Page 1 NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION: JUNE 2005 QUESTIONS ON CUNS FOR 2006 AND/ OR 2007 FOR SOIL APPLICATIONS DATE Version of August 18, 2005 Table of Contents I. General questions:................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Cucurbits:........................................................................................................................................... 2 III. Eggplants .......................................................................................................................................... 6 IV. Forest Nurseries:............................................................................................................................. 20 V. Nursery stock( fruit trees, raspberries, roses): .................................................................................... 27 VI. Orchard Replant:............................................................................................................................. 27 VII. Peppers:......................................................................................................................................... 28 IX. Tomatoes:....................................................................................................................................... 47 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................ 59 Appendix I Summary of Weyerhaeser Company Research ....................................................................... 61 Appendix II Economic information for Michigan Herbaceous Perennials ................................................. 69 Appendix III Revised BUNI for Fruit, Nut and Flower Nurseries............................................................. 77 Appendix III Revised BUNI for Strawberry nurseries .............................................................................. 78 I. General questions:

Question 1. Has the registration status of 1,3 D and, thus, its suitability for karst geology and/ or karst topography areas has changed recently, and if so, what is the new status?

ANSWER: The registration status of 1,3 D has not changed in regards to karst geology or topography. The U. S. does not expect a further change in the registration status until mid 2007 at the earliest. Even if the registration status of 1,3 D were to change with respect to whether it could be used in situations of karst topography rather than karst geology the estimates of the amount of methyl bromide needed would not change. In making the assessment of critical need, therefore, the USG analyzed need as if the label change had already occurred Question 2. Are there regulations which prevent the use of low barrier permeability films in any States other than California?

ANSWER: The U. S. is not aware that any States other than California have regulations that prevent or severely restrict the use of low permeability barrier films. Page 2 Question 3. What mixtures of MB/ Pic are registered in the different States covered by the CUN requests? MBTOC understands that a full range of mixtures ( MB/ Pic 98: 2 to 2: 98) can be applied in California, but in other States may be restricted by the premixed formulations of MB/ Pic available in those States ( e. g. 67: 33, 50: 50, 33: 67). Please clarify.

ANSWER: USG is not aware that any States have minimum application rate requirements for methyl bromide or specific regulations covering the ratio of methyl bromide to chloropicrin ( i. e. premixed formulations)

II. Cucurbits:

Question 4. ( Michigan): The Party states that 1,3 D/ chloropicrin may be an effective alternative but growers will miss the optimal market window due to longer plant back times with this alternative. There may be scope for avoiding this problem through treatments in autumn preceding the crop. Please explain whether this is possible or not.

ANSWER: The proposal by MBTOC to obviate the use of methyl bromide in Michigan by applying some alternative ( specifically a combination of 1,3 D and chloropicrin) in the autumn preceding crop planting will not work on cucurbits. In Michigan, the predominant agricultural treatment that uses methyl bromide is one where methyl bromide is applied in strips of raised beds. Areas between the raised beds are not treated. In addition to the risk that the harsh winter conditions ( prolonged periods of below freezing weather with snow, sleet, and high winds) will tear the plastic barrier, there is significant risk of flooding and concomitant recontamination of the treated areas. The length and severity of the winter means 4 5 months of precipitation is ` stored' in frozen form and released over the short period of thaw in the spring. This thaw based flooding can be exacerbated by heavy rainfalls ( in excess of 25 mm) that occur throughout the spring and summer in Michigan. Because Phytophthora and Verticillium are endemic in the areas of Michigan for which methyl bromide is being requested, flooding will transfer spores from the untreated to treated areas, resulting in additional infected plants and severe crop losses.

There are two additional problems which prevent a fall application of a methyl bromide alternative from being a viable alternative to the current practice. Deer walk across the fields, making holes in the plastic. Mice also burrow under the plastic. Once underneath they chew the drip tapes, rendering them inoperative and make burrows where they are in an ideal position to eat the newly planted material in the spring.

Question 5. ( Regions: other than Michigan) The CUN was based on limited trial data. MBTOC requests further information to fully assess the other regions, in particular the relevance of recent trial results in SE USA, especially those using low permeability barrier films such as Gilreath et a12005a, and those which show new data for alternatives and their methods of application new application methods on cucurbits or similar crops from relevant production regions. ( e. g. Gilreath et al 2005b, c) Page 3 ANSWER: Several members of MBTOC and the USG were recently able to tour field research sites in Florida and Georgia including the plots of Dr. Gilreath. During those discussions and in his recent research publications ( Gilreath et al 2005; Gilreath, Santos, Motis, Noling & Mirusso 2005; and Gilreath & Gilreath 2005) the improved pest control when using Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF) or metalized films ( using an aluminum layer such as Canslit) was described. Dr. Gilreath and other researchers were contacted on the topics of low permeability barrier films, and newer application techniques. Based on their input it appears that VIF films have still not been widely adopted because of problems in: laying the films, inelasticity and the resultant difficulty in conforming to the bed shape, problems with linear shear, and the fact that embossed films are not available. The current versions of metalized films are being widely tested by several researchers and growers and they have the potential to reduce fumigant use rates with better laying and bedshape conforming characteristics. It is anticipated that the results of many of these research plots and growers field tests will be available next year. Use of metalized films present several questions for adoption, such as the fate of the aluminum coating if it " flakes off" on the soil during removal and the photostability of the coating during multiple crop cycles as is common in the southeastern U. S. An additional concern with all of the low permeability films and reduced use rates is poor uniformity of treatment unless the application equipment must be redesigned to accommodate reduced flow rates and pressure ( Gilreath and Gilreath 2005). While these results are promising there are only a few researchers that have multi year trials with these films and new or modified application equipment. Many growers are said to be testing the new films, reduced rates of methyl bromide, and other alternatives. Without multi year trials under a range of environmental conditions the consistency, feasibility, and adaptability cannot be assessed.

When evaluating research that MBTOC cites ( Gilreath et al 2003) the untreated control at the Bradenton site had 53 nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) plants per square yard, while the Immokalee site had fewer than one plant per square yard. The current standard that the U. S. recommends for moderate nutsedge pressure is 5 to 30 plants per square yard. At the Bradenton site, the nutsedge control was not significantly different between MeBr: Pic ( 350 lb per acre) versus 1,3 D 35% Pic/ trifluralin/ napropamide/ chloropicrin ( 28 gal/ 0.5 lb/ 2 lb/ 125 lb), but had 39% more nutsedge plants and 17% yield reduction. When comparing the same treatments at Immokalee, which had and no significant difference in Fusarium, or nematodes ( such as Meloidogyne spp, Belonolainus spp. and Tylenchorhynchus spp.), but low nutsedge pressure (< 1 plant per square yard), there was still a 12.5% reduction in yield compared to methyl bromide.

Question 6. MBTOC also seeks use rates of MB/ Pic mixtures with lower MB than currently used ( especially 30: 70, 50: 50) for control of the key pests in the nomination and also results of their technical efficacy.

ANSWER: Communications with several researchers indicate that they have started, or are about to initiate, studies to look at long term performance of even lower rates of methyl bromide ( at or below 200 kg/ ha). These studies will encompass a wide range of environmental conditions, pest pressure, soil types, etc. and help to demonstrate consistency of control. Page 4 One of the studies that MBTOC cites is from Florida ( Gilreath et al, 2005a), which looked at the impact of reduced rates of MB on pest control and pepper yield. In that study, which had high Cyperus spp. pressure, there were no significant differences in yield between any of the rates of methyl bromide with the different types of films. However, an examination of the change in yield with VIF treatments, compared to the standard MB treatments, suggests significant variability within treatments, which led to the lack of statistical significance in yield despite the large numerical differences in yield between treatments. Trials such as those conducted by Gilreath et al ( 2005a) with peppers, need to be conducted over several seasons, and preferably with different crops. The reality of the use of VIF for the 2007 season is its current prohibitive cost in the U. S., and even more significant, its lack of availability for use on a commercial scale. The Party does not anticipate these issues can be adequately resolved before the critical use season of 2007.

Table 1. Pepper yields are not significantly different but percent yield loss can be large. Treatment App Rate kg/ ha Yield t/ ha % Change 1 Untreated 9.5  31% 2 MeBr + Pic LDPE 392 13.8 0% 3 MeBr + Pic VIFP 196 10.8  22% 4 MeBr + Pic VIFP 98 13.6 1% 5 MeBr + Pic VIFV 196 11.4  17% 6 MeBr + Pic VIFV 98 11.9  14% Footnote: From Gilreath et al. 2005. Crop Protection 24: 285 287. LDPE is low density polyethylene, VIFP and VIFV are virtually impermeable film by Plastopil and Vikase respectively.

The research plots that MBTOC visited in Florida demonstrated that reliance on chloropicrin will not be sufficient to control nutsedge. Research by Gilreath and communications with him indicate that chloropicrin enhances nutsedge germination ( this research has yet to be repeated for other pest species). Therefore, increasing the amount of chloropicrin applied can increase pest pressure and yield loss.

Question 7. The nomination indicates that MB is often not applied directly before cucurbits, but before the preceding crop as part of a double cropping process. MBTOC requests further clarification on how the proportion of the total crop area where MB is used immediately prior to cucurbits is determined.

ANSWER: Cucurbits are widely grown in several states in the southeastern and midwestern U. S. Florida produces the largest crop of cucurbits. In Florida, cucurbits are grown in rotation usually with a solanaceous crop, such as tomatoes or peppers. However, none of the U. S. nomination is for cucurbits grown in Florida. In some states, either one crop per fumigation is grown, or, cucurbits Page 5 are grown in rotation with another cucurbit crop. In evaluating the critical need for methyl bromide, USG has removed from the nomination requests in states where cucurbits are grown in rotation with solanaceous crops; all of the request is for the solanaceous crop with the cucurbit crop grown as a ` follow on'. For situations where the cucurbit is grown as a single crop, or is grown in rotation with the same or a different cucurbit crop, USG has compared the requested acreage with the acreage planted in cucurbits. The estimate of the area planted in cucurbits is derived from three main sources: a proprietary source that tracks pesticide use by crop, USDA's National Agricultural Statistical Service ( NASS) database, and specialized state sources. These state sources differ from state to state   in California the main source is a database maintained by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. In other states, such as Georgia, the University of Georgia maintains a website that reports on pesticide use by crop and county for all of the agricultural counties in Georgia. When sources are in disagreement, the data from the most detailed site was used.

The area reported in the BUNI as being in cucurbit cultivation is the area ( and its proportion of the total area) that is used only for cucurbit cultivation ( and not the area that is used for cucurbit cultivation in rotation with a non cucurbit crop). For the most recent ( 2007) request, 3% of the Michigan cucurbit acreage, 34% of the southeastern cucurbit acreage, and 11% of the Georgia cucurbit acreage are included in the nomination.

Question 8. In SE and Georgia, the key pest is nutsedge. The Party states that potential alternatives, 1,3 D/ Pic combinations and metham sodium, result in yield loss estimates of 29%. Estimates of yield differences are a determining factor in the relative economics of MB and the next best alternative. The Party refers to an old study on tomato production for yield data ( Locascio 1997) and further information is requested to support the yield loss estimates relative to MB resulting from 1,3 D/ chloropicrin combinations and metham sodium, with or without Pic, and other combinations such as 1,3 D + trifluralin 4 chloropicrin + napropamide.

