternatives are technically and economically feasible. Using this assertion as a basis they recommend a 20% reduction for phase in of alternatives such as 1,3D/ Pic or metam sodium with or without Pic.

MBTOC disagrees with the U. S. assessments of yield loss.

The U. S. assessments of yield loss were developed from technically appropriate studies for the specific circumstances of the U. S. situation. Technically appropriate studies are those which:

Included an untreated control for comparison purposes on pest levels

Included methyl bromide as a treatment standard

Included information on the ( key) pests present in the treated area

Give estimates of yield changes ( differences)

The U. S. nomination was restricted to those situations where the presence and prevalence of pests (` key' pests) that could not be controlled by alternatives to methyl bromide was moderate to severe6 and would result in yield loss.

As we understand it from discussions at MOP 16, MBTOC used what they describe, interchangeably as a " meta analysis" or an ` average'. The procedure MBTOC used was not a meta analysis in thata meta analysis includes only studies which are similar enough from a statistical standpoint that they can be combined and analyzed as if they comprised one study, and the studies need to be identified, appraised and summarized according to an explicit and reproducible methodology that is designed to answer a specific research question. In this case, the appropriate research question would be the performance of alternatives to methyl bromide under the conditions of the U. S. nomination ( i. e. with moderate to severe pressure from key pests). The null hypothesis would be that alternatives work as well as methyl bromide in the conditions of the U. S. nomination. The U. S. nomination is specifically for the use of methyl bromide where key pests ( pests not adequately controlled by alternatives to methyl bromide) are present at moderate to severe levels and/ or soil, climate, terrain, or regulatory conditions are such that alternatives to methyl bromide either cannot be used or result in significant economic losses when used. These economic losses must be of sufficient magnitude that they render the alternative " not economically feasible" which presents a serious problem in applying the meta analysis. Our understanding is that this analysis includes some studies conducted under 6 In the judgment of U. S. experts pressure was such that yield losses of the magnitude of those used in the economic assessment would be sustained. Page 56 circumstances that are not similar to the limited conditions included in the U. S. nomination, such as the presence of moderate to severe pest pressure.

Although it is difficult to be certain how the MBTOC analysis was conducted and what it includes because it has not been reviewed and published and was not provided to the U. S. experts to evaluate7, we are able to make some educated guesses about the analysis8. The analysis for strawberry fruit is described in a paper is listed as being " in press" as conference proceedings with a date after the MBTOC recommendations on the U. S. nomination were tendered.

A version of the paper was presented by Dr. Ian Porter at the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Organization meeting in San Diego, November 2003 and was the subject of some controversy and concern among a number of participants. Dr. Porter's paper included a number of papers which U. S. experts believe are not appropriate for use in determining the usefulness of alternatives because the research was carried out under conditions of no pest pressure, and are therefore not relevant to the specific circumstances of our nomination9. If no pests are present any alternative, or indeed not using any pesticide at all, will all work equally well. By including situations where there is no pest pressure one in effect adds ( many) " 100" to the equation10 describing the differences in yield between crops grown using methyl bromide and those grown using an alternative. This has the effect of lowering the average difference between yields using methyl bromide and yields using an alternative. If a sufficient number of " 100" are added, the result will be to ( falsely) eliminate the yield differences between methyl bromide and the alternatives.

In other papers, pests were present but they were not the pests present in the all of the U. S. circumstances. Taking the case of the southeastern US, for example, weeds, diseases, fungi, and nematodes all afflict the crops. Some of these pests can be controlled with alternatives, but some of the weeds, in particular nutsedges ( nut grasses), nightshades, and some hard seed coated weeds, cannot. Situations without weeds will show small or no yield losses when alternatives are used while the true situation when ( key) weeds are present is that there are relatively large yield losses. Including these factors again has the effect of adding " 100" yield difference as many times as there are papers.

7 The US Government requested references from two of the authors of the paper to allow us to better understand the analysis, but this information has not yet been provided 8 Some of this material with references had been previously presented at the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Organization 2003 meeting ( San Diego). At that time U. S. experts expressed their view that many if not most of the studies were not an appropriate application of the information.

9 For example, some trials are used for residue tests. These tests are likely to be carried out in conditions of little or no pest pressure in order to have enough harvested fruit to test for residue. The Porter paper does not indicate which of the studies used ( but not cited) where for the purposes of examining pesticide residues.