Chemical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide W. A. Carey 1 Carey, W. A.; 1994. Chemical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. In Landis, T. D.; Dumroese, R. K., technical coordinators. Proceedings, Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations. 1994, July 11 14; Williamsburg, VA. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM GTR 257. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 4 11. Available at: http:// www. fcnanet. org/ proceedings/ 1994/ carey. pdf Abstract   Three soil fumigants were evaluated at a nursery in Georgia and one in South Carolina. Seedbed density and seedling development were compared among plots treated with tarped and not tarped dazomet at 140 and 280 lbs/ ac, tarped and not tarped chloropicrin at 125 and 250 lbs/ ac, tarped MC33 at 350 lbs/ ac and non fumigated plots. Differences among treatments occurred only in South Carolina where both initial seedbed density and harvested seedlings differed with treatments. Among harvested seedlings, the high rate of dazomet and chloropicrin were not significantly different from MC33 but the low rates and controls were inferior. In a second study at the South Carolina nursery, dazomet ( 150 and 300 lbs/ ac tarped and not tarped), MC33 ( 350 lbs/ ac tarped), 1,3 D ( 290 lbs/ ac tarped), metham  sodium ( 400 lbs/ ac tarped and not tarped), dazomet ( 150 lbs/ ac) plus chloropicrin ( 115 lbs/ ac tarped), and metham  sodium plus chloropicrin ( 400 and 115 lbs/ ac tarped) were evaluated with respect to weed control. MC33 and 1,3 D had the best herbicidal activity.

Keywords: Fumigation, Pinus taeda, seedling quality, weeds control.

INTRODUCTION Methyl bromide ( MBr)

fumigation of soils controls a broad spectrum of fungi, nema

todes, insects, and weeds ( Thompson, 1991). Because all these taxa contain potentially destructive pests of forest tree seedlings, MBr fumigation, with 2% or 33% chloropicrin, has become almost universal in southern nurseries ( South, 1992, Carey, 1991). Virtually all southern nurserymen fumigate and very few install control plots for evaluating pest problems ( Carey and Kelley, 1993).

Straightforward comparisons between fumigated and nonfumigated productions are rare.

Comparisons to the pre

fumigation era are also complicated because the nursery industry itself has shifted most production to sandier soils during the time that fumigation has been extensively practiced ( South and Davey, 1983). Handweeding cost provided adequate, reliable estimates for the economic benefits of MBr ( South and Gjerstad, 1980) and although alternative herbicides have reduced its importance for pine seedlings ( South, 1992) the replacement in hardwood seedling production has been less effective ( Stone, 1991). The sporadic occurrence ( even in the absence of fumigation) of soil born insects and diseases further complicates estimates for the benefits of fumigation where non fumigated comparisons are rare. Nevertheless, substantial savings are usually projected ( South and Gjerstad, 1980) or 1 Auburn University School of Forestry, 108 M. White Smith, Auburn, AL 36849 5418. assumed ( Stone, 1991) for MBr fumigation. In fact, forest tree nurseries had the largest projected benefit per acre or per pound of MBr used of all crops that utilized significant quanti

ties ( Anonymous, 1993).

In response to rumors of the regulatory disfavor of MBr,

during the summer of 1992, the Auburn University Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative ( AUSFNMC) planned small plot trials to evaluate alternative fumigants.

With the first fumigation scheduled for the fall of 1992, the delusion of being ahead of the learning curve lasted only a few days. In November 1992 MBr was listed as a potential ozone depleter. Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has now assigned a phase out schedule with production termination for the year 2001. Before our first trials were finished we began to test additional fumigants and a few nurseries have now initiated production scale trials primarily comparing chloropicrin, dazomet or 1,3

dichloropropene with MBr. Like signs in store windows that count down the days to Christmas it seem only fair to warn nursery managers that there are only six more 1+ 0 crops before 2001.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Westvaco Corporation and International Forest Seed Com  pany provided space and took care of all the non fumigation practices required for the commercial production of pine seedlings at nurseries, respectively in Summerville, SC and Statesboro, GA.. The cooperation of Hendrix & Dail, Inc. who provided the equipment and application expertise was critical to the study and the contribution of Basamid ® ( dazomet) by BASF and all other fumigants by Hendrix & Dail is gratefully acknowledged.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Fumigation Treatments:

The fumigation treatments utilized these products; MC33 =

MBC 33 ® ( 67% MBr + 33%

chloropicrin), Triform ® ( 70% 1,3 dichloropropenes + 30%

chloropicrin Dazomet is Basamid ® ( 99% ai), Metham sodium is Sectagon 42 ® ( 42% ai),

Chloropicrin is HDPic ® ( 96.5% ai).

Table 1 lists the 11 fumiga

tion treatments used on beds subsiquently sown with pine seed. Each treatment was randomly assigned to positions within each of five blocks. The same relationship of treatments within blocks was used at both nurseries but at Statesboro a double bed column contained each block and treatment plots were 68 ft long separated by 5 ft buffers. At Summerville blocks were at right angles to beds and each bed contained five 140 ft long treatment plots separated by 5 ft buffers.

At Statesboro, fumigation treatments were applied October 21 and 22, 1992 to nursery beds but not tractor paths ( wheel ruts).

Post treatment soil samples were Table 1. Fumigation treatments applied to loblolly pine production beds in Statesboro, GA and Summerville, SC.

Compound None None Dazomet Dazomet Dazomet Dazomet Chloropicrin Chloropicrin Chloropicrin Chloropicrin MC33 Rate1 None None 140 140 280 280 125 125 250 250 350 Application None None Rototilled Rototilled Rototilled Rototilled Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Seal2 Water Plastic Water Plastic Water Plastic Water Plastic Water Plastic Plastic 1 Pounds per acre. 2 Water seals are the irrigation equivalent of 0.25 inches of rain. collected November 10, 1992 and March 5, 1993 before the treated bed structure was dis

turbed. The Summerville fumigation was March 18, 1993. Pretreatment soil samples were collected and fumigation treatments applied after the field was disced but before beds were formed and both the bed and future tractor paths were treated.

Treatments for a second study, installed at Summerville in the fall of 1993, are listed in Table 2. The treatments were arranged at a randomized complete block with four blocks and plots were 12 ft by 110 ft and separated by 5 ft buffers. The area was disced and then fumigated res pectively, on October 24 and 26, 1993. Dazomet was rototilled into the soil in two six

foot wide strips and the surface of all non tarped plots was compacted (" power rolled")

using a drum roller. All other chemicals were injected and tarped in single 12 foot wide strips.

Seedlings:

A single loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda) half sib seedlot was sown in each nursery on April 14 ( 27 days after fumigation) at Summerville and May 14 ( 201 days after fumigation) at Statesboro. Beds were stabilized with a synthetic resin at Summerville and with pinebark mulch at Statesboro. Numbers of live seedlings ( seedbed density) and dead seedlings ( damping off) were determined 35 days after sowing at both nurseries. Two one footwide sections across nursery beds were delineated near the center of each of replicate plot and these were resampled throughout the study. Seedbed densities were determined again at both nurseries September 8

10, 1993 and January 2 5, 1994.

In January 1994, seedlings from the four center drills of each seedbed density plot were carefully removed from the soil and a random subsample of 25 of these seedlings was taken. Rootcollar diameters were used to determine numbers of culls (<

3.25 mm) and number one (> 4.76 mm) and number two ( 3.26 to 4.75 mm) seedlings per plot.

Above and below ground por tions of seedlings were separated and each sub sample was dried to a constant weight. Seedling parameters were calculated both on a mean seedling and a per square foot basis. Mean size and mass values for a 25 seedling replicate were multiplied by plot seedbed density to obtain area values. Seedling height was assessed only for Statesboro seedlings because Summerville seedlings were top clipped ( August 5 and September 16).

Weeds:

The second fumigation trial Summerville was placed in an area with a persistent infestation of nutsedge ( Cyperus spp.), a weed not adequately controlled by alternative herbicides.

Because this area was not put into seedling production, differences in weed control were assessed without the subsequent application of herbicides. Weed data only from this fumigation are Table 2. Fumigation treatments applied to soil not subsequently used for seedling production ( Summerville, SC).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Chemical MC33 Triform Dazomet Dazomet Dazomet Dazomet Metham sodium Metham sodium Dazomet + Chloropicrin Metham sodium+ Chloropicrin Control Rate ( lb/ ac)

350 290 300 300 150 150 400 400 150 115 400 115 0 Application Method Injected Injected Rototilled Rototilled Rototilled Rototilled Injected Injected Rototilled Injected Injected Injected NA Soil Seal Tarped Tarped Tarped Power roll Tarped Power roll Tarped Power roll Tarped Tarped NA presented here. Percentages of ground covered by weeds for each treatment plot was estimated April 12 and all weeds within a randomly selected foursquare foot area near the center of each plot were counted May 10. 1994. Weeds were categorized as either " spring" or " sum

mer" weeds and nutsedge ( Cyperus spp.) was enumerated separately.

RESULTS Seedling quality:

At Summerville, numbers of live seedlings differed significantly between fumigation treatments 35 days after sowing ( Table 3). Subsequent mortality was negligible ( 0.4 seedling per foot) and seedbed densities in May strongly predicted those of September ( r= 0.95, p= 0.0001)

and January ( r= 0.93, p= 0.0001). However, the effect of fumiga

tion treatment was not signifi

cant in January ( p= 0.30).

At Statesboro, numbers of damped off seedlings did not differ among fumigation treatments 35 days after sowing ( Table 3). Although the mean seedlings per square foot in June decreased from 23 to 20.6 from June to January. Fumigation treatment effects ( in contrast to the trend at Summerville)

increased moderately over the same period ( p for June = 0.15 and for January = 0.08). Correlations for June plot densities ( N= 55) with those of September ( r= 0.95,

p= 0.0001) and January ( r= 0.93, p= 0.0001) were significant.

Among dazomet treatments ( N= 20), seedling diameters in plots receiving 280 lbs/ ac were larger ( p= 0.03) and there was more shoot ( p= 0.0001) and root ( p= 0.009) mass than at the 140 lbs/ ac rate. Among chloropicrin treatments ( N= 20), seedlings in plots treated with 250 lbs/ ac produced more root mass per seedling ( p= 0.05) and per square ft ( p= 0.02) than those treated with 125 lbs/ ac. Tarping did not significantly effect seedling size or mass either in non fumigated plots or those fumigated with dazomet or chloropicrin.

Therefore tarped and not tarped treatments were combined for the analysis presented in Table 4.

Among the five fumigation treatments ( two rates each of chloropicrin and dazomet and one of MC33 and control), plots fumigated with MC33 or the high rates of chloropicrin or dazomet produced larger seedlings than those not fumigated or fumigated with low rates ( Table 4).