ANSWER: The article cited by MBTOC ( Gilreath et al, 2003) examined methyl bromide plus chloropicrin ( 350 lb per acre of 67: 33) versus 1,3 D 35% Pic/ trifluralin/ napropamide/ chloropicrin ( 28 gal/ 0.5 lb/ 2 lb/ 125 lb) for pepper yield. While the yields were not statistically different, numerically there was a 13 to 14% yield loss, compared to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. The large yield loss differences suggest a large variability in the trials, which may be caused by inconsistent results of treatments. Therefore, based on MBTOC references there could be a 13 to 14% yield loss when comparing methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to this alternative. However, the USG had suggested a yield loss of 6.2 % in the BUNI. Importantly, the alternative treatment, which includes treatments with other chemicals, will require additional time for pesticide application and sufficient time to off gas an additional chloropicrin treatment to prevent damage to transplants. This additional time delay could lead to impacts in terms of the key market windows, resulting in an economic loss over and above the yield losses. Techniques to remedy these problems are being studied, but will not be finalized in time for the 2007 season, for which MB is being requested by this nomination. This inconsistency in yield and additional soil treatment time argues for the economic infeasibility of this type of alternative until new methodology can alleviate these problems. Page 6 Table 2. Tomato yields are not significantly different but percent yield loss can be large Bradenton Immokalee Treatment Marketable Yield ( pound per 10 plants) % Yield Change versus MeBr Marketable Yield ( pound per 10 plants) % Yield Change versus MeBr Untreated 51  56% 108  16% Methyl bromide: chloropicrin ( 350 lb of 67: 33) 117 0% 128 0%

1,3 D 35% Pic + trifluralin + napropamide + chloropicrin ( 28 gal/ 0.5 lb/ 2 lb/ 125 lb) 101  14% 112  13%

Footnote: From Gilreath et al. 2003. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc.

Question 9. Recent references available to MBTOC demonstrate effective alternatives ( metham sodium, with and without Pic) for moderate to heavy nutgrass control and further clarification is required on their suitability to karst and non karst areas ( Johnson and Webster, 2001; Gilreath et a1 2005 b, c). Yields were similar to methyl bromide; however there was no data presented on plantback effects for cucurbits. Please provide clarification of yield loss and relevance of new studies to the nomination.

ANSWER: Areas in the southeastern U. S experience frequent and heavy rainfalls, which may cause reduce efficacy of some pest control alternatives. In western North Carolina, in 2005, rain fell for 41 of the 61 days of June and July. Under these conditions 1,3 D/ Pic combinations did not show effective control in fields where heavy nutsedge pressure was present. Combination treatments, including trifluralin, have shown stunting in tomato during such years of above average rainfall.

With regard to cucurbits, metham sodium with pic followed by use of halosulfuron ( Sandea) will need to be evaluated in 2006, as it appears to researchers in the southeastern U. S. ( personal communication North Carolina State University), that it holds probably the greatest potential for nutsedge control in tomato and cucurbits. Limited or no data is available on nutsedge control with this complete program. However, because there are lengthy plant back restrictions on common rotational crops ( up to 36 months) the design of a crop rotation program will be very difficult and could restrict the planting of profitable crops.

III. Eggplants Question 10. ( Michigan): In Michigan, the key pests are Phytophthora capsici and Verticillium. The Party states that 1,3 D/ chloropicrin may be an effective alternative, but growers will miss the optimal market window due to delayed plantback times. There may be scope for avoiding this problem through treatments in autumn preceding the crop. Please explain whether this is possible or not.

ANSWER: Page 7 The proposal by MBTOC to obviate the use of methyl bromide in Michigan by applying some alternative ( such as a combination of 1,3 D and chloropicrin) in the autumn preceding crop planting will not work on eggplant. In Michigan, the predominant agricultural treatment that uses methyl bromide is one where methyl bromide is applied in strips of raised beds. Areas between the raised beds are not treated. In addition to the risk that the harsh winter conditions ( prolonged periods of below freezing weather with snow, sleet, and high winds) will tear the plastic barrier, there is significant risk of flooding and concomitant recontamination of the treated areas. The length and severity of the winter means 4 5 months of precipitation is ` stored' in frozen form and released over the short period of thaw in the spring. This thaw based flooding can be exacerbated by heavy rainfalls ( in excess of 25 mm) that occur throughout the spring and summer in Michigan. Because Phytophthora and Verticillium diseases are endemic in the areas of Michigan for which methyl bromide is being requested, flooding will transfer spores from the untreated to treated areas, resulting in additional infected plants and severe crop losses.

There are two additional problems which prevent a fall application of a methyl bromide alternative from being a viable alternative to the current practice. Deer walk across the fields, making holes in the plastic. Mice also burrow under the plastic. Once underneath they chew the drip tapes, rendering them inoperative and make burrows where they are in an ideal position to eat the newly planted material in the spring.

Question 11. ( Regions other than Michigan): The CUN was based on limited trial data, and MBTOC requires further information to assess the other regions, in particular the relevance of recent trial results in SE USA especially those using low permeability barrier films ( Gilreath et a12005a) and new application methods for alternatives ( on cucurbits or similar crops from relevant production regions).

ANSWER: Several members of MBTOC and the USG were recently able to tour field research sites in Florida and Georgia, including the research plots of Dr. Gilreath. During discussions with Dr. Gilreath, and in his recent research publications ( Gilreath et al 2005, Gilreath et al in press, and Gilreath & Gilreath 2005) improved pest control with virtually impermeable film ( VIF) or metalized films ( using an aluminum layer such as Canslit) was described. The Party contacted Dr. Gilreath and other researchers concerning low permeability barrier films, and newer application techniques. Based on their assessment it appears that VIF have still not been widely adopted because of problems in: laying the films, inelasticity and the resultant difficulty in conforming to the bed shape, problems with linear shear, and the fact that embossed films are not available. The current versions of metalized films are being widely tested by several researchers and growers and they have the potential to reduce fumigant use rates with better laying and bedshape conforming characteristics. It is anticipated that the results of many of these research plots and growers field tests will be available next year. These metalized films pose several questions for adoption: the fate of the aluminum coating if it " flakes off" on the soil during removal and the photostability of the coating during multiple crop cycles as is common in the southeastern U. S. These older soils are already high in aluminum and the impact of additional amounts and potential phytotoxicity will have to be tested. An additional concern with low permeability films and reduced use rates is poor uniformity of treatment, unless the application equipment must be redesigned to accommodate reduced flow rates Page 8 and pressure ( Gilreath and Gilreath 2005). While these results are promising there are only a few researchers that have multi year trials with these films and new or modified application equipment. Many growers are said to be testing the new films, reduced rates of methyl bromide, and other alternatives. Without multi year trials under a range of environmental conditions the consistency, feasibility, and adaptability cannot be assessed.

When evaluating research cited by MBTOC ( Gilreath et al, 2003) the untreated control at the Bradenton site had 53 nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) plants per square yard, while the Immokalee site had fewer than one plant per square yard. The current standard that the US recommends for moderate nutsedge pressure is 5 to 30 plants per square yard. At the Bradenton site the nutsedge control was not significantly different between MeBr: Pic ( 350 lb per acre) versus 1,3 D 35% Pic/ trifluralin/ napropamide/ chloropicrin ( 28 gal/ 0.5 lb/ 2 lb/ 125 lb) but had 39% more nutsedge plants and a 17% reduction in yield. When comparing the same treatments at Immokalee, which had and no significant difference in Fusarium, or nematodes ( such as Meloidogyne spp, Belonolainus spp. and Tylenchorhynchus spp.), but low nutsedge pressure (< 1 plant per square yard), there was still a 12.5% reduction in yield compared to methyl bromide.

Researchers in Georgia have also been conducting research on methyl bromide alternatives for eggplant production ( Culpepper, Webster, Langston 2005) and the interaction of VIF and LDPE films. Their research presented in the following ten Tables shows promising results from VIF mulch versus LDPE but some early trends are apparent. The time of transplanting after fumigation may have to be increased ( 18 days versus 29 days) with different films, nutsedge control with Telone C35 followed by chloropicrin ( 35 gal followed by 150 lbs) was not as effective as methyl bromide: chloropicrin ( 67: 33 at 400 lbs, ), nutsedge control was not always enhanced with VIF versus LDPE ( unfortunately nutsedge can readily emerge through either mulch), delaying planting at this site may have led to a yield reduction ( 5 to 9 lbs. per 22 feet of bed) with any of the treatments, eggplant yield ( first three harvests pooled in pounds per plot) was somewhat higher with LDPE versus VIF ( but not significantly different).

Table 3. Eggplant injury from various fumigant mulch combinations at 64 days after fumigating in spring 2005.* Plant date 1 ( Planted 18 days after fumigating) Plant date 2 ( Planted 29 days after fumigating) Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch None 0 0 0 0 0 DMDS + Chloropicrin ( 87.5: 12.5) 700 lbs 0 11 0 0 Methyl Bromide + Chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 0 2 0 0 Methyl Iodide + Chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 2 16^ 0 3 Telone C35 fb Chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 0 53^ 0 30^ Page 9 Telone II fb Vapam 12 G fb 75 G 21^ 100^ 0 13^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 75 G fb 150 lbs 58^ 90^ 0 32^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 50 G fb 100 lbs 17^ 98^ 0 2 * All means can be compared using an LSD = 12. Fumigants were applied on February 16, 2005.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per bed. Vapam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. Vapam was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Table 4. Nutsedge response to various fumigant mulch combinations at 90 days after fumigating in spring 2005.* Percent visual control Number of nutsedge plants emerging through the mulch Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch None 0 0^ 0^ 154^ 183^ DMDS + Chloropicrin ( 87.5: 12.5) 700 lbs 40^ 90 158^ 38 Methyl Bromide + Chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 93 86 17 34 Methyl Iodide + Chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 88 88 28 48 Telone C35 fb Chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 70^ 82^ 87^ 66^

Telone II fb Vapam 12 G fb 75 G 58^ 67^ 67^ 111^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 75 G fb 150 lbs 82^ 68^ 65^ 89^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 50 G fb 100 lbs 80^ 65^ 70^ 117^ Page 10 * Means within control estimated visually can be compared using an LSD = 11 while means within number of nutsedge plants penetrating through the plastic can be compared using an LSD = 29. Data for each variable pooled over planting dates. Fumigants were applied on February 16, 2005. Nutsedge counts taken on the entire 22 foot plot.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per bed. Vapam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. Vapam was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch within each variable. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Table 5. Eggplant heights affected by various fumigant mulch combinations 60 days after fumigating in spring 2005.* Plant date 1 ( Planted 18 days after fumigating) Plant date 2 ( Planted 29 days after fumigating) Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch None 0 14.4 12.8 11.8 10.8 DMDS + Chloropicrin ( 87.5: 12.5) 700 lbs 12.6 9.3^ 12.5 10.7 Methyl Bromide + Chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 14 13.7 14.2 13.0 Methyl Iodide + Chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 17.8^ 9.8^ 12.4 12.0 Telone C35 fb Chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 14.1 5.5^ 14.1 9.9^

Telone II fb Vapam 12 G fb 75 G 9.6^ 0.0^ 12.5 11.3 Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 75 G fb 150 lbs 6.7^ 1.0^ 13.8 9.0^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 50 G fb 100 lbs 11.2 0.0^ 12.4 12.0 * All means can be compared using an LSD = 3.5. Fumigants were applied on February 16, 2005.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per bed. Vapam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. Vapam was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch at plant date 1. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Table 6. Eggplant heights affected by various fumigant mulch combinations 90 days after fumigating in Page 11 spring 2005.* Plant date 1 ( Planted 18 days after fumigating) Plant date 2 ( Planted 29 days after fumigating) Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch None 0 51.5 50.8 45.7 47.7 DMDS + Chloropicrin ( 87.5: 12.5) 700 lbs 57.6 53.2 60.1 58.4 Methyl Bromide + Chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 58.8 62.0 64.7 66.4 Methyl Iodide + Chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 57.8 55.7 61.1 63.3 Telone C35 fb Chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 61.6 38.0^ 59.2 46.9 Telone II fb Vapam 12 G fb 75 G 49.8 0^ 62.5 55.2 Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 75 G fb 150 lbs 45.1 3.6^ 55.3 50.8 Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 50 G fb 100 lbs 48.6 0.3^ 58.1 59 * All means can be compared using an LSD = 14.4. Fumigants were applied on February 16, 2005.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per bed. Vapam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. Vapam was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch at plant date 1. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Table 7. Number of eggplant harvested during the first harvest date comparing fumigant mulch treatments in spring of 2005.* Plant date 1 ( Planted 18 days after fumigating) Plant date 2 ( Planted 29 days after fumigating Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch None 0 31 30 20 22 DMDS + Chloropicrin ( 87.5: 12.5) 700 lbs 31 34 22 19 Methyl Bromide + Chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 30 33 15^ 12^

Methyl Iodide + Chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 34 31 14^ 15^ Page 12 Telone C35 fb Chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 26 17^ 20 17^

