1 2003 NOMINATION FOR A CRITICAL USE EXEMPTION FOR STRAWBERRIES FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1. Introduction In consultation with the co chair of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC), the United States ( U. S.) has organized this version of its Critical Use Exemption Nomination in a manner that would enable a holistic review of relevant information by each individual sector team reviewing the nomination for a specific crop or use. As a consequence, this nomination for strawberries, like the nomination for all other crops included in the U. S. request, includes general background information that the U. S. believes is critical to enabling review of our nomination in a manner that meets the requirements of the Parties' critical use decisions. With that understanding, the fully integrated U. S. nomination for strawberries follows.

2. Background In 1997, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adjusted Article 2H of the Protocol, and agreed to accelerate the reduction in the controlled production and consumption of methyl bromide. This adjustment included a provision calling for a phaseout of methyl bromide by the year 2005 " save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses." At the same time, the Parties adopted decision IX/ 6, the critical use exemption decision, which laid out the terms under which critical use exemptions under Article 2H would be granted.

3. Criteria for Critical Uses Under the Montreal Protocol In crafting Decision IX/ 6 outlining the criteria for a critical use exemption, the Parties recognized the significant differences between methyl bromide uses and uses of other ozone depleting chemicals previously given scrutiny under the Protocol's distinct and separate Essential Use exemption process. The United States believes that it is vitally important for the MBTOC to take into account the significant differences between the critical use exemption and the essential use exemption in the review of all methyl bromide critical use nominations.

During the debate leading up to the adoption of the critical use exemption Decision IX/ 6, an underlying theme voiced by many countries was that the Parties wanted to phase out methyl bromide, but not agriculture. This theme was given life in various provisions of the critical use exemption, and in the differences in approach taken between the critical use exemption and the essential use exemption. Those differences are outlined below.

The Protocol's negotiated criteria for the critical use exemptions for methyl bromide are much different from the criteria negotiated for " essential uses" for other chemicals.

Under the Essential Use provisions, in order to even be considered for an exemption, it was necessary for each proposed use to be " critical for health, safety or the functioning of society." This high threshold differs significantly from the criteria established for the methyl bromide Critical Use exemption. 2 Indeed, for methyl bromide, the Parties left it solely to the nominating governments to find that the absence of methyl bromide would create a significant market disruption.

For the U. S. nomination for strawberries, following detailed technical and economic review, the U. S. has determined that the level of methyl bromide being requested is critical to ensuring that there is no significant market disruption. The detailed analysis of technical and economic viability of the alternatives listed by MBTOC for use in growing strawberries is discussed later in this nomination.

In the case of methyl bromide, the Parties recognized many agricultural fumigants were inherently toxic, and therefore there was a strong desire not to replace one environmentally problematic chemical with another even more damaging.

The critical use exemption language explicitly requires that an alternative should not only be technically and economically feasible, it must also be acceptable from the standpoint of health and environment. This is particularly important given the fact that most chemical alternatives to methyl bromide are toxic, and some may pose risks to human health or the environment that are even greater than methyl bromide.

In the case of methyl bromide, the Parties recognized that evaluating, commercializing and securing national approval of alternatives and substitutes is a lengthy process.

In fact, even after an alternative is tested and found to work against some pests in a controlled setting, adequate testing in large scale commercial operations can take many cropping seasons before the viability of the alternative can be adequately assessed from the standpoint of the climate and soil for various potential users. In addition, the process of securing national and sub national approval of alternatives may require extensive analysis of environmental consequences and toxicology. The average time for the national review of scientific information in support of a new pesticide, starting from the date of submission to registration, is approximately 38 months. In most cases, the company submitting the information has spent approximately 7 10 years developing the toxicity and environmental data necessary to support the registration request.

The Parties to the Protocol recognized that unlike other chemicals controlled under the Montreal Protocol, the use of methyl bromide and available alternatives could be site specific and must take into account the particular needs of the user.