Among dazomet or chloropi crin fumigations ( N= 20), no measured seedbed or seedling parameters differed either with rate of fumigant or tarping.

Among non fumigated plots ( N= 10), seedlings were taller ( p= 0.02) and had more stem mass ( p= 0.02) among non tarped plots. However, seedbed density and seedling root mass was not significantly larger among tarped compared to non tarped plots.

There were no significant differences among Statesboro seedlings in size or mass attributable to the five fumigant by rate treatments ( Table 4).

Weeds:

Weed cover by plot and numbers of all weeds and of nutsedge per frame ( 4ft 2 ) are presented in Table 5. In May, percentage weed cover differed ( p= 0.0001) between treatments.

MC33 always had the fewest weeds and the 1,3 D and the metham  sodium plus chloropicrin were almost as good. These three treatments and the tarped metham  sodium and the dazomet plus chloropicrin were not significantly different.

In addition to nutsedge, pigweed ( Amaranthus spp.),

dogfennel ( Eupatorium capifillifolium), and horseweed ( Coneza canadensis) were common in the May survey and these ( exclusive of nutsedge) were analyzed together as " summer weeds". Other weeds were analyzed together as spring weeds. Summer weeds did not differ between treatments ( p= 0.58). Spring weeds differed significantly for treatment effects ( p= 0.0001) with the tarped dazomet treatments and the nontreated control having significantly more weeds than other treatments ( Table 5). Table 3. Seedlings per square foot by nursery, date, and treatment.

Summerville May 93 Sept Jan 94 Chemical Rate lbs/ ac Tarp Dead Live Live Live Ones 1 Twos 1 Culls 1 MC33 350 Chloropicrin Chloropicrin Chloropicrin Chloropicrin Basamid Basamid Basamid Basamid None None Yes 250 250 125 125 280 280 140 140 0 0 3.6 No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 31.7 8.6 4.4 3.6 2.8 6.8 7.2 2.2 3.0 11.8 5.8 31.7 27.2 30.1 29.1 30.1 28.8 30.6 30.6 30.2 27.8 29.2 29.2 28.3 30.2 30.7 28.6 29.0 27.4 30.7 30.5 27.4 29.1 12.9 28.3 30.2 30.7 28.6 29.0 27.4 30.7 30.5 28.1 28.0 15.8 9.3 9.3 11.3 11.4 11.7 13.8 9.1 8.3 6.4 6.9 0.5 15.5 18.8 16.6 14.8 16.6 12.5 19.8 21.3 19.6 19.3 3.5 2.0 2.7 2.3 0.7 1.1 1.7 0.9 2.1 1.8 Mean value lsd for treatments 2 P for treatment effects 2 5.4 5.1 0.01 29.6 2.6 0.04 29.4 2.7 0.12 29.2 3.0 0.3 10.0 5.2 0.12 17.3 5.7 0.11 1.8 2.1 0.15 Statesboro June 93 Sept Jan 94 Chemical Rate lbs/ ac Tarp Dead Live Live Live Ones 1 Twos 1 Culls 1 MC33 Chloropicrin Chloropicrin Chloropicrin Chloropicrin Basamid Basamid Basamid Basamid None None 350 250 250 125 125 280 280 140 140 0 0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.20 0.00 23.3 24.1 25.1 21.8 22.9 23.6 21.7 21.5 21.4 23.6 23.9 19.7 20.7 21.6 18.9 19.5 19.7 19.5 18.2 19.1 20.0 20.7 20.3 22.1 22.6 19.9 21.0 20.7 19.2 18.6 19.3 20.8 21.5 7.7 9.1 10.2 10.1 9.0 7.3 8.9 8.1 7.3 8.2 8.3 10.8 11.8 9.5 8.6 9.8 11.7 8.2 8.9 9.1 10.2 10.4 1.7 1.1 2.8 1.1 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.6 2.9 2.3 2.7 Mean value lsd for treatments 2 P for treatment effect 2 0.47 1.02 0.70 23.0 2.81 0.15 19.7 2.19 0.06 20.6 2.59 0.08 8.6 3.16 0.61 9.9 3.0 0.25 2.0 1.88 0.49 1 Seedling rating where ones, two and culls have ground line diameters, respectively of 4.76 mm, 4.75 mm  3.26 mm, and 3.25 mm. 2 Statistics from SAS ANOVA. 1 DISCUSSION The herbicidal activities of the fumigants was assessed within seedbeds but standard herbicide applications controlled weeds to the extent that production was not effected. Non soil associated disease and insect problems were likewise expected to be controlled by standard practices. We expected that any important differences between fumigants would be measured for seed efficiency and seedling quality due to soil pests other than weeds. The economic aspects of seed efficiency ( that is, the number of plantable seedlings culls omitted produced per unit of pure live seed) have been addressed by South ( 1987) who showed that small changes had significant economic impacts.

Non significant differences between tarped and not tarped applications of dazomet or chloropicrin were somewhat surprising. Plastic tarps increase effective concentrations of MC2 or MC33 ( Munnecke and Van Gundy, 1979). However, MBr boils at 4.6 ° C and is more physically active than most other fumigants at normal soil tem

peratures. Dazomet, applied as a granular product evolves its fumigant in contact with soil moisture. Our estimates for soil fungi ( data not presented) indi

cate that much of its activity can occur after tarps would normally Table 4. Seedbed densities and seedling size and mass by fumigant rate and nursery.

Summerville ( 271 days after sowing).

Fumigant Rate ( lbs/ ac) Seedlings (/ ft 2 ) Diameter ( mm) Shoot ( gm OD) Root ( gm OD) MC33 Chloropicrin Chloropicrin Basamid Basamid None 350 250 125 280 140 0 29.2 a 1 29.6 a 29.2 a 28.2 a 30.6 a 28.1 a 4.70 a 4.56 abc 4.40 cd 4.68 ab 4.44 cd 4.21 d 2.45 ab 2.38 ab 2.22 bc 2.57 a 2.00 c 2.00 c 0.78 a 0.76 ab 0.67 b 0.82 a 0.69 b 0.68 b Mean value lsd for treatments 2 P for treatment effect 29.1 2.3 0.19 4.48 0.23 0.001 2.26 0.28 0.001 0.73 0.08 0.001 Statesboro ( 250 days after sowing).

Fumigant Rate ( lbs/ ac) Seedlings (/ ft 2 ) Diameter ( mm) Shoot ( gm OD) Root ( gm OD) MC33 Chlorpicrin Chlorpicrin Basamid Basamid None 350 250 125 280 140 0 20.32 abc 22.37 a 20.47 abc 19.95 bc 18.99 c 21.16 ab 4.52 a 4.63 a 4.71 a 4.60 a 4.53 a 4.47 a 3.31 a 3.40 a 3.40 a 3.37 a 3.22 a 2.86 a 0.93 a 1.00 a 1.05 a 1.02 a 0.97 a 0.94 a Mean value lsd for treatments P for treatment effect 20.6 1.93 0.012 4.58 0.28 0.52 3.25 0.52 0.21 0.99 0.15 0.61 1 Means followed by the same letter not significantly different ( alpha = .05). 2 " lsd" and " P" values from SAS GLM. Table 5. Weeds by fumigant and date on ground not cultivated after a fall fumigation.

Fumigant Rate lb/ ac Chl. lb/ ac Tarp Cover % 1 ( May) Numbers 2 ( April) Nutsedge 2 #' s MBr 1,3 D Dazomet Dazomet Dazomet Dazomet Dazomet Metham sodium Metham sodium Metham sodium Control 235 290 300 300 150 150 150 400 400 400 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 115 0 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No 29 c 35 c 95 a 65 b 95 a 70 b 46 c 36 c 90 a 38 c 100 a 8.5 c 14.5 c 101.5 a 79.3 ab 82.8 ab 81.8 ab 55.0 abc 28.5 c 35.2 bc 17.3 c 91.8 a 0.25 c 2.00 c 36.70 abc 63.52 a 29.75 abc 56.75 a 47.25 abc 10.25 bc 5.75 abc 5.50 bc 31.75 abc lsd 16.22 44.21 38.22 1 Percentage of ground covered by weeds on Apr. 12, 1994. 2 Number of weeds in four square foot frame on May 10, 1994.

be removed. Chloropicrin is liquid at normal soil temperatures which evaporates slowly ( boiling point 112 ° C) to produce a gas heavier than air. It seems possible that chloropicrin evaporated and subsequently diffused slowly enough without tarping to achieve a large percentage of that effective concentration produced under plastic. Differences between effective concentration of the high and low rates of dazomet or chloropicrin indicate that measured variables ( seedling and fungi but not weeds) were sensitive to treatment differences.

Seedling sizes and masses differed between fumigation treatments only at Summerville where all differences followed the same pattern. Seedlings did not differ significantly between the MC33 or the high rate of chloropicrin or dazomet but these were significantly larger than seedlings from plots treated with the low rates which did not differ from non fumigated controls. Final seedbed densities did not differ among treatments but sizes and masses were negatively correlated with plot densities.

The effects of seedbed density on loblolly pine are well documented ( South, et al. 1990). Density differences at the two nurseries result largely from sowing rates and complicate inferences for fumigation treatment effects. At Summerville,

the 30 seedlings/ ft 2 at the first survey changed negligibly before harvest but at Statesboro,

the initial 23/ ft 2 , was to 20/ ft 2 during that period due to causes not ( p = 0.14) associated with fumigation treatments. Differ ences in seedbed densities,

between treatments, increased but remained non significant at Statesboro and decreased at Summerville.

Non significant differences for seedling growth among treatments at the Statesboro nursery could be attributable either to environmental conditions unfavorable for diseases controlled by fumigation or just the chance " escape" of the study area from a normally sporadic pathogen development.

Not surprisingly, estimates of weed cover in April and num

bers of weeds per sample plot in May indicate essentially the same relative herbicidal activi

ties for the fumigant treatments. It seems unfortunate that MC33,

which will soon be unavailable,

was the best fumigant tested but 1,3 D was almost as good.

Although increasing the concentration of chloropicrin usually decrease the herbicidal activity of MBr, it significantly ( in April) enhanced the activity of dazomet and insignificantly that of Metham sodium. Dazomet had the least herbicidal activity of the fumigants.

Nutsedge is currently one of the most difficult weeds to control in southern pine nurseries Although plants per treatment are presented in Table 3 with a multiple means comparison ( Duncan's for SAS ANOVA) it's logical to believe that tuber producing plants will not ( as required by these statis

tics) be normally distributed.

Nutsedge plants differed significantly between treatments for non parametric statistics also ( SAS NPAR1WAY) but mul tiple comparisons are difficult.

Anyway, no treatments were significantly different from the control.

As a part of these studies that will be presented later, soil samples were collected each time seedlings were surveyed and subsequently plated on media selective for the development of Fusarium ( Nash and Snyder, 1961), Rhizoctonia ( L. J.