Telone II fb Vapam 12 G fb 75 G 29 0^ 15^ 14^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 75 G fb 150 lbs 30 2^ 17^ 15^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 50 G fb 100 lbs 30 1^ 15^ 16^

* All means can be compared using an LSD = 13. Fumigants were applied on February 16, 2005. Harvest one was made on May 17, 2005. The entire plot of 22 feet was harvested.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per bed. Vapam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. Vapam was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch at plant date 1. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Table 8. Weight of eggplant fruit ( lbs) harvested during the first harvest date comparing fumigant mulch treatments in spring 2005.* Plant date 1 ( Planted 18 days after fumigating) Plant date 2 ( Planted 29 days after fumigating) Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch None 0 40 44 35 35 DMDS + Chloropicrin ( 87.5: 12.5) 700 lbs 40 48 33 27 Methyl Bromide + Chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 40 44 20^ 17^

Methyl Iodide + Chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 43 43 18^ 23^

Telone C35 fb Chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 34 25^ 30 24^

Telone II fb Vapam 12 G fb 75 G 39 0^ 21^ 14^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 75 G fb 150 lbs 41 3^ 23^ 21^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 50 G fb 100 lbs 41 2^ 21^ 24^ Page 13 * All means can be compared using an LSD = 11. Fumigants were applied on February 16, 2005. Harvest one was made on May 17, 2005. The entire plot of 22 feet was harvested.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per bed. Vapam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. Vapam was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch at plant date 1. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Table 9. Number of eggplant harvested pooled over the first three harvests comparing fumigant mulch treatments in spring of 2005.* Plant date 1 ( Planted 18 days after fumigating) Plant date 2 ( Planted 29 days after fumigating) Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch None 0 68 78 64^ 65^ DMDS + Chloropicrin ( 87.5: 12.5) 700 lbs 78 79 73 62^

Methyl Bromide + Chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 89 77 70 63 Methyl Iodide + Chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 85 83 62^ 61^

Telone C35 fb Chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 72 50^ 74 73 Telone II fb Vapam 12 G fb 75 G 73 0^ 70 53^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 75 G fb 150 lbs 78 7^ 64^ 54^

Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 50 G fb 100 lbs 80 3^ 58^ 69 * All means can be compared using an LSD = 22. Fumigants were applied on February 16, 2005. The entire plot of 22 feet was harvested three times.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per bed. Vapam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. Vapam was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch at plant date 1. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Table 10. Weight of eggplant fruit ( lbs) harvested pooled over the first three harvests comparing fumigantmulch treatments in spring 2005.* Page 14 Plant date 1 ( Planted 18 days after fumigating) Plant date 2 ( Planted 29 days after fumigating) Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch None 0 90 109 96 98 DMDS + Chloropicrin ( 87.5: 12.5) 700 lbs 102 111 105 84 Methyl Bromide + Chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 119 104 95 82 Methyl Iodide + Chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 106 117 83 86 Telone C35 fb Chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 96 75 114 106 Telone II fb Vapam 12 G fb 75 G 105 49^ 97 69 Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 75 G fb 150 lbs 108 11^ 88 75 Telone II fb Vapam fb Chloropicrin 12 G fb 50 G fb 100 lbs 109 5^ 81 99 * All means can be compared using an LSD = 41. Fumigants were applied on February 16, 2005. The entire plot of 22 feet was harvested three times.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per bed. Vapam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. Vapam was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch at plant date 1. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley. Page 15 Question 12. MBTOC also seeks the current registration status and use rates of MB: Pic mixtures with lower MB than currently used ( especially 30: 70, 50: 50) for control of the key pests in the nomination and also results of their technical efficacy.

ANSWER: For preplant soil use the U. S. EPA has not made any recent label changes to the methyl bromide or chloropicrin labels. The U. S. label does not have any minimum application rate requirements for methyl bromide or specific regulations covering the ratio of methyl bromide to chloropicrin. The U. S. is not aware of any states with minimum application rate requirements for methyl bromide or specific regulations covering the ratio of methyl bromide.

In past years the majority of preplant fumigant alternatives research on small fruits and vegetables has been directed at strawberry, tomato, and pepper crops. Based on questions from MBTOC the vegetable focus has moved towards eggplant and cucurbits. Based on this reprioritization we hope that MBTOC will understand that the numbers and extent of research studies on tomato and pepper problems will be constrained in future years. While the new research is being conducted the actual data is not yet available. Two studies on cucurbits are presented below to provide examples of the types of work that are ongoing.

Research in Georgia by Grey, Culpepper, and Webster ( 2003) looked at the suitability of herbicides applied under plastic for weed control. In their research they looked at halosulfuron, metolachlor and sulfentrazone applied in the spring, under plastic. That work suggested that several of the vegetable crops such as eggplant, cucumber, transplanted and seeded squash were initially injured. However, by the end of the study only squash, cucumber, and potentially eggplant and cabbage were potentially intolerant of these selective herbicides. Due to differences in soil types and water permeability this toxicity may be higher in Florida.

Table 11. Vegetable injury from halosulfuron, metolachlor and sulfentrazone. Treatments Rate ( kg ai/ ha) % Crop Injury Halosulfuron Metolachlor Metolachlor + Halosulfuron Sulfentrazone 0.027 1.12 1.12 + 0.027 0.28 8 to 16% for eggplant, cucumber, transplanted and seeded squash < 4% for cabbage Footnote. From Grey, Culpepper, and Webster 2003. Page 16 Table 12. Vegetable tolerance halosulfuron, metolachlor and sulfentrazone. Treatments Rate ( kg ai/ ha) Crop Tolerance ( Measured by Yield) Crop Intolerant ( Measured by Yield) Halosulfuron 0.027 Cabbage, eggplant, squash and cucumber tolerant Not described Metolachlor 1.12 Cabbage and eggplant Squash and cucumber Metolachlor + Halosulfuron 1.12 + 0.027 Not described Not described Sulfentrazone 0.28 Eggplant and cabbage warrant further investigation but caused injury Squash and cucumber Footnote. From Grey et al 2003.

Research in Georgia by W. C. Johnson ( 2003) looked at metham sodium for yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus) control in cantaloupe. In 2001 and 2002, in Georgia, this research examined full rate and half rate applications of metham sodium versus untreated plots applied 1, 2, or 3 weeks before transplanting. In this study metham sodium applied with a power tiller at the full rate ( see Johnson and Webster, 2001) 2 weeks before transplanting provided the best nutsedge control ( data not presented) combined with least injury to the transplants. The half rate application or treatments applied 1 or 3 weeks before transplanting were not as effective. This suggests that timing of application and method of application are as important as use rate for providing effective control of nutsedge without damage to the transplants.

Question 13. The nomination indicates that MB is often not applied directly before eggplant, but before the preceding crop. MBTOC requests further clarification on how the proportion of the total crop area where MB is used immediately prior to eggplants is determined.

ANSWER: Eggplant is a very minor crop in the U. S., accounting for fewer than 2850 hectares on a national basis. It is grown in about a dozen states, including Florida, Georgia and Michigan ( areas that have a critical need for methyl bromide) and New Jersey, Massachusetts and others, where alternatives are used. In evaluating the critical need for methyl bromide USG has removed from the nomination all requests in states where eggplants are grown in rotation with another crop within one year. For situations where eggplant is grown as a single crop, or is grown in rotation with eggplant ( doublecropped USG has compared the requested area with the area planted in eggplant. The estimate of the area planted in eggplant is derived from three main sources: a proprietary source that tracks pesticide use by crop, USDA's National Agricultural Statistical Service database ( NASS), and specialized state sources. These state sources differ from state to state   in California the main source is a database maintained by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. In other states, such as Georgia, the University of Georgia maintains a website that reports on crop acres by county for all of the agricultural counties in Georgia. When sources are in disagreement, the data from the most detailed site was used.

The area reported in the BUNI as being cultivated with eggplant is the area ( and its proportion of the total area) that is only used for eggplant cultivation, and not the area that is used for eggplant cultivation in rotation with a non eggplant crop within one year. For the most recent ( 2007) Page 17 request, 60% of the Georgia eggplant cultivation, and 100% of the Florida eggplant cultivation are included in the nomination. USG was not able to determine the proportion of the Michigan eggplant that is contained in the nomination, but as 33 hectares were requested for Michigan eggplant, USG is confident that at least this number of hectares is in eggplant production and not rotated with non eggplant crops.

Question 14. In Georgia and Florida, nematodes, soil borne fungi and nutsedge are the key pests. The Party states that 1,3 D + chloropicrin + trifluralin + napropamide is an effective alternative in Florida except in areas of karst topography which comprise 40% of the growing acreage. 1,3 D/ chloropicrin is effective against nematodes, but not nutsedge. Although not controlling nutsedge as well as MB, this combination provided equivalent yields in spring and fall crops in Tifton GA ( Culpepper and Langston, 2004). Party is requested to clarify why this information is not relevant to the nomination.

ANSWER: MBTOC has cited the U. S. nomination package that states that 1,3 D is not suitable under conditions of karst topography then cites the 1,3 D research of Culpepper Langston ( 2004) and asks about its relevance to the nomination. That research is described below. In cases where an alternative cannot be used due to a regulatory restriction, the U. S. has not described that research because MBTOC has clearly stated that they do not want information on chemicals that are not registered for those sites. If the description below does not adequately answer the question please contact the U. S. for additional information.

The research of Culpepper and Langston ( 2004) looked at yellow and purple nutsedge control and pepper yield for methyl bromide versus combinations of Telone ( 1,3 dichloropropene) alone, with chloropicrin or K Pam ( metam potassium) versus Midas ( iodomethane). The research results are shown in Table 5 and 6 below. In this study there was no statistically significant yield loss when comparing methyl bromide ( 400 lb of 67: 33) to Telone II ( 12 gal/ acre) followed by chloropicrin ( 150 lb per acre), but numerically, a 7% yield loss was demonstrated. However, in the alternative treatment, nutsedge control was significantly reduced compared to methyl bromide. Therefore, in subsequent crop cycles the weed pressure would likely be even greater.

Fumigant treatment options, rates, and application methods were as follows ( Culpepper and Langston, 2004): 1. Methyl Bromide 67: 33 ( 400 lb/ A broadcast) injected 6 8" in the bed with a Super Bedder plastic layer. 2. Telone II ( 12 gal/ A broadcast) injected 10 12 inches deep with a Yetter rig followed with Chloropicrin ( 150 lb/ A broadcast) injected 6 8 inches in the bed with a Super Bedder plastic layer. 3. Telone C35 ( 35 gal/ A broadcast) injected 10 12 inches deep with a Yetter rig followed with Chloropicrin ( 150 lb/ A broadcast) injected 6 8 inches in the bed with a Super Bedder plastic layer.

4. Telone II ( 12 gal/ A broadcast) injected 10 12 inches deep with a Yetter rig followed with K Pam ( 46 gal/ A broadcast) incorporated 3 4 inches deep with a tilrovator and followed with a Super Bedder plastic layer. 5. MIDAS 98: 2 ( 175 lb/ A broadcast) injected 6 8" in the bed with a Super Bedder plastic layer. 6. Inline ( 35 gal/ treated acre) injected through two lines of drip tape the day following laying plastic. 7. No fumigant under plastic. Page 18 Table 13. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Impact on Yellow and Purple Nutsedge Control. TyTy, Georgia. Fall, 2003. Percent Late Season Control Fumigant Option Yellow Nutsedge Purple Nutsedge Methyl Bromide 92 a 80 a Telone II plus K Pam 79 a 50 c Telone II plus Chloropicrin 52 b 31 d Telone C35 plus Chloropicrin 92 a 65 b Midas 87 a 49 c Inline 50 b 16 e No Fumigant 36 c 12 e Fumigant main effects were significant. Values within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05.

Table 14. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Impact on the Number of 28 lb. boxes of peppers harvested per acre. TyTy, Georgia. Fall, 2003.

Fumigant Option Percent Loss in boxes per acre compared to Methyl Bromide Methyl Bromide 0 Telone II plus K Pam 7 Telone II plus Chloropicrin 17* Telone C35 plus Chloropicrin 22* Midas 16* Inline 36* No Fumigant 48* Values are pooled over two herbicide options as fumigant main effects were significant. * Denotes a statistical loss in yield compared to Methyl Bromide at P = 0.05.