Herr, 1973) and Trichoderma ( Elad et al, 1981). Numbers of fungi identified on selective media did not differ significantly among blocks or rows for pretreatment soil samples but all fumigation treatments significantly reduced populations. The assessed fungal " groups" were differentially affected by fumigants and subsequently recovered to prefumigation levels at different rates.

LITERATURE CITED Anonymous. 1993. The biologic and economic assessment of methyl bromide. USDA NAPIAP. 99 pp.

Carey, W. A. 1991. Insect and disease problems on hardwoods in southern nurseries.

In Proceedings. Nursery pest management workshop.

Athens, TN July 30 Aug 1.

Carey, W. A. and W. D. Kelley.

1994. Seedling production trends and fusiform rust control practices at southern nurseries, 1981 1991. South.

J. Appl. For. 17: 207 211.

Elad, Y. I. Chet and Y. Henis.

1981. A selective media for improving quantitative isolation of Trichoderma spp. from soil. Phytoparasitica 9: 59 67.

Herr, L. J. 1973. Disk plate method for selective isolation of Rhizoctonia solani form soil. Can. J. Microbiol.

19: 1269 1273.

Munnecke, D. E. and S. D. Van Gundy. 1979. Movement of fumigants in soil, dosage responses, and differential effects. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 17: 405 429.

Nash, S. M. and W. C. Snyder. 1961. Quantative estimates in plate counts of propagules of the bean root rot fusarium in field soils. Phyto

pathology 52: 567 572.

South, D. B. and D. H. Gjerstad.

1980. Nursery weed control with herbicides or fumigation: an economic evaluation. SJAF 4: 40 45.

South, D. B. and C. B. Davey.

1983. The southern forest nursery soil testing program. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Circular 265. 38 pp.

South, D. B., H. S. Larsen, J. N.

Boyer and H. M. Williams. 1990. Seed spacing and seedling biomass: Effect on root growth potential of loblolly pine. New Forests 4: 179 192.

Stone, J. M. 1991. Hardwood pest problems weeds, grasses & herbicide controls. In Proceedings. Nursery pest management workshop.

Athens, TN July 30 Aug 1.

Thompson, W. T. 1991.

Agricultural chemicals. Book III   Miscellaneous agricultural chemicals. 1991 1992 revi

sion. Thompson Publications. Fresno, CA. 1 Michigan Seedling Species/ Seed Source Abies balsamea Abies concolor Abies fraseri Abies intermedii Abies koreana Abies lasiocarpa ssp arizonica Abies nobilis Abies nordmania Abies procera Abies veitchi Abis balsamea var. phanerolipsis Acer bulergerianula Acer crissifoliura Acer ginnala Acer japonicum Acer negundo Acer palmatum Acer palmatum atrapureum Acer pseudoplatanus Acer rubrum Acer saccharinum Acer saccharum Acer tatricum Acer truncatum Aesculus glabra Aesculus turbinate Ainus rugosa Alnus rugosa Amelanchier alnifolia Amelanchier Canadensis Amelanchier grandiflora Amelanchier laevis Amelanchier wamarckii Ammophila breviligulata Aronia melanocarpa Asimina triloba Berberis thumburgii Betula nigra Betula papyrifera Betula pendula Betula platphylla ` japonica' Buddleia davidii 2 Campsis radicans Caragana arborescens Carpinus japonica Carya glabra Carya illinoinensis Carya lacinosa Carya ovata Castanea mollissima Cedrus Deodara Celastrus scandens Celtis occidentalis Cephalanthus occidentalis Cercis Canadensis Cercis chinensis Cornilla varia Cornus alternifolia Cornus amomum Cornus controversa Cornus florida Cornus florida ` rubra' Cornus kousa Cornus kousa ` Milky Way' Cornus mas Cornus officinalis Cornus racemosa Cornus sanguinea Cornus sericea Cornus stolonifera ( sericea) Corylus Americana Corylus coruta var. cornuta Cotinus coggygria Cotinus coggygria ` atropurpurea' Crataegus crus galli Crataegus mollis Crataegus phaenopyrum Diospyros virginiana Eleagnus angustifolia Eleagnus umbellate Euonymus alatus Evodia Hupenesis Fagus grandifolia Fagus sylvatica Fagus sylvatica purpurea 3 Forsythia spp Fraxinus Americana Fraxinus nigra Fraxinus pennsylvaniaca Ginko biloba Gleditsia triacanthos ` inermis' Gymnacladus dioicus Hamamelis virginiana Hibiscus syriacus Ilex verticillata Ilex opaca Juglans cinerea Juglans nigra Juglans regia Juniperus virginiana Larix deciduas Larix laricina Larix leptolepis Lindera benzoin Liquidambar styraciflua Liriodendron tulipfera Lonicera maackii ` Rem Red' Lonicera tatarica Malus baccata Malus baccata ` Mandshurica' Malus coronaria Malus floribunda Malus hybrid magneta Malus sargentii Malus sargentii ` Roselow' Malus x Red Splender Malus Zumi Morus rubra Myrica pensylvanica Nyssa sylvatica Pachysandra terminalis Physocarpus opulifolia Physocarpus opulifolius Picea abies Picea englemanni Picea glauca Picea glauca densata Picea mariana 4 Picea meyeri Picea omorika Picea pungens Picea pungens ` glauca' Pinus banksiana Pinus mugo mughus Pinus mugo pumilla Pinus nigra Pinus pondersosa Pinus resinosa Pinus strobiformis Pinus strobes Pinus sylvestris Platanus occidentalis Populus x Carolina Prunus Americana Prunus angustifolia Prunus besseyi Prunus pumila Prunus serotina Prunus tomentosa Prunus virginiana Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii glauca Pterostyrak Hispida Pyrus calleryana Pyrus coxxxxnis Bartlett Quercus acutissima Quercus alba Quercus bicolor Quercus coccinea Quercus ellipsoidalis Quercus falc. var. paggodifolia Quercus imbricaria Quercus lyrata Quercus macrocarpa Quercus muehlenbergi Quercus palustris Quercus robur Quercus rubra Quercus shumardii Quercus velutina Rhus aromatica 5 Rhus glabra Rhus typhina Robinia pseudoacacia Rosa rugosa Salix discolor Sambucus Canadensis Sambucus pubens Sassafras albidum Sorbus alnifolia Sorbus Americana Sorbus aucuparia Syringa reticulate Syringa villosa Syringa vulgaris Syringa josikaea Taxodium distichum Taxus capitata Thuja occidentalis Tilia Americana Tilia cordata Tsuga Canadensis Tsuga chinensis Tsuga heterophylla Ulmus Americana Ulmus parvifolia Ulmus pumila Viburnum acerifolia Viburnum bracteatum Viburnum dentatum Viburnum carlesii Viburnum lantana Viburnum lentago Viburnum opulus Viburnum prunifolium Viburnum trilobum Vinca minor Vitis riparia Weigela florida Wisteria sinensis Xanthocerus Sorbifolia Ziziphus jujuba 1.

2.

3.

4.

Light x Medium Heavy 0 to 2% x 2 to 5 % over 5%

5.

6. Specialty ( check one)

7. agronomic 8. economic 9. Daytime phone 10. FAX 11.

List an additional contact person if available. Specialty ( check one)

12. agronomic x 13. economic x 14. 15. FAX 16. For EPA Use Only ID#

Contact name Address Daytime phone E mail Allendale, MI 49401 Brian Bosch ( 616) 892 4090 ( 616) 892 4290 10785 84th Ave. Location ( Enter the state, region, or county. Provide more detail about the location if relevant to the feasibility of alternatives to methyl bromide.)

Crop/ commodity ( Include all crops/ commodities that benefit from the application of methyl bromide in a fumigation cycle. A fumigation cycle is the period of time between methyl bromide fumigations.)

Climate ( Individual users should enter their climate zone designation by reviewing the U. S. climate zone map. If a consortium is submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of consortium users in each climate zone. This map is located at the end of this workbook or it can be reviewed online at http:// www. usna. usda. gov/ Hardzone/ ushzmap. html).

Regions 4B and 5B Michigan Dept. of Agriculture Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information The following information will be used to determine the amount of methyl bromide requested and the contact person for this request. It is important that we know whom to contact in case we need additional information during the review of the application.

Other geographic factors that may affect crop/ commodity yield ( e. g., water table).

Michigan Seedling Association State of Michigan Conifer and deciduous seedling and transplants Soil Type:

Organic Matter: Soil type Check the box( es) for the soil types and percent organic matter that apply to your area. If a consortium is submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of consortium users in each soil type.

Consortium name Lansing, MI 48909 rosenbaumr@ michigan. gov ( 517) 335 4540 Contact name Address ( 517) 335 6542 E mail Robin Rosenbaum Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information 17. 20,160 lbs.

17a. acres units 18. Yes x No 18a.

19.

20.

20a.

OMB Control # If applying as a consortium for many users of methyl bromide, please define a representative user . Define exactly, issues such as size of the operation ( acres treated with methyl bromide for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications), whether the representative user owns or rents the land or operation, intensity of methyl bromide use ( treat regularly or only when pest reaches a threshold), pest pressure, etc. Target Pest( s) or Pest Problem( s): ( Be as specific as possible about the species or classes of pests relevant to the feasibility of alternatives.) If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for question 17 and 17a. should be the total for the consortium.

In the question below, area is defined as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Are you requesting methyl bromide for additional years beyond 2005?

acres acres 2007 In the table below, area is defined as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Year How much active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide are you requesting for 2005?

All of the growers in the consortium grow the same species of plants in roughly the same climate. The representative user owns half of the acres they farm and rent or lease the rest. Methyl bromide is used on 6 10 acres. They need to use methyl bromide every year on the soil into which they plant their new seedlings or transplants. How much area will this be applied to? Please list units. 84 For EPA Use Only ID#

Explain why this user represents the typical user in the consortium. 84 Yes. We are requesting the use of methyl bromide until economically feasible alternatives are 2006 Quantity ai ( lb.) of Methyl Bromide 20,160 Area to be Treated 84 If yes, please list year and quantity active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide requested in the table below and explain why you need authorization for multiple years.

developed or become available.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data below should be the total for the consortium.

20,160 Unit of Area Treated Annual and perennial weeds Grubs and nematodes Fungi Worksheet Title Instructions specific to each worksheet are located at the top of each sheet.

2 A Methyl Bromide Use for 1997  2000 This worksheet provides data in actual usage for 1997 2000.

2 B Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue for 1997

2000 This worksheet provides crop/ commodity yield and gross revenue for 1997 through 2000.

2 C Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue for 2001 This data provides historical information on crop/ commodity yield and gross revenue for 2001.

2 D Methyl Bromide Use and Costs for 2001 This worksheet isolates use and cost data for 2001.

2 E Methyl Bromide  Other Operating Costs for 2001 This data is needed to estimate a baseline for operating costs in order to estimate the impact on operating profit and short run economic viability as a result of not using methyl bromide.

2 F Methyl Bromide  Fixed And Overhead Costs for 2001 This data is needed to estimate a baseline for total costs in order to estimate the impact on profitability and long run economic viability as a result of not using methyl bromide.

Purpose of Data: To establish a baseline estimate of crop/ commodity yields, gross revenues, and costs using methyl bromide. Worksheet 2. Methyl Bromide  Historical Use of Methyl Bromide Col A: Formulation of Methyl Bromide Col B, E, H, K: Actual Area Treated Col C, F, I, L: Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Col D, G, J, M: Actual Average lbs. ai Applied per Area A B C D E F G H I J K L M Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area over 95% methyl bromide # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0!

75% methyl bromide, 25% chloropicrin # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0!

67% methyl bromide, 33% chloropicrin 129 30,960 240 137 32,880 240 113 27,120 240 127 30,480 240 50% methyl bromide, 50% chloropicrin # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0!

__% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0!

__% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0!

# DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0! # DIV/ 0!

All formulations of methyl bromide 30,960 # DIV/ 0! 32,880 # DIV/ 0! 27,120 # DIV/ 0! 30,480 # DIV/ 0!

Comments:

OMB Control # For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 2 A. Methyl Bromide  Use 1997 2000 Enter the appropriate data in Col B M for each formulation, if known, and/ or the totals and averages for all formulations. If you enter only the total and averages for all formulations in the last row of the table, please describe in the comments section the formulations typically used, or the approximate proportions of the formulations used.

If a consortium is submitting this application, all data should reflect the actual data for the consortium.

The average application rates in pounds ai of methyl bromide per area are automatically calculated from the previous 2 columns. 2000 Enter the total actual area treated. Note: This number should be the total actual area treated by the individual user or total actual area for the entire consortium, for the year indicated.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Formulation of Methyl Bromide Enter the actual total pounds active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide applied. Note: This number should be the total pounds ai applied by the individual user or the entire consortium, for the year indicated.

1997 1998 1999 For EPA Use Only ID#

A C D E F Year Methyl Bromide was Applied Unit of Crop/ Commodity ( e. g., pounds, bushels) Crop/ Commodity Yield ( Units per area) Price ( per unit of crop/ commodity) Revenue ( per area)

1997 plants 100,000 $ 0.50 $ 50,000.00 1998 plants 100,000 $ 0.50 $ 50,000.00 1999 plants 100,000 $ 0.50 $ 50,000.00 2000 plants 100,000 $ 0.50 $ 50,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue for 1997 $ 50,000.00 Total Revenue for 1998 $ 50,000.00 Total Revenue for 1999 $ 50,000.00 Total Revenue for 2000 $ 50,000.00 Average Revenue Per Year $ 50,000.00 Comments:

OMB Control # conifer/ deciduous plants conifer/ deciduous plants conifer/ deciduous plants conifer/ deciduous plants B Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue Crop/ Commodity Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Average Revenue per Year: The average revenue per year is calculated automatically using the summary data you enter for each year.

Total Revenue for 1997 2000 Enter the total revenue per year by adding the revenue for all crops for that year.

Col. A: Year Col. B: Crop/ Commodity Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 1997 2000 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the actual averages for the consortium.

Enter the average prices received by the users for the year and crop/ commodity indicated ( 1997 2000).

This number is calculated automatically using the values you entered in Cols. D and E. You may override the formula to enter a different revenue. Please explain why the revenue amount is different in the comment section below.

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

Be sure to enter the year. Use as many rows as needed for each year for all the crops/ commodities in the fumigation cycles from 1997 to 2000. If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, then the year of the fumigation cycle is the year methyl bromide was applied.

Enter all crops/ commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in each fumigation cycle. ( For example, if normally methyl bromide is applied and tomatoes are grown and harvested followed by peppers without an additional treatment of methyl bromide, then both tomatoes and peppers would be part of the same fumigation cycle.) See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle.

Enter the number of units of crop/ commodities produced per area.

If someone other than the applicant benefits from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

The purpose of this worksheet is to estimate the gross revenue for 1997  2000 when using methyl bromide. Post harvest and structural users may work with EPA to modify this form to accommodate differences in operations when providing gross revenue data. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col. B: Price Factors Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue A B C D E F Crop/ Commodity Price Factors ( grade, time, market) Unit of Crop/ Commodity ( e. g., pounds, bushels) Crop/ Commodity Yield ( Units per area) Price ( per unit of crop/ commodity) Revenue ( per area)

Conifer seedlings size 1,000 trees 500  800 80  200 40,000  160,000 Conifer transplants size 1,000 trees 60  120 300  900 18,000  108,000 Deciduous transplants size 1,000 trees 100  300 250  750 25,000  225,000 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue 83,000  493,000 Comments:

OMB Control #

The purpose of this worksheet is to estimate the gross revenue for 2001when using methyl bromide. Post harvest users may modify this form to accommodate differences when providing gross revenue data. If 2001 was not a typical year for the individual or for the representative user of a consortium, the applicant may provide additional data for a different year. However, all applicants must complete this worksheet for the year 2001 regardless. Please explain in the comment section at the bottom of the worksheet why 2001 is not considered a typical year, if that is the case. Enter all crops/ commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle ( interval between fumigations) beginning with the treatment of methyl bromide in 2001. If multiple crops are grown during the interval between fumigations ( e. g. tomatoes followed by peppers in a single growing season, or strawberries followed by lettuce over 2 or 3 years) include all of the crops during the entire interval. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle.

If someone other than the applicant benefits from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

Col. A: Crop/ Commodity Worksheet 2 C. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 2001 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

Enter average 2001 prices received by the users for that crop/ commodity and price factor.

Revenue is automatically calculated using the data you entered for yield and price. If revenue is not equal to yield times price, you may override the formula and enter a different revenue amount. Please explain why this revenue amount is different in the comment section below.

Enter factors that determine prices ( e. g., grade, time, market). If you received different prices for your crop/ commodity as a result of quality,

grade, market ( e. g. fresh or processing), timing of harvest, etc., you may itemize by using more than one row. Itemize or aggregate these factors to the extent appropriate in making the case that the use of methyl bromide affects these price factors.

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

Enter the number of units of crop/ commodity produced per area for that price factor. Col. A: Formulation of Methyl Bromide Col B: Average lbs. active ingredient ( ai) of Methyl Bromide Applied per Area Cols. C, D, E, G: Prices and Costs Col. F: Actual Area Treated A B C D E F G Formulation of Methyl Bromide Lb. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied per Area ( 2001 Average) Price per lb. ai of Methyl Bromide ( 2001 Average) Cost of Applying Pesticide per Area ( 2001 Average) Other MBr Costs ( e. g. tarps,

etc.) per Area ( 2001 Average) Total Actual Area Treated in the Consortium Cost per Area over 95% methyl bromide $ 0.00 75% methyl bromide, 25% chloropicrin $ 0.00 67% methyl bromide, 33% chloropicrin 235 84 $ 1,434.00 50% methyl bromide, 50% chloropicrin $ 0.00 __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin $ 0.00 __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin $ 0.00 $ 0.00 All formulations of methyl bromide $ 1,434.00 Comments: Approximately 95% of the MB applied to seedlings is custom applied.

The cost per area reflects the cost of the MB and the application costs, tarps, etc.

MB costs approximately $ 2.50 per pound if the farmer applies the product.

OMB Control # For EPA Use Only ID#

If 2001 was not a typical year for the individual or for the representative user of a consortium, the applicant may provide additional data for a different year. However, all applicants must complete this worksheet for the year 2001 regardless. If you provide an additional year's data, please explain in the comment section at the bottom of the worksheet why 2001 is not considered a typical year.

If the methyl bromide is custom applied then put the cost per area in Column G and fill in the average lb ai of methyl bromide applied per area ( Col B) and the Total Actual Area Treated ( Col F).

Worksheet 2 D. Methyl Bromide  Use and Costs for 2001 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data in Cols. B, C, D, and E should reflect the representative user in the consortium. The data in Col. F should reflect the actual area treated by all users in the consortium.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Enter the appropriate data in Col B G for each formulation, if known, and/ or the totals and averages for all formulations of methyl bromide. If you just enter data in the bottom row in the table ( All formulations of methyl bromide), please describe in the comments, the relative usage of the various formulations, to the extent known.

Enter the average pounds active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide applied per area.

Enter the average price per pound active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide in Col. C and the average cost of applying methyl bromide per area treated in Col. D. In Col. E, enter the average other costs per area associated with applying methyl bromide ( e. g., tarps). Column G will be calculated automatically using the values you entered in columns B E. If methyl bromide is custom applied, enter the cost per area in Col. G and fill in Cols. B and F.

Enter the actual area treated. Note: This number should be the total area treated by all users in the consortium. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col A: Operation Col B: Custom Operation Cost Col C: Material Cost per Area Col D: Labor Cost per Area Col E: Total Cost per Area Col F: Typical Equipment Used A B C D E F Material Cost per Area Labor Cost per Area Total Cost per Area Typical Equipment Used Prepare soil $ 100.00 $ 300.00 $ 400.00 100 hp tractor Fertilize $ 200.00 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 70 hp tractor Plants $ 16,666.00 $ 8,333.00 $ 25,000.00 100 hp tractor Irrigate $ 1,666.00 $ 3,333.00 $ 5,000.00 40 hp pump Apply Pesticides $ 666.00 $ 1,333.00 $ 2,000.00 100 hp tractor Harvest $ 833.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,833.00 100 hp tractor $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Custom per Area $ 0.00 User Total per area $ 58,533.00 OMB Control # Operation Done by User Worksheet 2 E. Methyl Bromide  Other Operating Costs for 2001 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Custom Operation Cost per Area Operation If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Do not include methyl bromide costs.

Identify the typical equipment used for operations done by user. Please be specific, such as tractor horsepower. No cost data is required in this column.

If you do not incur custom operation costs, enter the material cost per area.

The total cost per area is calculated automatically from the values you enter in Cols. C and D.

If you do not incur custom operation costs, enter the labor cost per area.

Enter all operating costs except methyl bromide costs incurred during the fumigation cycle ( interval between fumigations) beginning in 2001. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. Enter these costs in Col B for custom operations, or in Col C and D for operations done by user.

Identify in Col A the operations ( except methyl bromide) to which the costs apply. For growers, these operations should include but are not limited to ( 1) prepare soil, ( 2) fertilize, ( 3) irrigate, ( 4) plant, ( 5) harvest, ( 6) other pest controls, etc. You must include all other operating costs.

If you incur custom operation costs, enter those costs in Col. B.