Question 15. An effective strategy for controlling nematodes, pathogens and nutsedge has been demonstrated in Florida as described above. Also, recent references available to MBTOC demonstrate effective alternatives ( metham sodium, with and without Pic) for moderate to heavy nutgrass control in similar regions for non karst and karst areas ( Johnson and Webster, 2001; Gilreath et al, 2005 b, c). Yields were similar to methyl bromide, however there was no data presented on plantback effects for eggplants. It is not clear why this combination cannot be used in 92% of Georgia nomination where karst topography is not a concern. Please clarify ANSWER:

Communications with several researchers indicate that they have started, or are about to initiate, studies to look at long term performance of alternatives for eggplant. These studies will encompass a wide range of environmental conditions, pest pressure, soil types, etc. and help to demonstrate consistency of control. However, to date the U. S. has still not seen consistent control for multiple years for these alternatives ( see summaries below). Page 19 One of the studies that MBTOC cites is from Florida ( Gilreath et al, 2005a), which looked at the impact of reduced rates of MB on pest control and pepper yield. In that study, which had high Cyperus spp. pressure, there were no significant differences in yield between any of the rates of methyl bromide with the different types of films. However, an examination of the change in yield with VIF treatments, compared to the standard MB treatments, suggests significant variability within treatments, which led to the lack of statistical significance in yield despite the large numerical differences in yield between treatments. Trials such as those conducted by Gilreath et al ( 2005a) with peppers, need to be conducted over several seasons, and preferably with different crops. The reality of the use of VIF for the 2007 season is its current prohibitive cost in the U. S., and even more significant, its lack of availability for use on a commercial scale. The Party does not anticipate these issues can be adequately resolved before the critical use season of 2007.

Table 15. Pepper yields are not significantly different but percent yield loss can be large. Treatment App Rate kg/ ha Yield t/ ha % Change 1 Untreated 9.5  31% 2 MeBr + Pic LDPE 392 13.8 0% 3 MeBr + Pic VIFP 196 10.8  22% 4 MeBr + Pic VIFP 98 13.6 1% 5 MeBr + Pic VIFV 196 11.4  17% 6 MeBr + Pic VIFV 98 11.9  14% Footnote: From Gilreath et al. 2005. Crop Protection 24: 285 287. LDPE is low density polyethylene, VIFP and VIFV are virtually impermeable film by Plastopil and Vikase respectively.

The research plots that MBTOC visited in Florida clearly demonstrated that chloropicrin will not control weeds such as Cyperus esculentus or C. rotundus . Research by Gilreath and communications with him indicate that chloropicrin enhances nutsedge germination ( this research has yet to be repeated for other pest species). Therefore, increasing the amount of chloropicrin applied can increase pest pressure and yield loss.

Another study by Gilreath, Santos, Motis, Noling and Mirusso ( 2005) looked at nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper ( Capsicum annum). In that study the authors stated " For bell pepper yield, the application of metam sodium and metam sodium + chloropicrin provided similar fruit weight as for methyl bromide + chloropicrin in two of the three seasons." However, in that year ( Fall, 2002) the yields went from 18.8 t/ ha for methyl bromide + chloropicrin to 13.7 t/ ha for metam sodium + chloropicrin, or a 27% drop in yield. This level of yield loss could have severe economic impacts for a grower. Because of the inconsistency of some of the alternative treatments the U. S. does not consider them to be a replacement for methyl bromide. The work of Johnson and Webster ( 2001) as described in Question 12 above indicated that for metam sodium the time of application before transplanting, rate, and type of incorporation equipment all can have significant impacts on performance of the chemicals. Page 20 Question 16. Yield differences are the principal factor in economic analyses on economic feasibility of technically suitable alternatives for these regions. These yield differences are estimated for eggplant on the basis of some tomato data including Locascio ( 1997). Party is asked to validate the yield losses for alternatives on direct observations on eggplants ANSWER: Communications with several researchers indicated that they have initiated studies to look at long term performance of alternatives for eggplant. These studies will encompass a wide range of environmental conditions, pest pressure, soil types, etc. and help to demonstrate consistency of control. Until these studies are complete the U. S. has relied on surrogate crops to help demonstrate yield and pest control differences. Perhaps MBTOC could share some of the yield loss estimates from other countries to help illustrate their concerns.

IV. Forest Nurseries:

Question 17. MBTOC is unclear why regions A, B, D and F, which presently use MB/ Pic 98: 2 cannot use similar mixtures of MB/ Pic 67: 33 ( as used by the other regions) which are considered to be technically effective in control of weeds and pathogens. Further clarification is requested.

ANSWER: A key pest problem for these four nominees is nutsedge, given their geographical locations, with hot, humid summers. The U. S. nomination is only for those areas with moderate to severe pest problems ( not the entire area where these forest nurseries are in operation). Nurseries with little nutsedge pressure have found that a MeBr: chloropicrin formulation of 67: 33 provides acceptable weed control, as well as good disease control. Nurseries with high nutsedge pressure routinely use a MeBr: chloropicrin formulation of 98: 2, as this gives them better nutsedge control, even in the subsequent crop, in addition to good disease control. Nurseries that have lowered the formulation ratio from 98: 2 to 67: 33 frequently have found that they need higher rates of the formulated compound to get adequate control ( e. g., 440 kg/ ha of 67: 33 vs. 390 kg/ ha of 98: 2), even with reduced weed pressure. Thus, the amount of MB commonly used is only somewhat less than with the 98: 2 formulation. Nurseries that have been able to lower the formulation ratio are almost always in locations without severe infestations of nutsedge. Research is being conducted on site in many of these nurseries ( personal communication, International Paper [ Region B]; Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative [ Region A]) to try to reduce the rate of MB while maintaining adequate weed and disease control. However, the Party submits that MB will still be critical for the 2007 use season. USG will provide these results when they become available.

The Northeastern Forest and Conservation Nursery Association [ Region F] provided the following clarification ( information was provided by the four largest users of MB/ Pic 98: 2 in the Association and by the contract applicator of methyl bromide for these nurseries. Observations reported from these users were made under operational conditions, not from research plots): Page 21 The current largest users of 98: 2 in the consortium reported they had tried the 67: 33 mixtures in their nurseries at one time or another. These users report that the 67: 33 formulation at the standard application rate of 350 lbs./ A was less effective in controlling weeds, including nutsedge, than the 98: 2 mixture at 350 400 lbs/ A. They felt that 67: 33 would need to be applied at a higher rate if it was to be as effective as 98: 2, which would offset any reduction in methyl bromide by using the 67: 33formulation.

One nursery also observed that mycorrhizal recolonization of seed beds fumigated with 67: 33 appeared to be less than that in beds fumigated with 98: 2, leading to stunting of seedlings of several tree species.

All users of 67: 33 also reported that this mixture caused severe nasal irritation and nausea to workers removing plastic tarps as much as 7 days after fumigation. Protective gear needed to prevent these symptoms would be extremely uncomfortable, and perhaps even cause heat related injuries, in the weather conditions usually found in August and early September in the nurseries in this consortium.

Weyerhaeuser Company [ Region D] provided the following clarification ( also, see Appendix A for a summary of Weyerhaeuser research studies pertinent to the MB nomination):

The fumigation selection process is complex and a result of soil testing and analysis, including the following factors: ( 1) timing spring versus fall fumigation; ( 2) target pathogens; ( 3) contractor application; and ( 4) historical efficacy data.

Historically, within Weyerhaeuser Company, numerous earlier studies tested MEBR: PIC efficacy as 98: 2 or 67: 33, but not in the context of direct " head to head" comparison. Our southern nursery seedling production has maintained a long track record of effectively using the MEBR: PIC 98: 2 formulation with tarp for pathogen and weed control. These facilities are situated on similar sandy soils, typically low in organic matter (< 2%). Pre and post fumigation efficacy testing over a number of years demonstrates that this treatment combination can yield an expectation of > 90% reduction in key pathogen complexes such as Fusarium and Pythium. This treatment effect is managed so that soil fumigation is used once, every three to four years, or longer on a particular crop production area. Thus, MEBR: PIC 98: 2 soil treatment has been the standard soil treatment within southern Weyerhaeuser facilities for the last 25 years, and is directly responsible for successful seedling production (~ 2 billion seedlings) and regeneration of millions of acres.

Our alternatives fumigate testing ( Weyerhaeuser Co.) during the late 1990' s focused on chloropicrin ( PIC) as the " next best case" tool for effective soil pathogen management. This was largely driven off the historic use of MeBr: Pic 67: 33 in our western Weyerhaeuser nursery production facilities ( likewise, a 25+ year track record of similar production). These facilities are situated on heavier loam to sandy loam soils with high organic matter ( 5 10%). We observed that with increased levels of PIC, fumigation was more effective, especially on root residual pathogens. Similarly, later trials conducted by us in the South showed that Pic ( 200 lbs 300 lbs/ ac) [~ 220 330 kg/ ha] or in combination with Telone PIC could be as effective as MeBr: Pic 98: 2, both in the longevity of the Page 22 fumigation effect and in aspects of seedling production ( except noxious weed control). However, as described below longer off gassing has been a problem with chloropicrin.

Fall is the preferred timing of fumigant application, since it allows for the most effective soil management, preparation, and temperature conditions conducive to treatment. MB has the unique property of being the chemical least affected by soil temperature. Soil moisture also plays a large role in fumigant efficacy, but it affects a broad class of chemical agents, including MB. The higher concentration of MB in the 98: 2 formulation versus 67: 33 might have some advantages to penetration of compacted soil, tills and to some degree soil depth. This advantage may be greater under spring fumigation conditions when soil properties may not be ideal for fumigation. We have had several instances of late spring soil fumigation with MeBr: Pic 67: 33, where incomplete offgassing has occurred, which could not be detected with a MeBr meter, and which caused considerable post transplant seedling mortality. This damage was most likely caused by the slower off gassing by the PIC component, facilitated by a cool wet spring.

Our soil pathogen monitoring program is designed to target critical pathogen groups which historically have caused the greatest damage to seedling production. Against these pathogens ( mostly Fusarium and Pythium species), we have arrayed tests using many of the front line fumigant agents ( MEBR: PIC, PIC, Telone PIC, Metam Sodium, Basamid, and others). To date, we feel confident that MEBR: PIC 98: 2 and MEBR: PIC 67: 33 would show similar efficacy against these pest complexes under the range of treatment and soil conditions represented in our different facilities. However, we have yet to conclude that CT values ( critical exposure time for MB) can be achieved for weed pests in the South with the short tarping interval that is being used ( 7 days versus 20+ days South versus West respectively). I suspect the short tarping period is more a function of climatic factors such as wind force, than simply contractor recommendations.

We now have some preliminary data from one facility in Washington State that suggests that MeBr: Pic 67: 33 may not completely control a new root pathogen, Cylindrocarpon. The appearance and dominance by this pathogen may coincide with decade long change from cover crop to barefallow practiced between fumigation events. We are currently investigating the possible link between the lack of beneficial soil microbes under bare fallow and increased pathology by Cylindrocarpon. However, Pic applied at 300+ lbs/ ac [ 330 kg/ ha] does seem to control this pathogen. In the future, we suggest that facilities may need to rotate fumigant chemicals during upcoming fumigation cycles to head off this phenomenon.

I do not know the current contractor preference for which fumigant is used by facility. In several attempts we have been unable to secure some materials for testing, or equipment to apply those chemicals have not been available. Since MeBr: Pic 98: 2 and MEBR: PIC 67: 33 do not fit this criteria, I don't see any reason why either formulation could not be available for use in any given facility or year.

In conclusion, I don't see a pathological reason to exclude the MEBR: PIC 67: 33 formulation from use in Southern and Western facilities. Other formulations with lower MB concentrations ( 50: 50) would need to be tested over several crop cycles. My only reservations would be on the substitution of MeBr: Pic 67: 33 for MeBr: Pic 98: 2 for spring fumigation. The time interval between Page 23 to fumigate and to off gas is very short, and a delay of 1 month to plant or longer can have serious economic consequences to normal seed germination and seedling production.