Submit crop budgets for each crop, if available. You may submit crop budgets electronically or in hard copy. If your costs are significantly different than the crop budgets,

please explain in the comments. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col A: Cost Item Col B: Description Col C: Allocation Method Col D: Cost per Area A B C D Cost Item Description Allocation Method Cost per Area Rent Rental cost to use the land 250/ acre/ year $ 250.00 Interest Interest on loans 200/ acre/ year $ 200.00 Depreciation Building and equipment 5,000/ year $ 833.00 Management Wages, etc. 1,000/ acre/ year $ 1,000.00 Office Secretary and equipment 1,000/ acre/ year $ 1,000.00 Total $ 3,283.00 Comments:

OMB Control # Worksheet 2 F. Methyl Bromide Fixed and Overhead Costs in 2001 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Identify in Col. A the cost items. These items should include, but are not limited to: ( 1) land rent, ( 2) interest, ( 3) depreciation,

( 4) management, and ( 5) overhead such as office and administration.)

Please describe the cost in more detail.

Please describe how you estimated the portion of total fixed cost of the farm or entity that applies to this crop/ commodity.

Enter the cost per area of methyl bromide treated.

Enter all fixed and overhead costs incurred during the fumigation cycle ( interval between fumigations) beginning in 2001. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. Worksheet Title 3 A Alternatives  Technical Feasibility This form is used to obtain information on the chemical alternatives identified by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC) that are registered for use in the United States, as well as the non chemical alternatives identified by the MBTOC. Applicants must address the technical feasibility of all the chemical and non chemical alternatives identified on the list.

3 B Alternatives  Pest Control Regimen Costs This form is used to estimate the cost of using alternative pest control regimens.

3 C Alternatives  Crop/

Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue This form is used to estimate the crop/ commodity yields and gross revenues when using alternative pest control regimens.

3 D Alternatives  Changes in Other Costs This form is used to estimate change in any other costs as a result of using the alternatives.

Complete each of the worksheets below ( 3 A, 3 B, 3 C, and 3 D) for each alternative pest control regimen listed in the " U. S. Matrix" for chemical controls ( www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ cueqa. html) and the " International Matrix" for non chemical pest controls ( www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ cue). Each worksheet contains a place holder in the title for you to insert the name of the specific alternative pest control regimen addressed. You should add additional worksheets as required. Please add a number designation to each worksheet title to indicate a different alternative. For example, for the first alternative pest control regimen label the worksheets as 3 A( 1), 3 B( 1), 3 C( 1), and 3 D( 1). For the second alternative pest control regimen label the worksheets 3 A( 2), 3 B( 2), 3 C( 2), and 3( D)( 2).

Purpose of Data on Alternative Pest Control Regimens: To estimate the loss as a result of not having methyl bromide available. EPA needs to compare data ( yields, crop/ commodity prices, gross revenues and costs) on the use of methyl bromide and alternative pest control regimens.

Worksheet 3. Alternatives  Feasibility of Alternative Pest Control Regimens Enter all alternative pesticides and pest control methods ( and associated cost and yield data) that would replace one treatment of methyl bromide throughout the fumigation cycle. See the fumigation cycle worksheet for a comprehensive definition. Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

Section I. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives 1. Are there any location specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site?

1a. Full use permitted x 1b. Township caps 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe) Chemical alternatives to methyl bromide dazomet ( Basamid granular)

If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area. When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1, 5, and 8. Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed.

BACKGROUND EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1 800 296 1996.

There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency b it The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area. For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need. For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( b). Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's webs Yes No x 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researc 3. Publication and Date of Pu 4. Location of research 5.

6. Was crop yield measured i Yes x No 7.

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool? Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study. For EPA Use Only ID#

Dazomet had the least herbicidal activity of the fumigants. The timing for effective application of 1,3 D is limited in Michigan by soil temperatures. There is only one window for application in late summer/ early fall that allows for application to be made, the product to be under tarp for the appropriate length of time, and the product to dissipate without causing phytotoxicity to new plantings before planting takes place in spring. There are also concerns about the increased hazard to humans by using dazomet and metham sodium. Historically, methyl bromide is the only material that has been tarped under MI conditions. 1,3 D dazomet and metham sodium are being investigated under tarp in MI beginning in fall, 2002. Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. Georgia and South Carolina dazomet, dazomet + chloropicrin, metham sodium + chloropicrin Seedbed density and seedling development were compared at two locations among plots treated with one of two rates of dazomet ( tarped or untarped), one of two rates of chloropicrin( tarped or untarped) methyl bromide and an untreated control. High rates of dazomet and chloropicrin were not significantly different from methyl bromide but low rates and controls were inferior. A second study at North Carolina compared dazomet, metham sodium, 1,3 D, dazomet + chloropicrin, metham sodium + chloropicrin and methyl bromide. Methyl bromide had the best herbicidal activity among the treatments it appears from the data that tarping is essential for weed contol efficacy.

Weed control is a primary concern for Michigan seedling growers. Dazomet and metham sodium have not proven as effective as methyl bromide in controlling weeds. Proceedings, Forest and Conservation Nursery Association, 1994 W. A. Carey Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 3 Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

Section I. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives 1. Are there any location specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site?

1a. Full use permitted X 1b. Township caps 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe) For EPA Use Only ID# Worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need.

For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed . Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( b).

When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1, 5, and 8.

Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed.

BACKGROUND EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1 800 296 1996.

There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency website. The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area.

In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area.

dazomet ( Basamid Granular) Managing Soilborne Pathogens of White Pine in a Forest Nursery If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No X 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

3. Publication and Date of Publication 4. Location of research study 5.

6. Was crop yield measured in the study? Yes X No 7.

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide S. A. Enebak, M. A. Palmer, R. A. Blanchette Plant Disease 74: 195 198. 1990.

Wilson State Nursery, Boscobel, Wisconsin Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. dazomet ( Basamid Granular)

Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study.

Dazomet had lower efficacy than methyl bromide in reducing populations of Fusarium spp., Rhizoctonia spp., and Pythium spp. Dazomet was ineffective against Rhizoctonia spp. Populations of Fusarium spp. were suppressed throughout the sampling period in methyl bromide plots, but rose significantly in dazomet plots.

Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool?

The study was conducted at a nursery in Boscobel, Wisconsin. This nursery has experienced a history of severe root disease problems in eastern white pine associated with Fusarium spp., Rhizoctonia spp., Pythium spp., and in the summer of 2002 was diagnosed with an outbreak of Cylindrocladium spp. Converting to dazomet for all soil fumigation needs may allow these pathogens to persist at high population levels, risking heavy stock losses in future years. We would expect similar results in Michigan with respect to lack of effective disease control by dazomet. In the late 1970s, high rates of metham sodium were shown to eliminate mycorrhizal fungi in conifer seedling nurseries, resulting in nutrient deficient plants that took an excessive amount of time to mature. Most experiences in MI with dazomet have provided less than favorable control of nematodes and weeds ( Bird, 2002, personal communications). it is believed that this is due to inadequate soil moisture relationships. This factor is being taken into consideration in the 2002 trials in MI. 3 Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

Section I. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives 1. Are there any location specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site?

1a. Full use permitted X 1b. Township caps 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe) For EPA Use Only ID# Worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need.

For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( b).

When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1, 5, and 8.

Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed.

BACKGROUND EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1 800 296 1996.

There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency website. The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area.

In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area.

dazomet ( Basamid Granular) Comparison of Three Soil Fumigants in a Bareroot Conifer Nursery If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. For EPA Use Only ID# Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No X 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

3. Publication and Date of Publication 4. Location of research study 5.

6. Was crop yield measured in the study? Yes X No 7.

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Sandy J. Campell and Bruce R. Kelpsas Tree Planters' Notes 39( 4): 16 22; 1988.

USDA Forest Service Bend Nursery, Portland, OR Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. dazomet ( Basamid granular)

Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study.

This study examined Fusarium spp. and Pythium spp. fungal populations before and after fumigation with methyl bromide, dazomet, and metam sodium. Similar to the previous study, significant reductions in fungal populations were observed in methyl bromide treated soils. Dazomet and metam sodium treatments did not significantly reduce populations of Fusarium spp. Pythium spp. populations were reduced under all treatments initially, however dazomet and metam sodium treatments showed less long term control.

Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool? Effective weed control continues to be a major issue in substituting other products for methyl bromide. Dazomet has poor efficacy against weeds, especially nutsedge. Michigan is conducting research to look at the effectiveness of metam sodium and dazomet in controlling weeds in nurseries, but no research is planned to look at the efficacy against diseases. However, we believe that results of this study would be similar in Michigan. In this study, methyl bromide fumigation reduced pathogen populations better than the alternatives and controlled these populations longer. The use of dazomet and metam sodium increases the risk of severe disease outbreaks, resulting in large stock losses and increased costs. Currently, there are no means to predict outbreaks of soilborne diseases in forest tree nurseries and to determine risk levels. However, the high value per acre of forest tree seedling crops makes the risk of significant monetary losses high. In one major comercial nursery trial in MI with metham sodium, weed seed germination was significantly enhanced ( Bird 2002, personal communication). 3 Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

Section I. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives 1. Are there any location specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site?

1a. Full use permitted X 1b. Township caps 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe) For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 3 A( 2). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need.

For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( b).

When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1, 5, and 8.

Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed.

BACKGROUND EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1 800 296 1996.

There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency website. The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area.

In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area.

metam sodium Comparison of Three Soil Fumigants in a Bareroot Conifer Nursery Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No X 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

3. Publication and Date of Publication 4. Location of research study 5.

6. Was crop yield measured in the study? Yes X No 7.

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 3 A( 2)( a). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Sandy J. Campell and Bruce R. Kelpsas Tree Planters' Notes 39( 4): 16 22; 1988.

USDA Forest Service Bend Nursery, Portland, OR Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. metam sodium Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool?

Michigan is conducting research to look at the effectiveness of metam sodium for controlling weeds in nurseries, but no research is planned to look at the efficacy against diseases. However, we believe that results of this study would be similar in Michigan. In this study, methyl bromide fumigation reduced pathogen populations better than the alternatives and controlled these populations longer. The use of dazomet and metam sodium increases the risk of severe disease outbreaks, resulting in large stock losses and increased costs. Athough applications are made by trained custom applicators, metam sodium is a hazardous material that may represent a significant risk to nursery personnel and persons living in the area surrounding the nursery. Under urban sprawl conditions in western MI, risk associated with all soil fumigants has increased during the past decade ( Bird 2002, personal communication). Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study. See previous discussion on Worksheet 3 A( 1)( c) and Research Summary Worksheet 3 B( 1)( c). Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

Section I. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives 1. Are there any location specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site?

1a. Full use permitted x 1b. Township caps 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe)

Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No x 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy. For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 3 A( 3)( a). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need.

For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( b).

When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1, 5, and 8.

Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed.

BACKGROUND EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1 800 296 1996.

There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency website.

The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area.

In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area.

cover crops Green Manure Effects on Soilborne Pathogens If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 3 A ( 4)( a). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

3. Publication and Date of Publication 4. Location of research study 5.

6. Was crop yield measured in the study? Yes x No 7.

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Jeffrey Stone and Everett M. Hansen Proceedings, Northeastern and Intermountain Forest and Conservation Nursery Association 1993 Oregon Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. Brassica cover crops, sawdust and rapeseed meal Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study.

In this study, Brassica cover crops did not reduce populations of pathogenic soil fungi; instead fungal populations actually increased with cover crop treatments and with addition of rapeseed meal. Seedlings from the Brassica plots were inferior in quality to those from the bare fallow and fumigated plots. Bare fallow and chemical fumigation with methyl bromide were statistically equivalent with respect to conifer seedling quality, seedling mortality and level of pathogens recovered. The Brassica plus sawdust treatment performed worse than the bare fallow and fumigated sites but better than the sites with brassica alone.

Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool?

Although cover crops can be useful for reducing soil erosion and increasing soil fertility and organic matter, they did not reduce soil pathogen problems. We don't yet know how effective they might be in reducing weed problems and nematodes. Brassicas have been tried in Michigan with mixed results, depending on, variety and incoropration timing. A cover crop study using composts, sudan grass and clover is underway for herbaceous perennials. 3 Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

Section I. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives 1. Are there any location specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site?

1a. Full use permitted X 1b. Township caps 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe) For EPA Use Only ID# Worksheet 3 A( 4). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need.

For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( b).

When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1, 5, and 8.

Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed.

BACKGROUND EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1 800 296 1996.

There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency website. The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area.

In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area.

biofumigation Meeting Resource Management Goals Through Sustainable Forest Seedling Production Using Alternative Treatment Strategies If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes X No 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

3. Publication and Date of Publication 4. Location of research study 5.

6. Was crop yield measured in the study? Yes No X 7.

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 3 A( 4). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Will Littke Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. biofumigation Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study. Weyerhaeuser Forestry Research in Washington has looked at biological control of soilborne nursery pathogens through the use of soil amendments and seed treatments. Overall results have been mixed and the author concludes that considerable research will be needed before biological controls meet the efficacy of chemical treatments.

Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool?

In addition to disease problems, nematodes need to be controlled. Exporting ornamentals requires soybean cyst nematode free certification, presenting an additional burden to the industry that is losing methyl bromide. Part of the research being conducted at Michigan State University involves screening two nematode biological control agents for use as methyl bromide alternatives in nursery production systems. Further research needs to be conducted in this area before we can successfully substitute biocontrols for methyl bromide. Alternative: Study:

Col. A: Treatment Number Col. B: Treatment Col. C: Rate Col. D, F, H, J, L, N: Interval Cols. E, G, I, K, M, O: Rating for Interval:

Control of Pests 1 and 2 ( Cols. D  I and Cols. J  O):

Col. J: Yield A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P % weed cover weed numbers Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 1 Methyl bromide+ 115 lb/ ac chloropic. 235lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 29c ~ 7 mo. 8.5c 2 dazomet, no tarp 300lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 95a ~ 7 mo. 101.5a 3 dazomet, tarped 300 lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 65b ~ 7 mo. 79.3ab 4 dazomet, no tarp 150 lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 95a ~ 7 mo. 82.8ab 5 dazomet, tarped 150 lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 70b ~ 7 mo. 81.8ab 6 dazomet, tarped + 115 lb/ ac. chloropic. 150 lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 46c ~ 7 mo. 55abc 7 control 0 ~ 6 mo. 100a ~ 7 mo. 91.8a Comments: % of ground covered by weeds on April 12, 1994 lsd= 16.22 lsd= 44.21 number of weeds in four square foot frame on May 10, 1994.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide For EPA Use Only ID#

Research Summary Table dazomet Chemical alternatives to methyl bromide Provide one summary table for each study being described.

Provide a summary table of research information that will allow us compare the impact of methyl bromide and the alternative regimen on such things as pest control, yield or quality of the commodity being treated, or protected.

Ideally, a research study should directly compare methyl bromide and the alternative regimen.

List the treatment number from the research study you are citing.

List what type of pest control method was used.

Enter the pounds or gallons of a chemical used, days of solarization, etc.

Enter the interval after treatment that the rating was taken. Enter the interval ( days, weeks or months) in the column heading or in the comments section. In the comments describe the rating scale ( e. g. 0 to 100 where 100 is complete control).

Use these columns to describe the level of control provided for a specific pest and the time interval at which the rating was taken. For example, a study for nematode control may have looked at nematode population in the soil pre treatment, 3 weeks after treatment, and 6 weeks after treatment. In this example, type over the words " Rating Interval 1" with " pre treatment", type over " Rating Interval 2" with " 3 weeks", and type over " Rating Interval 3" with " 6 weeks." If you are completing the printed version, please define Rating Interval in the comments below.

For the target pest( s) in the study list the pest or pest species being rated in the column header or the comments section. For example, a study for nematode control in tomatoes may have looked at sting nematode and stunt nematode. Enter sting nematode for pest 1 in the Col F header below and stunt nematode for pest 2 in the Col. L header below. In the comments section describe the rating system used ( 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no control, number of nematodes per gram of soil, number of colony forming units per gram of soil,

etc.). Enter the marketable yield of the crop or commodity and specify the units ( lbs./ acre, tons) in the column header or comments section.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Treatment Number Treatment Rate ( lbs. or gals. ai per area) Yield ( units/ area) Alternative: Study:

Col. A: Treatment Number Col. B: Treatment Col. C: Rate Col. D, F, H, J, L, N:

Interval Cols. E, G, I, K, M, O:

Rating for Interval:

Control of Pests 1 and 2 ( Cols. D  I and Cols. J

O): Col. J: Yield A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V Fusarium spp. Rhizoctonia spp. Pythium spp.

Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 2 Rating for Interval 3 Rating for 1 untreated 0 pre trt 1420 4 weeks 550 6 mo. 670 pre trt 12 4 weeks 11 6 mo. 10 pre trt 2 4 weeks 2 6 mo. 1 390,298 2 methyl bromide ( 67% MB) 232 lbs pre trt 990 4 weeks 33 6 mo. 7 pre trt 10 4 weeks 3 6 mo. 4 pre trt 7 4 weeks 0 6 mo. 0 1,254,528 3 dazomet 247 lbs pre trt 1490 4 weeks 220 6 mo. 760 pre trt 9 4 weeks 11 6 mo. 9 pre trt 5 4 weeks 3 6 mo. 0 673,642 Comments: Ratings are for colony forming units per gram of dry soil.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide For EPA Use Only ID#

Research Summary Table dazomet ( Basamid Granular) Managing Soilborne Pathogens of White Pine in a Forest Nursery Provide one summary table for each study being described.

Provide a summary table of research information that will allow us compare the impact of methyl bromide and the alternative regimen on such things as pest control, yield or quality of the commodity being treated, or protected. Ideally, a research study should directly compare methyl bromide and the alternative regimen.

List the treatment number from the research study you are citing.

List what type of pest control method was used.

Enter the pounds or gallons of a chemical used, days of solarization, etc.

Enter the interval after treatment that the rating was taken. Enter the interval ( days, weeks or months) in the column heading or in the comments section. In the comments describe the rating scale ( e. g. 0 to 100 where 100 is complete control).

Use these columns to describe the level of control provided for a specific pest and the time interval at which the rating was taken. For example, a study for nematode control may have looked at nematode population in the soil pre treatment, 3 weeks after treatment, and 6 weeks after treatment. In this example, type over the words " Rating Interval 1"

with " pre treatment", type over " Rating Interval 2" with " 3 weeks", and type over " Rating Interval 3" with " 6 weeks." If you are completing the printed version, please define Rating Interval in the comments below.

For the target pest( s) in the study list the pest or pest species being rated in the column header or the comments section. For example, a study for nematode control in tomatoes may have looked at sting nematode and stunt nematode. Enter sting nematode for pest 1 in the Col F header below and stunt nematode for pest 2 in the Col. L header below. In the comments section describe the rating system used ( 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no control, number of nematodes per gram of soil,

number of colony forming units per gram of soil, etc.). Yield ( seedlings/ A)

Enter the marketable yield of the crop or commodity and specify the units ( lbs./ acre, tons) in the column header or comments section.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Treatment Number Treatment Rate ( lbs. or gals. ai per area) Alternative: Study:

Col. A: Treatment Number Col. B: Treatment Col. C: Rate Col. D, F, H, J, L, N: Interval Cols. E, G, I, K, M, O: Rating for Interval:

Control of Pests 1 and 2 ( Cols. D  I and Cols. J  O):

Col. J: Yield A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Fusarium spp. Pythium spp.

Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 1 untreated 0 pre trt 843 post trt 1160 pre sow 311 pre trt 85 post trt 29 pre sow 85 15 2 methyl bromide ( 67% MB) 235 lbs pre trt 1126 post trt 22 pre sow 0 pre trt 98 post trt 0 pre sow 2 28 3 metam sodium 109 gals pre trt 554 post trt 483 pre sow 616 pre trt 63 post trt 3 pre sow 31 31 4 dazomet 350 lbs pre trt 543 post trt 615 pre sow 332 pre trt 73 p ost trt 2 pre sow 34 28 Comments: Ratings are for propagules per gram of overdry soil.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide For EPA Use Only ID#

Research Summary Table dazomet ( Basamid Granular)

Use these columns to describe the level of control provided for a specific pest and the time interval at which the rating was taken. For example, a study for nematode control may have looked at nematode population in the soil pre treatment, 3 weeks after treatment, and 6 weeks after treatment. In this example, type over the words " Rating Interval 1" with "

pretreatment type over " Rating Interval 2" with " 3 weeks", and type over " Rating Interval 3" with " 6 weeks." If you are completing the printed version, please define Rating Interval in the comments below.

For the target pest( s) in the study list the pest or pest species being rated in the column header or the comments section. For example, a study for nematode control in tomatoes may have looked at sting nematode and stunt nematode. Enter sting nematode for pest 1 in the Col F header below and stunt nematode for pest 2 in the Col. L header below. In the comments section describe the rating system used ( 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no control, number of nematodes per gram of soil, number of colony formin units per gram of soil, etc.)

Provide one summary table for each study being described.

Provide a summary table of research information that will allow us compare the impact of methyl bromide and the alternative regimen on such things as pest control, yield or quality of the commodity being treated, or protected. Ideally, a research study should directly compare methyl bromide and the alternative regimen.

List the treatment number from the research study you are citing.