Question 18. Research is ongoing to determine if Pic with metham, 1,3 D and/ or herbicides can provide acceptable control of high levels of nutsedge. To date, metham sodium and chloropicrin in combination showed promising results, but when used without plastic sheeting caused severe crop injury: MBTOC considers that this treatment ( and others) covered with plastic films, particularly low permeability barrier films, may provide an effective technical alternative and avoid crop injury Further clarification is required on the technical efficacy of this treatment. MBTOC accepts that some barrier films may be difficult to apply in broadacre continuous applications, and requests clarification on what films have been evaluated and the suitability of these films for application and use;

ANSWER: As MBTOC has stated, the use of metham without tarping is not feasible due to crop injury and worker exposure issues. It might appear appropriate, then, to tarp the material to prevent outgassing problems. However, the application of metham followed by chloropicrin under flat tarping, considering the large number of hectares treated each year, is not practical or cost effective, and currently, not technically feasible ( personal communication, International Paper [ Region B]; Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative [ Region A]). A three step process would be required, first application of metham, then chloropicrin, and finally, application of the tarp. Incorporation of metham using a rotovator is an extremely slow process, and the area to be treated within a given treatment window ( determined by weather: temperature, moisture, wind) is limited. This window of application is generally 4 6 weeks, and even under the best application methods, this treatment takes four times as long to apply as the typical MB treatment. Therefore, to treat the necessary hectares each year would require a four fold increase in labor and additional available equipment in order to apply metham, chloropicrin and cover with tarp. According to the label, and depending on soil and weather conditions, there would be a two to six week delay before planting after application of metham, chloropicrin and tarp covering. This would affect market production costs.

The equipment needed to treat the area in spring and fall would not be available without the purchase of four additional applicator units and would greatly increase the cost to growers, as would the " set up" time for the treatment with additional machinery. In order for tarps to be placed on the treated metham areas, workers must return into the treated area to lay down tarps after chloropicrin has been injected into the soil. In this case, out gassing occurs, and workers must wear personal protection equipment that is not practical given the temperatures that normally occur at the time of application. Nursery growers of these regions are currently using high density films to decrease emissions of MB, but have found that for current production VIF is not an option due to excessive costs and technical difficulties of gluing during application. Nursery members of the Southern Forest Nursery Cooperative, among others, are experimenting with VIF, but are not able to adopt this technology for their 2007 production.

The Northeastern Forest and Conservation Nursery Association [ Region F] provided the following clarification: Page 24 The consortium has no additional information on the technical efficacy of the treatments in question. There are no commercial applicators in the region that have the capability to apply VIF in broadacre applications, so these treatment combinations have not been evaluated. All methyl bromide applied by the consortium is done under by 1 mil polyethylene film that is glued together to cover the entire field.

Weyerhaeuser Company [ Region D] provided the following clarification ( also, see Appendix A for a summary of Weyerhaeuser research studies pertinent to the MB nomination):

Our research experience has been that PIC and Telone PIC have tested with nearly the same efficacy as MB across various facilities, crop types ( seedbed or transplants) and years. Essentially, all this test data has been done in association with standard fumigation tarping ( 1 2 mil plastic). This is also true for MIT agents, such as Basamid, Metam, Busan, Soil Prep, or Vapam. In this later chemical group, we have also shown that efficacy is tied to the use of plastic tarp. Furthermore, MIT agents require conversion before they become effective fumigants. Conversion is both temperature and moisture dependent.

The use of mixtures of PIC+ Metam or Telone PIC+ Metam in agriculture settings does not mirror larger nursery scale site fumigation with MeBr: Pic, PIC or Telone PIC. In fall nursery fumigation, it is difficult to manage for uniform soil moisture over a large acreage. Irrigation pipelines are removed to facilitate land preparation for fumigation. Soil temperature must also be maintained in a range above 50F for effective conversion. This severely restricts the timing in the fall, but in most years, effectively removes the likelihood of using MIT agents in combination with other fumigants for spring fumigation.

A more effective barrier would potentially provide two aspects to mitigate the issue of conversion. First, the barrier composition should facilitate solarization of the soil to maintain the optimal temperature regime for conversion and to retain soil moisture. Conventional fumigation tarp ( 1 mil thickness) in solarization tests conducted at our Magnolia ( AR) and Mima ( WA) did not function as a heat sink as well as thicker mil plastic ( 6 mil), nor did it physically last sufficiently long to solarize the soil.

We have observed several severe deficiencies in MIT agents that have not been observed in tests using other agents. In these examples, we have not been able to deduce whether the negative crop effects are based on residual MIT caused soil phytotoxicity or lack of control of non target pathogen groups ( one's we do not currently monitor).

Tarp cost is also a limiting next step. Costs increase dramatically with thickness and area being covered. Currently, standard 1 mil tarp is adequate to achieve the treatment efficacy (> 90+% reduction in soil pathogen population in numbers and area).

We suggest that MITC agents can be a viable component of a comprehensive fumigation plan for any nursery facility. We have prepared to test a formulation of Telone PIC Metam, but the Page 25 equipment was not available for injection of the later. Our understanding of the limitations of MIT agents and the cultural aspects to facilitate optimal conversion offers further interest in testing these mixtures.

Question 19. MBTOC also requests further information on whether 1,3 D/ Pic + metham sodium ( or glyphosate) can be used in place of MB/ Pic formulations to control nutsedge ( Culpepper and Langston, 2004). MBTOC also requests clarification from the Party of the availability and effects of VIF films used with MB: Pic mixtures or alternatives to control persistent targets ( e. g. nutgrass) as this can further reduce rates ( Gilreath et al 2005a).

ANSWER: Forest tree seedlings cannot be exposed to glyphosate as the herbicide kills both hardwood and conifer species ( personal communication, International Paper [ Region B]; Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative [ Region A]). While ` shielded sprayers' with glyphosate have been tested in small trials, seedling mortality from over spray does occur. An International Paper nursery, for example, will typically produce 300 million seedlings per year, and so, even 1% mortality due to herbicide sprays could result in significant seedling loss. Consequently, glyphosate would not be an option to control nutsedge in nursery beds.

MBTOC cited studies by Gilreath et al. and Culpepper and Langston. The crops used for these studies were eggplant and pepper, which require strip tarping. Results of these studies are not applicable to the flat tarping system used by forest tree nurseries. Field trials evaluating VIF have been conducted by members of the Southern Forest Nursery Cooperative. Because of its virtually impermeable character, however, glues have not been adequately developed that are amenable to VIF material, which must withstand harsh field conditions. Thus, while this method has great potential, it will not be technically feasible for the 2007 production season. In addition, there is a limited supply of VIF, even for research purposes. Nursery managers have stated that they cannot get the VIF material in the quantities needed, especially at an acceptable price. Therefore, the technology is currently not economically feasible, and MB will be critical for the 2007 growing season.

The Northeastern Forest and Conservation Nursery Association [ Region F] provided the following clarification ( information was provided by the four largest users of MB/ Pic 98: 2 in the Association and by the contract applicator of methyl bromide for these nurseries. Observations reported from these users were made under operational conditions, not from research plots):

Consortium members report that glyphosate is not a particularly effective herbicide for nutsedge control. Also, it can only be used during the fallow part of the nursery production cycle; and unless it is used with glyphosate resistant cover crops, which are limited in number, it must be used on bare ground. Since the cover crop used during the fallow cycle serves to add organic matter to the soil, bare ground fallow will prevent the addition of organic matter to the nursery soil during this period. Page 26 The consortium currently has no additional information on the effectiveness of other Pic+ formulations mentioned by the MBTOC. However, one nursery is planning to apply a 2 acre trial of Pic Plus starting this fall.

The consortium does not know of any commercial applicators in their region that have the capability of applying fumigation treatments with VIF in broadacre applications, so this option is currently unavailable for their use.

The commercial applicator of methyl bromide used by the consortium nurseries reports that there is no manufacturer of VIF in the U. S., so this product must be imported from Europe. This applicator reports that the cost of VIF is currently about double the cost of the 1.0 mil polyethylene sheeting used for broadacre MB applications by consortium nurseries.

Weyerhaeuser Company [ Region D] provided the following clarification ( also, see Appendix A for a summary of Weyerhaeuser research studies pertinent to the MB nomination):

Weed control is secondary benefit of soil fumigation, with the primary effect being to maintain and manage soil pathogens over crop rotation cycles. Periodically, infestations of noxious weeds such as nutsedge need attention. Some facilities are required by specific State law to maintain a " nutsedge free" growing environment, and crops can be put in quarantine if the weed nuts can be found in association with seedlings going to the forest.

Herbicide use in conifer nursery facilities is curtailed by EPA registration. Few currently registered herbicides can be used effectively on existing populations of nutsedge. This becomes more difficult when nutsedge infests currently growing seedlings, because few herbicides are safe to use on pine or fir seedlings.

Herbicides like TELAM, which have been used effectively in agriculture settings with fumigants ( Metam) to control nutsedge are not currently registered for use on conifers. We have undertaken the first step in this evaluation process by securing a experimental use permit to test the phytotoxicity of this herbicide on loblolly pine. This test was completed in 2004, and its further testing does not appear to be restricted by phytotoxicity. Tests like this are dependent on state pesticide restrictions and regulations.

Other herbicides, such as Goal and Roundup ( Glyphosate) are used routinely to control nursery weeds, either pre or post fumigation, but not simultaneously. We have one documented situation where Glyphosate applied 30 days prior to transplant in a bare fallow field ( non fumigated field) might have contributed to excessive levels of mortality by the pathogen, Cylindrocarpon. There is some disagreement in the literature on the rate of breakdown and movement of Glyphosate after application, but less so on the ability of this herbicide to reduce plant defensive mechanisms.

We maintain an active cooperative research role with both the Western and Southern Nursery Cooperatives to study, test, and register new herbicides for nursery use. There is a high likelihood Page 27 that this research in combination with our effective soil pathogen monitoring and management program will result in effect alternative soil treatment combinations.

Question 20. The Party states that substrates cannot be used for Region H because roots will freeze, but clarification is required on whether this could be avoided by use of polyethylene tunnels or in greenhouses where plug plants are raised successfully for many crops in many regions ( Styter and Koranski, 1997).

Note: As the herbaceous seedlings portion of the nomination ( region H) has more similarities to the Ornamentals sector than to Forest Seedlings, it is suggested that this nomination could be included in the Ornamentals CUN. Is this possible in future nominations?

ANSWER: The Party agrees that plug plants can be raised under plastic or glass for " many crops, in many regions". However, in this case, the applicant has considered this option and determined that this technology would not be economically feasible for herbaceous perennials in Michigan. Therefore, the nomination for the 2007 is critical. The economic analysis ( see attached economic worksheets, Appendix B) concludes that transitioning to covered production would require such a large preproduction investment there would be an unacceptable burden to growers. This analysis did not include additional building costs that would be associated with greenhouse construction. The Party contends that the applicant already uses alternatives for most of its production and has requested only an amount of MB ( for 12 ha) that is critically necessary for use in 2007. These 12 hectares are a significant reduction from the 35 hectares treated in 2003, and from an average 128 ha treated in 2001/ 2002. Furthermore, multi season field studies conducted by Michigan State University researchers will be completed and analyzed in 2007. Results of these studies should help identify options for further reductions in MB use, while maintaining production requirements.

Note: Future applications by this nominee will be included in the Ornamentals CUN.

V. Nursery stock( fruit trees, raspberries, roses):

Question 21. MBTOC is awaiting a revised nomination and BUNI to be submitted.

ANSWER: A revised BUNI has been attached. Please see Appendix III VI. Orchard Replant:

Question 22. In bilateral discussions with the Party on April 13, 2005, the Party indicated it needed to further check calculations in all nominations in which strip treatments are used: This nomination indicates strip treatments are used for stone fruit and for almond. MBTOC awaits the confirmation of the calculations in order to complete this evaluation. Page 28 ANSWER: USG has confirmed that the treated area estimates have been adjusted to account for the strip bed treatments that are used for stone fruits. Specifically, the requested hectares were multiplied by 0.65 to account for the fact that only the strips are treated.

VII. Peppers:

Question 23. In SE US, Georgia and Florida, nematodes, soilborne fungi and nutsedge are key pests. The Party states that 1,3 D + chloropicrin + trifluralin + napropamide is the best alternative strategy, but further testing required. This is restricted to areas without karst topography and the Party states that several large scale trials are in progress. The Party is requested to provide details and results of these trials.

ANSWER The researchers in these states are actively conducting research on alternatives. However, these are multiyear studies and the results are not yet available. For example, as described in Question 15 above, in the multiyear study by Gilreath, Santos, Motis, Noling and Mirusso ( 2005) looking at nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper ( Capsicum annum). In that study the author's state " For Cyperus, the herbicides failed to improve control, although in one season napropamide and trifluralin showed some activity." " For bell pepper yield, the application of metam sodium and metam sodium + chloropicrin provided similar fruit weight as for methyl bromide + chloropicrin in two of the three seasons." In that one year ( Fall 2002) the yields went from 18.8 t/ ha for methyl bromide + chloropicrin to 13.7 t/ ha for metam sodium + chloropicrin or a 27% drop in yield. This level of yield loss could have severe economic impacts for a grower. Because of the inconsistency of some of the alternative treatments the U. S. does not consider them to be a replacement for methyl bromide. When highly trained, careful researchers see this level of variability it clearly demonstrates the need for multi year studies to validate alternatives. Until those multi year results are available accurate interpretation of the results is impossible.

Question 24. The CUN was based on limited research results, and MBTOC seeks further discussion on recent trial results in SE USA, especially those using low permeability barrier films ( Gilreath et al 2005a) and new application methods for alternatives on peppers. Recent references available to MBTOC, demonstrate effective alternatives ( metham sodium, with and without Pic) for moderate to heavy nutgrass control in similar regions to the nomination and for non karst and karst areas ( Johnson and Webster, 2001 ; Gilreath et al 2005b, c): Yields were similar to methyl bromide, however there was no data presented on plantback effects for peppers. Party is requested to clarify the relevance of these results to the nomination.

ANSWER Several members of MBTOC and the USG were recently able to tour field research sites in Florida and Georgia including the plots of Dr. Gilreath. During those discussions and in his recent research publications ( Gilreath et al 2005, Gilreath et al in press, and Gilreath & Gilreath 2005) improved pest control when using virtually impermeable film ( VIF) or metalized films ( using an aluminum layer such as Canslit) was described. Dr. Gilreath and other researchers were contacted on the Page 29 topics of low permeability barrier films, and newer application techniques. Based on their input it appears that VIF films have still not been widely adopted because of problems in: laying the films, inelasticity and the resultant difficulty in conforming to the bed shape, problems with linear shear, and the fact that embossed films are not available. The current versions of metalized films are being widely tested by several researchers and growers and they have the potential to reduce fumigant use rates with better laying and bedshape conforming characteristics. It is anticipated that the results of many of these research plots and growers field tests will be available next year. These metalized films pose several questions for adoption: the fate of the aluminum coating if it " flakes off" on the soil during removal and the photostability of the coating during multiple crop cycles as is common in the southeastern U. S. An additional concern with all of the low permeability films and reduced use rates is poor uniformity of treatment, unless the application equipment is redesigned to accommodate reduced flow rates and pressure ( Gilreath and Gilreath 2005). While all of these results are promising there are only a few researchers that have multi year trials with these films and new or modified application equipment. Many growers are said to be testing the new films, reduced rates of methyl bromide, and other alternatives. Without multi year trials under a range of environmental conditions the consistency, feasibility, and adaptability cannot be assessed.

When evaluating research cited by MBTOC ( Gilreath et al 2003) the untreated control at the Bradenton site had 53 nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) plants per square yard, while the Immokalee site had fewer than one plant per square yard. The current standard that the U. S. recommends for moderate nutsedge pressure is 5 to 30 plants per square yard. At the Bradenton site the nutsedge control was not significantly different between MeBr: Pic ( 350 lb per acre) versus 1,3 D 35% Pic/ trifluralin/ napropamide/ chloropicrin ( 28 gal/ 0.5 lb/ 2 lb/ 125 lb) but had 39% more nutsedge plants and a 17% reduction in yield. When comparing the same treatments at Immokalee, which had and no significant difference in Fusarium, or nematodes ( such as Meloidogyne spp, Belonolainus spp. and Tylenchorhynchus spp.), but low nutsedge pressure (< 1 plant per square yard), there was still a 12.5% reduction in yield compared to methyl bromide.

Researchers in Georgia have also been conducting research on methyl bromide alternatives for pepper production ( Culpepper, Webster, Langston 2005) and the interaction of VIF and LDPE films. Their research presented in the following four Tables shows promising results from VIF mulch versus LDPE but some early trends are apparent. Telone II or C35 followed by chloropicrin may lead to more injury when using VIF rather than LDPE, nutsedge visual estimate of control and the number of plants penetrating the mulch was generally better with VIF than LDPE, pepper yield ( number of fancy fruit and weight or fancy or total fruit) did not appear to be effected by the type of mulch. When this type of study is repeated we hope to have a better understanding of the seasonal variability in pest control and harvest yield when using different types of mulches. Page 30 Table 16. Pepper response to various fumigant mulch treatments in fall 2004.*

Visual injury ( 45 day after planting) Pepper height ( 30 days after fumigating) Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch Telone II fb chloropicrin 12 G fb 150 lbs 3 12 18 17 Telone C35 fb chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 2 15 17 15^

Telone II fb KPAM 12 G fb 60 G 6 6 18 17 None 0 0 17 15^ Methyl bromide + chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 2 3 17 18 Methyl iodide + chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 2 73^ 17 11^

Dimethyldisulfide 800 lbs 0 2 19 17 Dimethyldisulfide + chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 700 lbs 0 18^ 18 14^

* Means within crop injury ( plant stunting) can be compared with an LSD = 8 while plant heights can be compared with an LSD = 2. Fumigants were applied on July 20 and the crop was planted on August 2.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per 32 inch bedtop. Kapam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. KPAM was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch within each variable. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Table 17. Nutsedge response to various fumigant mulch treatments in pepper during the fall of 2004.*

Visual control ( 95 days after fumigating) Number plants penetrating mulch ( 95 days after fumigating) Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch Telone II fb chloropicrin 12 G fb 150 lbs 17^ 53^ 140^ 76^

Telone C35 fb chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 44^ 90^ 85^ 21 Telone II fb KPAM 12 G fb 60 G 35^ 43^ 95^ 118^

None 0^ 0^ 126^ 116^ Page 31 Methyl bromide + chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 75 87^ 47 22 Methyl iodide + chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 32^ 70 96^ 36 Dimethyldisulfide 800 lbs 5^ 13^ 156^ 140^ Dimethyldisulfide + chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 700 lbs 12^ 87^ 154^ 38 * Means within visual nutsedge control can be compared with an LSD = 6 while the number of nutsedge plants penetrating the mulch over the entire 20 foot plot can be compared with an LSD = 28. Fumigants were applied on July 20 and the crop was planted on August 2.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per 32 inch bedtop. Kpam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. KPAM was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch at plant date 1. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Table 18. Number of pepper in various fumigant mulch treatments harvested in fall 2004.*

Number of fancy fruit ( harvest 1 only) Number of fancy fruit from harvest 1, 2, and 3 Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch Telone II fb chloropicrin 12 G fb 150 lbs 10^ 14 70 86 Telone C35 fb chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 11^ 14 83 74 Telone II fb KPAM 12 G fb 60 G 13 18 72 81 None 4^ 8^ 32 53^ Methyl bromide + chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 18 22 84 88 Methyl iodide + chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 14 1^ 72 46^

Dimethyldisulfide 800 lbs 2^ 18 43^ 82 Dimethyldisulfide + chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 700 lbs 11^ 12 63^ 75 Page 32 * Means within the first harvest only can be compared using an LSD = 7 while the number of fancy fruit harvested over the first three harvest dates can be compared using an LSD = 17. Harvest sample size was 20 row feet of pepper. Fumigants were applied on July 20 and crop was planted on August 2.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per 32 inch bedtop. Vapam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. KPAM was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch within each variable. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Table 19. Weight of pepper ( lbs) in various fumigant mulch treatments harvested in fall 2004.*

Weight ( lbs) of fancy fruit ( harvest 1 only) Total weight ( lbs) of fruit from harvest 1, 2, and 3 Fumigants** Rates ( broadcast rate) LDPE mulch VIF mulch LDPE mulch VIF mulch Telone II fb chloropicrin 12 G fb 150 lbs 4^ 6 31^ 37 Telone C35 fb chloropicrin 35 G fb 150 lbs 5^ 5^ 37 33 Telone II fb KPAM 12 G fb 60 G 5^ 7 32 35 None 2 3^ 14^ 23^ Methyl bromide + chloropicrin ( 67: 33) 400 lbs 8 9 38 39 Methyl iodide + chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 400 lbs 6 0^ 32 22^

Dimethyldisulfide 800 lbs 1^ 8 19^ 37 Dimethyldisulfide + chloropicrin ( 50: 50) 700 lbs 5^ 5^ 28^ 32 * Means within harvest date 1can be compared with an LSD = 3 while the weight of fancy fruit harvested over the first three harvest dates can be compared with an LSD = 7. Harvest sample size was 20 row feet of pepper. Fumigants were applied on July 20 and crop was planted on August 2.

** DMDS, methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone C35, and methyl iodide were applied with a normal methyl bromide application apparatus applying fumigants 6 to 8 inches deep using 3 injecting knives per 32 inch bedtop. Kpam was injected into the soil with blades 4.5 inches apart. KPAM was applied as a broadcast treatment and then pulled into the bed where all other treatments were applied only in the bed.

^ Values differ from methyl bromide under LDPE mulch within each variable. From: A. S. Culpepper, T. M. Webster, D. Langston, Univ. of Georgia, August 15, 2005 E mail from W. T. Kelley.

Question 25. MBTOC also requests the Party provide the registration status and use rates available for use with MB/ Pic mixtures and verify that mixtures with less MB ( especially 30: 70, 50: 50) are unsuitable for control of the key pests in the nomination. Also it is requested that Page 33 economic data be provided for the two most appropriate alternatives for all circumstances of the nomination.

ANSWER Communications with several researchers indicated that they have started, or are about to initiate, studies to look at long term performance of even lower rates of methyl bromide ( at or below 200 kg/ ha). These studies will encompass a wide range of environmental conditions, pest pressure, soil types, etc. and help to demonstrate consistency of control. IF MBTOC has references indicating the use of 50: 50 or 30: 70 is effective in the circumstances of the US nomination we would like to have those citations.

One of the studies that MBTOC cites is from Florida ( Gilreath et al, 2005a), which looked at the impact of reduced rates of MB on pest control and pepper yield. In that study, which had high Cyperus spp. pressure, there were no significant differences in yield between any of the rates of methyl bromide with the different types of films. However, an examination of the change in yield with VIF treatments, compared to the standard MB treatments, suggests significant variability within treatments, which led to the lack of statistical significance in yield despite the large numerical differences in yield between treatments. Trials such as those conducted by Gilreath et al ( 2005a) with peppers, need to be conducted over several seasons, and preferably with different crops. The reality of the use of VIF for the 2007 season is its current prohibitive cost in the U. S., and even more significant, its lack of availability for use on a commercial scale. The Party does not anticipate these issues can be adequately resolved before the critical use season of 2007.

Table 20. Pepper yield are not significantly different but percent yield loss can be large. Treatment Application Rate kg/ ha Yield t/ ha % Change 1 Untreated 9.5  31% 2 MeBr + Pic LDPE 392 13.8 0% 3 MeBr + Pic VIFP 196 10.8  22% 4 MeBr + Pic VIFP 98 13.6 1% 5 MeBr + Pic VIFV 196 11.4  17% 6 MeBr + Pic VIFV 98 11.9  14% Footnote: From Gilreath et al. 2005. Crop Protection 24: 285 287. LDPE is low density polyethylene, VIFP and VIFV are virtually impermeable film by Plastopil and Vikase respectively.

The research plots that MBTOC visited in Florida clearly demonstrated that chloropicrin will not control sedges such as Cyperus esculentus or C. rotundus . Research by Gilreath and communications with him indicate that chloropicrin enhances nutsedge germination ( this research has yet to be repeated for other pest species). Therefore, increasing the amount of chloropicrin applied can increase pest pressure and yield loss.