List what type of pest control method was used. Yield seedlings/ ft2 Comparison of Three Soil Fumigants in a Bareroot Conifer Nursery Enter the marketable yield of the crop or commodity and specify the units ( lbs./ acre, tons) in the column header or comments section.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Treatment Number Treatment Rate ( lbs. or gals. ai per area)

Enter the pounds or gallons of a chemical used, days of solarization, etc.

Enter the interval after treatment that the rating was taken. Enter the interval ( days, weeks or months) in the column heading or in the comments section. In the comments describe the rating scale ( e. g. 0 to 100 where 100 is complete control). Alternative: Study:

Col. A: Treatment Number Col. B: Treatment Col. C: Rate Col. D, F, H, J, L, N: Interval Cols. E, G, I, K, M, O: Rating for Interval:

Control of Pests 1 and 2 ( Cols. D  I and Cols. J  O):

Col. J: Yield A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P % weed cover weed numbers Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 1 Methyl bromide+ 115 lb/ ac chloropic. 235lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 29c ~ 7 mo. 8.5c 2 metham sodium, tarped 400 lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 36c ~ 7 mo. 28.5c 3 metham sodium, no tarp 400 lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 90a ~ 7 mo. 35.2bc 4 metham sodium, tarped + 115 lb/ ac chlorop 400/ lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 38c ~ 7 mo. 17.3c 5 control 0 ~ 6 mo. 100a ~ 7 mo. 91.8a Comments: % of ground covered by weeds on April 12, 1994 lsd= 16.22 lsd= 44.21 number of weeds in four square foot frame on May 10, 1994.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 A( 2)( b). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide For EPA Use Only ID#

Research Summary Table metham sodium chemical alternatives to methyl bromide Provide one summary table for each study being described.

Provide a summary table of research information that will allow us compare the impact of methyl bromide and the alternative regimen on such things as pest control, yield or quality of the commodity being treated, or protected. Ideally, a research study should directly compare methyl bromide and the alternative regimen.

List the treatment number from the research study you are citing.

List what type of pest control method was used.

Enter the pounds or gallons of a chemical used, days of solarization, etc.

Enter the interval after treatment that the rating was taken. Enter the interval ( days, weeks or months) in the column heading or in the comments section. In the comments describe the rating scale ( e. g. 0 to 100 where 100 is complete control).

Use these columns to describe the level of control provided for a specific pest and the time interval at which the rating was taken. For example, a study for nematode control may have looked at nematode population in the soil pre treatment, 3 weeks after treatment, and 6 weeks after treatment. In this example, type over the words " Rating Interval 1" with " pre treatment", type over " Rating Interv 2" with " 3 weeks", and type over " Rating Interval 3" with " 6 weeks." If you are completing the printed version, please define Rating Interval in the comments below.

For the target pest( s) in the study list the pest or pest species being rated in the column header or the comments section. For example, a study for nematode control in tomatoes may have looked at sting nematode and stunt nematode. Enter sting nematode for pest 1 in the Col F header below and stunt nematode for pest 2 in the Col. L header below. In the comments section describe the rating system used ( 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no control, number of nematodes per gram of soil, number of colony forming units per gram of soil, etc.).

Enter the marketable yield of the crop or commodity and specify the units ( lbs./ acre, tons) in the column header or comments section.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Treatment Number Treatment Rate ( lbs. or gals. ai per area) Yield ( units/ area) Alternative: Study:

Col. A: Treatment Number Col. B: Treatment Col. C: Rate Col. D, F, H, J, L, N: Interval Cols. E, G, I, K, M, O: Rating for Interval:

Control of Pests 1 and 2 ( Cols. D  I and Cols. J  O):

Col. J: Yield A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P % weed cover weed numbers Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 1 Methyl bromide+ 115 lb/ ac chloropic. 235lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 29c ~ 7 mo. 8.5c 2 metham sodium, tarped 400 lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 36c ~ 7 mo. 28.5c 3 metham sodium, no tarp 400 lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 90a ~ 7 mo. 35.2bc 4 metham sodium, tarped + 115 lb/ ac chlorop 400/ lb/ ac ~ 6 mo. 38c ~ 7 mo. 17.3c 5 control 0 ~ 6 mo. 100a ~ 7 mo. 91.8a Comments: % of ground covered by weeds on April 12, 1994 lsd= 16.22 lsd= 44.21 number of weeds in four square foot frame on May 10, 1994.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 A( 2)( b). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide For EPA Use Only ID#

Research Summary Table metham sodium chemical alternatives to methyl bromide Provide one summary table for each study being described.

Provide a summary table of research information that will allow us compare the impact of methyl bromide and the alternative regimen on such things as pest control, yield or quality of the commodity being treated, or protected. Ideally, a research study should directly compare methyl bromide and the alternative regimen.

List the treatment number from the research study you are citing.

List what type of pest control method was used.

Enter the pounds or gallons of a chemical used, days of solarization, etc.

Enter the interval after treatment that the rating was taken. Enter the interval ( days, weeks or months) in the column heading or in the comments section. In the comments describe the rating scale ( e. g. 0 to 100 where 100 is complete control).

Use these columns to describe the level of control provided for a specific pest and the time interval at which the rating was taken. For example, a study for nematode control may have looked at nematode population in the soil pre treatment, 3 weeks after treatment, and 6 weeks after treatment. In this example, type over the words " Rating Interval 1" with " pre treatment", type over " Rating Interv 2" with " 3 weeks", and type over " Rating Interval 3" with " 6 weeks." If you are completing the printed version, please define Rating Interval in the comments below.

For the target pest( s) in the study list the pest or pest species being rated in the column header or the comments section. For example, a study for nematode control in tomatoes may have looked at sting nematode and stunt nematode. Enter sting nematode for pest 1 in the Col F header below and stunt nematode for pest 2 in the Col. L header below. In the comments section describe the rating system used ( 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no control, number of nematodes per gram of soil, number of colony forming units per gram of soil, etc.).

Enter the marketable yield of the crop or commodity and specify the units ( lbs./ acre, tons) in the column header or comments section.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Treatment Number Treatment Rate ( lbs. or gals. ai per area) Yield ( units/ area) Alternative: Study:

Col. A: Treatment Number Col. B: Treatment Col. C: Rate Col. D, F, H, J, L, N:

Interval Cols. E, G, I, K, M, O:

Rating for Interval:

Control of Pests 1 and 2 ( Cols. D  I and Cols. J

O): Col. J: Yield A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V Fusarium spp. Rhizoctonia spp. Pythium spp.

Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 2 Rating for Interval 3 Rating for 1 untreated 0 pre trt 1420 4 weeks 550 6 mo. 670 pre trt 12 4 weeks 11 6 mo. 10 pre trt 2 4 weeks 2 6 mo. 1 390,298 2 methyl bromide ( 67% MB) 232 lbs pre trt 990 4 weeks 33 6 mo. 7 pre trt 10 4 weeks 3 6 mo. 4 pre trt 7 4 weeks 0 6 mo. 0 1,254,528 3 dazomet 247 lbs pre trt 1490 4 weeks 220 6 mo. 760 pre trt 9 4 weeks 11 6 mo. 9 pre trt 5 4 weeks 3 6 mo. 0 673,642 Comments: Ratings are for colony forming units per gram of dry soil.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide For EPA Use Only ID#

dazomet ( Basamid Granular)

Research Summary Table Managing Soilborne Pathogens of White Pine in a Forest Nursery Provide one summary table for each study being described.

Provide a summary table of research information that will allow us compare the impact of methyl bromide and the alternative regimen on such things as pest control, yield or quality of the commodity being treated, or protected. Ideally, a research study should directly compare methyl bromide and the alternative regimen.

List the treatment number from the research study you are citing.

List what type of pest control method was used.

Enter the pounds or gallons of a chemical used, days of solarization, etc.

Enter the interval after treatment that the rating was taken. Enter the interval ( days, weeks or months) in the column heading or in the comments section. In the comments describe the rating scale ( e. g. 0 to 100 where 100 is complete control).

Use these columns to describe the level of control provided for a specific pest and the time interval at which the rating was taken. For example, a study for nematode control may have looked at nematode population in the soil pre treatment, 3 weeks after treatment, and 6 weeks after treatment. In this example, type over the words " Rating Interval 1" with " pre treatment", type over " Rating Interval 2" with " 3 weeks", and type over " Rating Interval 3" with " 6 weeks." If you are completing the printed version, please define Rating Interval in the comments below.

For the target pest( s) in the study list the pest or pest species being rated in the column header or the comments section. For example, a study for nematode control in tomatoes may have looked at sting nematode and stunt nematode. Enter sting nematode for pest 1 in the Col F header below and stunt nematode for pest 2 in the Col. L header below. In the comments section describe the rating system used ( 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no control, number of nematodes per gram of soil,

number of colony forming units per gram of soil, etc.). Yield ( seedlings/ A)

Enter the marketable yield of the crop or commodity and specify the units ( lbs./ acre, tons) in the column header or comments section.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Treatment Number Treatment Rate ( lbs. or gals. ai per area) Col. B: Target Pests Col. C: Active Ingredients Col. D: Formulation Col. E, F, G: Application Rate Col. H, I, J: Prices and Costs Col. K: Area Treated Col. L: # of Applications per Year Col. M: Cost per Area in 2001 Dollars Non chemical Control A B C D E F G H I J K L M lbs. ai per Area per Application Units of product per Area per Application Product Unit ( e. g., lbs.,

gals)

metham sodium plant pathogenic fungi 42% 318.75 75 gals $ 4.00 1500.00 1 1 $ 1,800.00 nematodes $ 0.00 weeds $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Sodium methyldithiocarbamate $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Non Chemical Pest Control Target Pests Description Cost/ area Total $ 1,800.00 Comments:

If you do not have the quantitative data for additional crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comment section.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Use one row for each active ingredient ( ai). For example, if a product contains 2 ai's use 2 rows for that product. Once a row is completed for a given product, then only Col.

B ( if applicable), C, and E need to be completed for additional rows regarding the same product.

Enter the number of applications in a fumigation cycle comparable to methyl bromide for this alternative pest control regimen. Since this number is an average, it does not need to be a whole number.

Enter the formulation or the % of active ingredient. Cost per Area ( 2001$)

Price per Unit of the Product Cost of Applying Pesticide per Area Col. A: Name of Product and Non chemical Control If someone other than the applicant previously benefited from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

Target Pests Active Ingredients ( ai) in Product Other Costs per Application For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 3 B( 1). Alternatives  Pest Control Regimen Costs for Alternative: dazomet ( Basamid granular)

Enter the area receiving at least one application of the pesticide.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Enter all alternatives and non chemical pest control that would replace one treatment of methyl bromide throughout the fumigation cycle. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. If multiple crops are grown during the interval between fumigations ( e. g. tomatoes followed by peppers in a single growing season, or strawberries followed by lettuce over 2 or 3 years) include all of the pesticides that replace methyl bromide for the entire interval. Do not include pesticides that are used along with methyl bromide enter only the additional pest control if methyl bromide were not available.