The economic information was presented in the sector chapter for peppers and is reproduced below:

Part E: Economic Assessment Page 34 Economic data from the 2004 submission for all applicants were not substantially different from those in 2003 ( greater or less than a 10% change in costs and revenue). Given these insignificant differences, the economic analyses were not updated for any applicants other than Michigan, which was updated to reflect a change in the requested pounds of MeBr.

The following economic assessment 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 further decomposed in tables E1 through E5.

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

21. OPERATING COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD: Page 35 TABLE 21.1: PEPPERS   OPERATING COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD ALTERNATIVE YIELD* COST IN YEAR 1 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 2 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 3 ( US$/ ha) California Methyl Bromide 100% $ 17,246 $ 17,246 $ 17,246 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 94% $ 17,160 $ 17,160 $ 17,160 Florida Methyl Bromide 100% $ 20,341 $ 20,341 $ 20,341 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 71% $ 18,510 $ 18,510 $ 18,510 Metam Sodium 56% $ 16,999 $ 16,999 $ 16,999 Georgia Methyl Bromide 100% $ 28,623 $ 28,623 $ 28,623 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 71% $ 25,790 $ 25,790 $ 25,790 Metam Sodium 56% $ 23,598 $ 23,598 $ 23,598 Michigan Methyl Bromide 100% $ 23,938 $ 23,938 $ 23,938 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 94% $ 25,607 $ 25,607 $ 25,607 Southeast USA Methyl Bromide 100% $ 18,758 $ 18,758 $ 18,758 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 71% $ 18,844 $ 18,844 $ 18,844 Metam Sodium 56% $ 16,731 $ 16,731 $ 16,731 * 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: Page 36 TABLE 22.1: PEPPERS   YEAR 1, 2, AND 3 GROSS AND NET REVENUES YEAR 1, 2, AND 3 ALTERNATIVES ( as shown in question 21) GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) California Methyl Bromide $ 21,344 $ 4,098 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 20,063 $ 2,903 Florida Methyl Bromide $ 29,498 $ 9,158 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 20,944 $ 2,433 Metam Sodium $ 16,519 $( 479) Georgia Methyl Bromide $ 35,176 $ 6,553 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 24,975 $( 816) Metam Sodium $ 19,698 $( 3,900) Michigan Methyl Bromide $ 24,056 $ 118 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 20,916 $( 2,994) Southeastern USA Methyl Bromide $ 30,579 $ 11,822 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 21,711 $ 2,867 Metam Sodium $ 17,124 $ 393 NOTE: Year 1 equals year 2 and 3. Page 37 MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES CALIFORNIA PEPPER  TABLE E1: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES CALIFORNIA PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 6%

YIELD PER HECTARE 787 739 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 27 $ 27 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 21,344 $ 20,063  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 17,246 $ 17,160 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 4,098 $ 2,903 FIVE LOSS MEASURES *

1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 1,194 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 8 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 6%

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

5. PROFIT MARGIN (%) 19% 14%

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

YIELD PER HECTARE 2,922 2,074 1,636 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 29,498 $ 20,944 $ 16,519  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 20,341 $ 18,510 $ 16,999 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 9,158 $ 2,433 $( 479)

FIVE LOSS MEASURES *

1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 6,724 $ 9,637 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 45 $ 64 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 23% 33%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE (%) 0% 73% 105% Page 38 5. PROFIT MARGIN (%) 31% 12%  3%

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

YIELD PER HECTARE 4,440 3,152 2,486 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 35,176 $ 24,975 $ 19,698  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 28,623 $ 25,790 $ 23,598 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 6,553 $( 816) $( 3,900)

FIVE LOSS MEASURES *

1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 7,368 $ 10,453 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 49 $ 70 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 21% 30%

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

5. PROFIT MARGIN (%) 19%  3%  20% Page 39 MICHIGAN PEPPER TABLE E. 4: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES MICHIGAN PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 6%

YIELD PER HECTARE 4,530 4,258 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 5 $ 5 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 24,056 $ 20,916  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 23,938 $ 25,607 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 118 $( 4,690)

FIVE LOSS MEASURES *

1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 4,808 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 40 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 20%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE (%) 0% 100%

5. PROFIT MARGIN (%) 0%  22% Page 40 SOUTHEASTERN USA ( EXCEPT GEORGIA) PEPPER  TABLE E. 5: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES SOUTHEASTERN USA ( EXCEPT GEORGIA) PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN METAMSODIUM YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 29% 44%

YIELD PER HECTARE 3,707 2,632 2,076 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 30,579 $ 21,711 $ 17,124  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 18,758 $ 18,844 $ 16,731 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 11,822 $ 2,867 $ 393 FIVE LOSS MEASURES *

1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 8,954 $ 11,429 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 60 $ 76 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 29% 37%

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

5. PROFIT MARGIN (%) 39% 13% 2%

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

California Yield loss in California pepper production is expected to be 6% when using MeBr alternatives. Growers will experience loss on a per hectare basis of approximately $ 1,200 and 6% and 29% losses in gross and net revenues, respectively. However, these measures do not clearly indicate that 1,3 D + chloropicrin is an economically infeasible alternative to MeBr. Page 41 The economic conditions facing pepper growers were quantified as best as possible but, primarily due to limited data availability, every aspect of the economic picture was not included in the numeric assessment. Factors not accounted for are distribution of yield loss across individual growers and the yield risk associated with using MeBr alternatives.

Michigan The US concludes that, at present, no economically feasible alternatives to MeBr exist for use in Michigan pepper production. Two factors have proven most important in this conclusion. These are yield loss and missed market windows, which are discussed individually below.

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

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

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

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

Florida No technically ( and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MeBr are presently available to the effected pepper growers. As such, the US concludes that use of MeBr is critical in Florida pepper production. Page 42 Georgia No technically ( and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MeBr are presently available to the effected pepper growers. As such, the US concludes that use of MeBr is critical in Georgia pepper production.

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

Question 26. There appears to be scope for substantial reduction in MB use in this area through adoption of barrier film technology together with reduced MB dosages. Party is requested to clarify why low permeability barrier films cannot be used in SE USA based on results from recent studies and publications from trials conducted from 1998 to 2005.

ANSWER: Several members of MBTOC and the USG were recently able to tour field research sites in Florida and Georgia, including the plots of Dr. Gilreath. In those discussions, and in his recent research publications ( Gilreath et al 2005, Gilreath et al in press, and Gilreath & Gilreath 2005), the improved pest control using virtually impermeable film ( VIF) or metalized films ( using an aluminum layer such as Canslit) was described. Dr. Gilreath and other researchers were contacted on the topics of low permeability barrier films, and newer application techniques. Based on their input it appears that VIF films have still not been widely adopted because of problems in: laying the films, inelasticity and the resultant difficulty in conforming to the bed shape, problems with linear shear, and the fact that embossed films are not available. The current versions of metalized films are being widely tested by several researchers and growers and they have the potential to reduce fumigant use rates with better laying and bedshape conforming characteristics. It is anticipated that the results of many of these research plots and growers field tests will be available next year. These metalized films pose several questions for adoption of these films: the fate of the aluminum coating if it " flakes off" on the soil during removal and the photostability of the coating during multiple crop cycles as is common in the southeastern U. S. An additional concern with all of the low permeability films and reduced use rates is poor uniformity of treatment unless the application equipment must be redesigned to accommodate reduced flow rates and pressure ( Gilreath and Gilreath 2005). While all of these results are promising there are only a few researchers that have multi year trials with these films and new or modified application equipment. Many growers are said to be testing the new films, reduced rates of methyl bromide, and other alternatives. Without multi year trials under a range of environmental conditions the consistency, feasibility, and adaptability cannot be assessed.

When evaluating research cited by MBTOC ( Gilreath et al, 2003) the untreated control at the Bradenton site had 53 nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) plants per square yard, while the Immokalee site had fewer than one plant per square yard. The current standard that the US recommends for moderate nutsedge pressure is 5 to 30 plants per square yard. At the Bradenton site the nutsedge control was not significantly different between MeBr: Pic ( 350 lb per acre) versus 1,3 D Page 43 35% Pic/ trifluralin/ napropamide/ chloropicrin ( 28 gal/ 0.5 lb/ 2 lb/ 125 lb) but had 39% more nutsedge plants and a 17% reduction in yield. When comparing the same treatments at Immokalee, which had and no significant difference in Fusarium, or nematodes ( such as Meloidogyne spp, Belonolainus spp. and Tylenchorhynchus spp.), but low nutsedge pressure (< 1 plant per square yard), there was still a 12.5% reduction in yield compared to methyl bromide.

VIII. STRAWBERRY FRUIT Question 27. In California, the nomination is based on the grounds that township caps limit further adoption of 1,3 D, and hilly terrain prevents the use of drip applied alternatives. In the case of township caps, alternatives that do not contain 1,3 D ( such as Pic and Pic + metham applied sequentially) are technically feasible in at least part of this area ( Ajwa et a12002, 2004), Party to describe why these alternatives proven in recent studies are not feasible for a proportion of the nomination.

ANSWER: The Party agrees that some research has shown that alternatives such as chloropicrin and metham sodium might offer effective pest management possibilities to strawberry farmers. However, the reality in the field is that for such a high value crop, potential alternatives to MB must be proven on a larger scale than has been done thus far. Efforts to identify risks of alternatives, such as offgassing accidents that can devastate crops, are actively being pursued by farmers, researchers and extension workers. For the 2007 growing season, however, the Party maintains that the nomination for MB for this sector is critical. The California Strawberry Commission provided the following to address MBTOC's concerns:

Straight Pic and Pic + metam sodium sequential treatments are used in a small proportion of the strawberry acreage due to a combination of efficacy, regulatory and production system limitations. A review of the 2003 PUR [ California Pesticide Use Report] data from Cal DPR [ California Department of Pesticide Regulation] reveals that only 902.5 acres [ 366 ha] were treated with metam sodium compared to 26,480 acres [ 10,722 ha] treated with Pic combinations. This represents only 3% of the acreage with several counties showing 0 acres treated. Many County Ag Commissions discourage or prohibit metam sodium applications through strict permit conditions, the result of several fumigation accidents in the past. Currently in many counties 500 foot buffers are required around metam sodium treated fields which causes many fields to be unsuitable candidates for this fumigant. The use of Pic + metam applications was primarily restricted to Orange County with some use other Counties ( see Table 1). The main production issue with using metam is the need for an extended plant back time that lengthens the time needed to prepare the field for planting by up to 2 weeks. Pic alone applications have been shown to be less efficacious than methyl bromide + Pic, Telone + Pic or Pic + metam sodium. In the northern districts, where 50% ( Santa Maria) to 90% ( Monterey/ Watsonville) of the acreage is planted to day neutral cultivars, drip fumigation presents significant transitional issues due to the need to switch from broadcast to bed fumigation. This requires a significant increase in setup time for growers prior to fumigation and results in a loss of revenue from a vegetable crop not being able to be grown in rotation with the strawberry crop. Recent research suggests that Pic + high barrier films may prove to be a viable alternative. The Page 44 California Strawberry Commission is conducting research to verify these results and working with the regulators to allow increased use of straight Pic applications.

Table 21. Pesticide use data for major strawberry production regions in California, 2003 ( California Department of Pesticide Regulation database). County Methyl Bromide Chloropicrin 1,3 D Metam Sodium Pic only (= Pic  MB  1,3 D)* Hectares treated with fumigant San Diego 188 230 7 0 34 Orange 365 676 25 38 286 Ventura 3003 3467 348 301 116 Santa Barbara 923 1665 672 24 70 San Luis Obispo 17 256 238 0 1 Monterey 2662 3317 596 0 59 Santa Cruz 1006 1111 115 3  10 total 8164 10722 2001 366 556 % of total ( Pic) 76% 100% 19% 3%

* negative values are due to recording errors in California Department of Pesticide Regulation database Question 28. The CUN noted that producers of day neutral cultivars like Diamonte could miss early market windows due to longer equipment set up time for drip application and/ or reduced harvest period, However, the Party noted that this is not a serious problem for short day cultivars, such as Camaresa. MBTOC notes that chloropicrin alone and chloropicrin mixtures are being adopted for strawberry fruit, particularly in the south, where short day cultivars are grown ( PUR data cited in Trout and Damodaran 2004; California Strawberry Commission 2005). The Party is requested to clarify the scope for additional adoption of chloropicrin and/ or chloropicrin ÷ metham for short day. cultivars.

ANSWER: While Northern California growers of short day strawberry varieties have some latitude in planting dates, yield of short day cultivars planted in the southeastern U. S. are dependent on proper time of planting. Therefore, the MB nomination for this sector is critical for the 2007 growing season. Without MB, high rates of chloropicrin would extend the plant back time, which is critical in key strawberry growing regions ( Hamill et al 2004). The Southeastern Strawberry Consortium addressed the issue of the importance of timing of plantback for their industry ( http:// www. smallfruits. org/ Strawberries/ production/ 2003SEstrawberryNarrativeFinal. pdf):

Upper Coastal Plain and Lower Central Piedmont strawberry acreage in North Carolina must be planted from 25 Sept to 1 Oct for growers in this area to achieve the kinds of yields that we are Page 45 representing ( 20,600 lb/ A) [ 23,100 kg/ ha]. Outsiders to our industry are often surprised to learn that even an extra week of delay in planting for the popular ` short day' type strawberry cultivars Chandler, Camarosa and Sweet Charlie, can result in reductions in yield potential of 15 20%, or more. A two week delay could potentially reduce yields by 50%, especially in a colder than normal fall and winter conditions, such as the in 2000 2001 season. In fact, at the Clayton Central Crops Research Station ( Upper Coastal Plain) in a 2002 2003 strawberry plasticulture fumigation study involving Telone C 35 at 30 gal/ A [ 278 L/ ha], iodomethane 98: 2 at 150 lb/ A [ 168 kg/ ha] and iodomethane 98: 2 at 120 lb/ A [ 135 kg/ ha], it was learned that by planting on 27 Sep 02 we achieved an overall marketable yield of 21,791 lb/ A [ 24,436 kg/ ha] vs. 17,492 [ 19,615 kg/ ha] for 4 Oct 02 and 10,287 lb/ A [ 11,536 kg/ ha] for planting on 11 Oct 02 ( averaged over all 3 fumigants). This represents an actual reduction in yield of nearly 20% for a 1 week delay and 52% for a 2 week delay for Chandler fruit harvested in April May 2003 ( unpublished report   Poling and Schiavone). In addition, iodomethane at 150 lb/ A [ 168 kg/ ha] ( 75 lb/ A in the bed) [ 84 kg/ ha] produced a statistically significant higher yield than Telone C 35, and was statistically no different than the 120 lb/ A [ 135 kg/ ha] rate ( Iodomethane 98: 2)   suggesting some important cost savings are possible with shank injection of this fumigant. The anticipated label for Iodomethane 98: 2 will permit a 1 week plant back  At this stage, only MBC 33 ( 2 week plant back), or iodomethane 98: 2 ( 1 week plant back   assuming that this product receives EPA registration in Sep 03) [ it did not] will permit growers to achieve a timely planting, assuming that the fumigation is completed in mid September.

The California Strawberry Commission provided the following clarification:

The California Strawberry Commission is working aggressively to verify the suitability of Pic + high barrier films and overcome regulatory barriers to the use of straight Pic applications. The key to improving local permit conditions for the use of Pic may be through reduced emissions. If Pic can be retained within the treated bed for sufficiently long it will degrade ( 2 day half life), dramatically reducing emissions. Research on the use of high barrier films, salt/ water furrow seals and other technology is under consideration by the Commission and should prove helpful in obtaining more permissive local permit conditions for using Pic and other alternatives. The same methods should be useful in reducing emissions of Telone, leading to a significant increase in the amount of acres that can be treated with Telone within the township cap restrictions.

Question 29. Regarding hilly terrain, MBTOC acknowledges that current methods of drip application may not be appropriate. MBTOC is aware that pressure, compensated drip application systems are used in parts of the world, and requests if there are any issues affecting their adoption on some parts of the hilly terrain,

ANSWER Because the technology for this problem has not been fully field tested, MB will be critical for the 2007 season. The California Strawberry Commission provided the following clarification to MBTOC:

This represents an increase in cost and the adaptation of new technology that requires transitional time. There are questions about the effectiveness of such systems. We will further investigate this Page 46 option with Dr. Tom Trout who has an extensive understanding of the drip irrigation systems used on strawberry in California."

Question 30. MBTOC considers that alternatives appear to be available for some part of the buffer zones, which are not subject to heavy nutsedge pressure ( e. g. Pic formulations metham + Pie), so is seeking further information about the potential area that could adopt such alternatives.

Answer: Only a small portion of the buffer zone would be available for alternatives, and the MB use for this sector would not be effectively different than the 2007 nomination. According to experts at the Department of Horticulture, North Carolina State University: " There is a potential for use of both metham + Pic in approximately 10% of the buffer zones which are not subject to heavy nutsedge, and this option will be pursued by 1 2% of the growers in the Consortium in 2006 under the guidance of North Carolina State University researchers and Extension workers ( under a grant from USDA). There is no opportunity to utilize Chloropicrin alone due to its poor control of any weeds."

Question 31. For Florida, the Party states that at moderate to severe pest pressure ( primarily nutsedge on 30 40% of area), protocols for commercial application of alternatives have not been sufficiently developed to be implemented for the 2007 season. However no recent trial data was provided to MBTOC to substantiate the information. Please provide.

ANSWER: The Party maintains that regulatory restrictions and technical feasibility prevent the implementation of alternatives in critical areas by strawberry farmers for the 2007 season. The use of 1,3 D is restricted as an alternative to MB in areas with karst geology. Maps showing areas of karst geology in Florida are available online http:// www. caves. com/ fss/ pages/ misc/ images/ karst_ map. gif, http:// www. dep. state. fl. us/ geology/ geologictopics/ sinkhole. htm, and ( http:// www2. nature. nps. gov/ nckri/ map/ maps/ engineering_ aspects/ davies_ map_ PDF. pdf). The proportion of the current Florida strawberry crop that should not use 1,3 D because of karst geology is not known exactly but appears to be high in the major strawberry growing areas of Florida ( see map). These areas are concentrated within a 40 km radius of Plant City, Florida on approximately 2,760 ha ( 2002 estimate; see Rosskopf et al., 2005) in an increasingly populated region between Tampa and Orlando. Much of this area sits on limestone at, or near, the surface ( Rosskopf et al 2005) ( http:// www. caves. com/ fss/ pages/ misc/ images/ karst_ map. gif).

Another alternative, VIF tarp technology, is being actively researched. Recently, Noling and Gilreath ( 2004) reported on demonstration trials comprising 17 commercial strawberry fields that were conducted by growers from 2000 2004. Results of these trials allowed the evaluation of the use of VIF and its efficacy when used in combination with reduced rates of MB. Results were promising from a pest management perspective, but conclusions reached concerning the technical aspects of VIF are consistent with the Party's contention that for the 2007 season, MB is critical for strawberry farmers in Florida. According to Noling and Gilreath: Page 47 At many of the demonstration sites, problems were incurred during the plastic laying operation, in that tractor speeds needed to be reduced as low as 2 to 3 mph [ 3 5 kph], rather than 4 to 5 mph [ 6.4 8 kph], to properly install the plastic. Since the VIF plastics are not embossed, they have a tendency to slip from under the rear press wheels during installation causing stoppages in the plastic laying operation. Since the VIF mulch lack ` stretch' characteristics, utilizing marginally wider spool widths of plastic than typically used have improved laying characteristics in the field. There is also no question that these new VIF mulches will be more expensive ( 2x) in terms of material and labor costs to install It should also be recognized that these slower tractor speeds can also create a flow metering problem for accurate, uniform dispensing of methyl bromide; thereby requiring some possible changes in application equipment ( Noling and Gilreath 2004).

IX. Tomatoes:

Question 32. The Party provided limited information on recent trials conducted in the US especially those using VIF films and new application methods for alternatives. MBTOC also requests the Party to review the use rates used with MB/ Pic mixtures and verify that mixtures with less MB ( especially 30: 70 and 50: 50) are unsuitable for control of the key pests in the nomination.

ANSWER: Several members of MBTOC and the USG were recently able to tour field research sites in Florida and Georgia including the plots of Dr. Gilreath. During those discussions and in his recent research publications ( Gilreath et al 2005, Gilreath et al in press, and Gilreath & Gilreath 2005) the improved pest control when using virtually impermeable film ( VIF) or metalized films ( using an aluminum layer such as Canslit) was described. Dr. Gilreath and other researchers were contacted on the topics of low permeability barrier films, and newer application techniques. Based on their input it appears that VIF films have still not been widely adopted because of problems in: laying the films, inelasticity and the resultant difficulty in conforming to the bed shape, problems with linear shear, and the fact that embossed films are not available. The current versions of metalized films are being widely tested by several researchers and growers and they have the potential to reduce fumigant use rates with better laying and bedshape conforming characteristics. It is anticipated that the results of many of these research plots and growers field tests will be available next year. These metalized films pose several questions for adoption: the fate of the aluminum coating if it " flakes off" on the soil during removal and the photostability of the coating during multiple crop cycles as is common in the southeastern U. S. An additional concern with all of the low permeability films and reduced use rates is poor uniformity of treatment unless the application equipment must be redesigned to accommodate reduced flow rates and pressure ( Gilreath and Gilreath 2005). While all of these results are promising there are only a few researchers that have multi year trials with these films and new or modified application equipment. Many growers are said to be testing the new films, reduced rates of methyl bromide, and other alternatives. Without multi year trials under a range of environmental conditions the consistency, feasibility, and adaptability cannot be assessed.

When evaluating research cited by MBTOC ( Gilreath et al, 2003) the untreated control at the Bradenton site had 53 nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) plants per square yard, while the Immokalee site had fewer than one plant per square yard. The current standard that the US recommends for moderate nutsedge pressure is 5 to 30 plants per square yard. At the Bradenton site the nutsedge Page 48 control was not significantly different between MeBr: Pic ( 350 lb per acre) versus 1,3 D 35% Pic/ trifluralin/ napropamide/ chloropicrin ( 28 gal/ 0.5 lb/ 2 lb/ 125 lb) but had 39% more nutsedge plants and a 17% reduction in yield. When comparing the same treatments at Immokalee, which had and no significant difference in Fusarium, or nematodes ( such as Meloidogyne spp, Belonolainus spp. and Tylenchorhynchus spp.), but low nutsedge pressure (< 1 plant per square yard), there was still a 12.5% reduction in yield compared to methyl bromide.

Question 33. Also it is requested that economic data be provided for the two most appropriate alternatives for all circumstances of the nomination.

ANSWER:

Those data were provided in the tomato sector report and are reproduced below:

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) CALIFORNIA Methyl Bromide 100 $ 50,240 $ 50,240 $ 50,240 Metam Sodium 85 $ 46,353 $ 46,353 $ 46,353 Metam Sodium 80 $ 44,626 $ 44,626 $ 44,626 MICHIGAN 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 Chloropicrin 78 $ 29,555 $ 29,555 $ 29,555 SOUTHEASTERN US Methyl Bromide 100 $ 26,380 $ 26,380 $ 26,380 Page 49 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)

CALIFORNIA Methyl Bromide $ 83,367 $ 33,127 Metam Sodium ( 15%) $ 70,862 $ 24,509 Metam Sodium ( 20%) $ 66,694 $ 22,068 MICHIGAN Methyl Bromide $ 39,996 $ 9,438 1,3   D + Chloropicrin $ 32,880 $ 3,325 Metam Sodium $ 34,931 $ 5,192 Chloropicrin $ 32,880 $ 3,325 SOUTHEASTER N US Methyl Bromide $ 40,914 $ 14,533 1,3   D + Chloropicrin $ 33,772 $ 8,825 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)

CALIFORNIA Methyl Bromide $ 83,367 $ 33,127 Metam Sodium ( 15%) $ 70,862 $ 24,509 Metam Sodium ( 20%) $ 66,694 $ 22,068 MICHIGAN Methyl Bromide $ 39,996 $ 9,438 1,3   D + Chloropicrin $ 32,880 $ 3,325 Metam Sodium $ 34,931 $ 5,192 Chloropicrin $ 32,880 $ 3,325 SOUTHEASTERN US Methyl Bromide $ 40,914 $ 14,533 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)