Be as specific as possible regarding the species or classes of pests controlled by the active ingredient or pesticide product.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Name of Product As a cross check, EPA is requesting both the amount of active ingredient in Col. E and product applied per area in Col. F. Indicate the unit of the product in Col. G.

Use 2001 prices and costs. If the product is custom applied you may enter the total cost in the last column ( Col. M) and override the formula. If a pesticide is applied by the user, enter the price of the product in Col. H and the cost of applying it in Col. I. Enter any other costs associated with applying this product in Col. J, specifying what they are in the comments section at the bottom of this sheet.

Enter the cost per area in 2001 dollars. Col. M will be calculated automatically using the data you have entered for a chemical pest control, or, the formula in Col. M can be overridden if the cost per area is known because the product was custom applied. Area Treated at Least Once Enter data near the bottom of the form. Identify the control in Col. A. Enter the target pests in Col. B. Describe the non chemical pest control Col. B L. Enter the costs in Col. M in 2001 dollars. # of Applications per Year Application Rate Formulation of Product Col. B: Target Pests Col. C: Active Ingredients Col. D: Formulation Col. E, F, G: Application Rate Col. H, I, J: Prices and Costs Col. K: Area Treated Col. L: # of Applications per Year Col. M: Cost per Area in 2001 Dollars Non chemical Control A B C D E F G H I J K L M lbs. ai per Area per Application Units of product per Area per Application Product Unit ( e. g., lbs.,

gals)

metham sodium plant pathogenic fungi 42% 318.75 75 gals $ 4.00 1500.00 1 1 $ 1,800.00 nematodes $ 0.00 weeds $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Sodium methyldithiocarbamate $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Non Chemical Pest Control Target Pests Description Cost/ area Total $ 1,800.00 Comments:

If you do not have the quantitative data for additional crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comment section. For EPA Use Only Worksheet 3 B( 2). Alternatives  Pest Control Regimen Costs for Alternative: dazomet ( Basamid granular)

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Col. A: Name of Product and Non chemical Control Enter all alternatives and non chemical pest control that would replace one treatment of methyl bromide throughout the fumigation cycle. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet If someone other than the applicant previously benefited from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops Be as specific as possible regarding the species or classes of pests controlled by the active ingredient or pesticide product.

Use one row for each active ingredient ( ai). For example, if a product contains 2 ai's use 2 rows for that product. Once a row is completed for a given product, then only Col.

Enter the formulation or the % of active ingredient.

As a cross check, EPA is requesting both the amount of active ingredient in Col. E and product applied per area in Col. F. Indicate the unit of the product in Col. G.

Use 2001 prices and costs. If the product is custom applied you may enter the total cost in the last column ( Col. M) and override the formula. If a pesticide is applied by the Enter the area receiving at least one application of the pesticide.

Enter the number of applications in a fumigation cycle comparable to methyl bromide for this alternative pest control regimen. Since this number is an average, it does not need to be a whole number.

Enter the cost per area in 2001 dollars. Col. M will be calculated automatically using the data you have entered for a chemical pest control, or, the formula in Col. M can be overridden if the cost per area is known because the product was custom applied. Cost per Area ( 2001$)

Enter data near the bottom of the form. Identify the control in Col. A. Enter the target pests in Col. B. Describe the non chemical pest control Col. B L. Enter the costs in Col.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Name of Product Target Pests Active Ingredients ( ai) in Product Formulation of Product Application Rate Price per Unit of the Product Area Treated at Least Once # of Applications per Year Cost of Applying Pesticide per Area Other Costs per Application Col. B: Target Pests Col. C: Active Ingredients Col. D: Formulation Col. E, F, G: Application Rate Col. H, I, J, M: Prices and Costs Col. K: Area Treated Col. L: # of Applications per Year Col. M: Cost per Area in 2001 Dollars Non chemical Control A B C D E F G H I J K L M lbs. ai per Area per Application Units of product per Area per Application Product Unit ( e. g., lbs.,

gals)

Product X Pest Y, Pest Z Chemical D,

Chemical F 90% Chemical D,

10% Chemical F 250 278 lbs $ 10.00 $ 20.00 0 25 1 $ 2,800.00 Product U Pest V, Pest Y Chemical C 100% 150 200 gal $ 5.00 $ 20.00 10 25 2 $ 2,060.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Non Chemical Pest Control Target Pests Description Cost/ area Control P Pest J, Pest K $ 500.00 Total $ 5,360.00 Comments:

If you do not have the quantitative data for additional crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comment section.

OMB Control # Enter the cost per area in 2001 dollars. Col. M will be calculated automatically using the data you have entered for a chemical pest control, or, the formula in Col. M can be overridden if the cost per area is known because the product was custom applied Area Treated at Least Once Enter data near the bottom of the form. Identify the control in Col. A. Enter the target pests in Col. B. Describe the non chemical pest control Col. B L. Enter the costs in Col. M in 2001 dollars. # of Applications per Year Application Rate Formulation of Product Target Pests Active Ingredients ( ai) in Product Worksheet 3 B. Alternatives  Pest Control Regimen Costs for Alternative: Product X Enter the area receiving at least one application of the pesticide.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Enter all alternatives and non chemical pest control that would replace one treatment of methyl bromide throughout the fumigation cycle. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. If multiple crops are grown Be as specific as possible regarding the species or classes of pests controlled by the active ingredient or pesticide product.

Col. A: Name of Product and Non chemical Control If someone other than the applicant previously benefited from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

As a cross check, EPA is requesting both the amount of active ingredient in Col. E and product applied per area in Col. F. Indicate the unit of the product in Col. G.

Use 2001 prices and costs. If the product is custom applied you may enter the total cost in the last column ( Col. M) and override the formula. If a pesticide is applied by the user, enter the price of the product in Col. H and the cost of applying it in Name of Product Price per Unit of the Product Cost of Applying Pesticide per Area Other Costs per Application per area For EPA Use Only ID#

Control P is done 2 times per year according to ____ methods.

Use one row for each active ingredient ( ai). For example, if a product contains 2 ai's use 2 rows for that product. Once a row is completed for a given product, then only Col.

B ( if applicable), C, and E need to be completed for additional rows regardin Enter the number of applications in a fumigation cycle comparable to methyl bromide for this alternative pest control regimen. Since this number is an average, it does not need to be a whole number.

Enter the formulation or the % of active ingredient. Cost per Area ( 2001$)

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col. B: Price Factors Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Col. E: Price Col. F: Gross Revenue A B C D E F Crop/ Commodity Price Factors ( grade, time, market) Unit of Crop/ Commodity ( e. g., pounds, bushels) Crop/ Commodity Yield ( Units per area) Price ( per unit of crop/ commodity) Revenue ( per area) $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue $ 0.00 Comments:

OMB Control # Worksheet 3 C. Alternatives  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue for Alternativ [ Insert name of alternative]

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

In the electronic version, revenue is automatically calculated below using the data you entered for yield and price. If revenue is not equal to yield times price, you may override the formula and enter a different revenue amount. Please explain why this revenue amount is different in the comment section b l Enter the unit of measurement for your crop/ commodity.

Enter all crops/ commodities that can be grown/ treated during the same interval of time comprising a methyl bromide fumigation cycle. Please discuss changes in crop cycles resulting from alternative use in the comments. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle.

Enter in Col. B any factors that determine prices ( e. g., grade, time, market). If you received different prices for your crop/ commodity as a result of quality, grade, market ( e. g., fresh or processing), timing of harvest, etc., you may itemize by using more than one row. Itemize or aggregate these factors to the extent appropriate in making the case that the use of alternatives affects these price factors.

Enter the number of units of crop/ commodity produced per area for that price factor identified.

Enter the average 2001 prices received by the users for that crop/ commodity and price factor.

The purpose of this worksheet is to identify the gross revenue for units ( crop, commodity, structure) when using an alternative compared to gross revenue when using methyl bromide.

Postharvest and structural users may modify this form to accommodate differences in operations when providing gross revenue data.

Col. A: Crop/ Commodity If someone other than the applicant benefits from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col. A: Operation or Cost Item Col. B: Custom Operation Cost Col. C, D, E: Costs per Area Col. F: Typical Equipment Used A B C D E F Material Cost per Area Labor Cost per Area Total Cost per Area $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Custom per Area $ 0.00 User Total per area $ 0.00 Comments:

OMB Control #

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user .

Enter in Col. C and D, material and labor costs per area that change for operations done by user. The total cost per area is calculated automatically from the values you enter in Cols. C and D. Typical Equipment Used Operation Done by User [ Insert name of alternative]

Worksheet 3 D. Alternatives  Changes in Other Costs for Alternative:

Custom Operation Cost per Area Operation or Cost Item Enter data only for costs ( other than the cost of alternative pest control) that change as a result of using the alternatives instead of methyl bromide. Enter the whole cost, not just the incremental changes. Enter the cost in Col. B for custom operation costs, or in Col. C and D for operations done by user.

Identify changes in the typical equipment used by the user as a result of not using methyl bromide. Please be specific such as tractor horsepower. No cost data are required in this column.

Identify the operations or cost items that change as a result of not using methyl bromide.

Enter custom operation costs that change in Col. B. 1. Name of study:

2. Researcher( s):

3. Your test is planned for:

4. Location:

5. Name of alternative to be tested:

6. Yes No x 7.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Michigan 2002 2004 Professor of Weed Science, Michigan State University Telone II, Telone C 17, Telone C 35, Metham sodium, Metham sodium/ Telone combinations, idomethane Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research Education for Herbaceous Perennials, Woody Ornamentals and Vegetables in Michigan, New York, and Rhode Island George Bird, Professor of Nematology, Haddish Melakeberhan, Associate Professor of Nematology, and Bernard Zandstra Please describe future plans to test alternatives to methyl bromide. ( All available methyl bromide alternatives from the alternatives list should have been tested or have future tests planned.) There is no need to complete a separate worksheet for future research plans for each alternative  you may use this worksheet to describe all future research plans.

George Abawi, Professor of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, and Nathaniel Mitkowski, Assistant Professor of Plant Pathology, Univ. of Rhode Island Will crop yield be measured in the study? Halosulfuron, Flumioxazin, Sulfentrazone, Carfentrazone ; Cover crop and composting study, Additional trials associated with the UDSA project are being done with organic acids.

Screen two nematode biological control agents for use as methyl bromide alternatives in nursery production systems.

If additional testing is not planned, please explain why. ( For example, the available alternatives have been tested and found unsuitable, an alternative has been identified but is not yet registered for this crop, available alternatives are too expensive for this crop, etc.) For EPA Use Only ID#