The Essential Use exemption largely assumed that an alternative used in one place could, if approved by the government, be used everywhere. Parties clearly understood that this was not the case with methyl bromide because of the large number of variables involved, such as crop type, soil types, pest pressure and local climate. That is why the methyl bromide Critical Use exemption calls for an examination of the feasibility of the alternative from the standpoint of the user, and in the context of the specific circumstances of the nomination, including use and geographic location. In order to effectively implement this last, very important provision, we believe it is critical for MBTOC reviewers to understand the unique nature of U. S. agriculture, as well as U. S. efforts to minimize the use of methyl bromide, to research alternatives, and to register alternatives for methyl bromide.

4. U. S. Consideration/ Preparation of the Critical Use Exemption for Strawberry Work on the U. S. critical use exemption process began in early 2001. At that time, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA) initiated open meetings with stakeholders both to inform 3 them of the Protocol requirements and to understand the issues being faced in researching alternatives to methyl bromide. During those meetings, which were attended by State and association officials representing thousands of methyl bromide users, the provisions of the critical use exemption Decision IX/ 6 were reviewed in detail, and questions were taken. The feedback from these initial meetings led to efforts by the U. S. to have the Protocol Parties establish international norms for the details to be in submissions and to facilitate standardization for a fair and adequate review. These efforts culminated in decision XIII/ 11 which calls for specific information to be presented in the nomination.

Upon return from the Sri Lanka meeting of the Parties, the U. S. took a three track approach to the critical use process. First, we worked to develop a national application form that would ensure that we had the information necessary to answer all of the questions posed in decision XIII/ 11. At the same time, we initiated sector specific meetings. This included meetings with representatives of strawberry growers across the U. S. to discuss their specific issues, and to enable them to understand the newly detailed requirements of the critical use application. These sector meetings allowed us to fine tune the application so we could submit the required information to the MBTOC in a meaningful fashion.

Finally, and concurrent with our preparation phase, we developed a plan to ensure a robust and timely review of any and all critical use applications we might receive. This involved the assembly of more than 45 PhDs and other qualified reviewers with expertise in both biological and economic issues. These experts were divided into interdisciplinary teams to enable primary and secondary reviewers for each application/ crop. As a consequence, each nomination received by the U. S. was reviewed by two separate teams. In addition, the review of these interdisciplinary teams was put to a broader review of experts on all other sector teams to enable a third look at the information, and to ensure consistency in review between teams. The result was a thorough evaluation of the merits of each request. A substantial portion of requests did not meet the criteria of decision IX/ 6, and a strong case for those that did meet the criteria has been included.

Following our technical review, discussions were held with senior risk management personnel of the U. S. government to go over the recommendations and put together a draft package for submission to the parties. As a consequence of all of this work, it is safe to say that each of the sector specific nominations being submitted is the work of well over 150 experts both in and outside of the U. S. government.

5. Overview of Agricultural Production 5a. U. S. Agriculture The U. S. is fortunate to have a large land expanse, productive soils and a variety of favorable agricultural climates. These factors enable the U. S. to be a uniquely large and productive agricultural producer. Indeed, the size and scope of farming in the U. S. is different than in most countries. Specifically, in 2001, U. S. farm land totaled 381 million hectares, a land area larger than the size of many entire countries. There were 2.16 million farms, with average farm size across all farms of 176 hectares ( approximately 10 times larger than average farm size in the European Union). The availability of land and the fact that so many U. S. regions are conducive to outdoor cultivation of fruits and vegetables have had an important impact on the way agriculture has developed. Specifically, these factors have meant that greenhouse production has generally proven to be very costly ( in relative terms) and has, as a consequence, been limited. 4 Other factors also affected the general development of agriculture in the U. S. While land for farming is widely available, labor is generally more expensive and less plentiful. As a result, the U. S. developed a unique brand of highly mechanized farming practices that are highly reliant on pesticides such as methyl bromide and other non labor inputs. The extent of mechanization and reliance on non labor inputs can be best demonstrated by noting the very low levels of labor inputs on U. S. farms. In 2001, only 2.05 workers operated the 2.16 million U. S. farms, with help from less than 1 million hired workers.

U. S. agriculture is also unique in terms of the broad range of crops produced. For example, the fruit and vegetable sector, the agricultural sector most reliant on methyl bromide, is diverse and includes production of 107 separate fruit and vegetable commodities or groups of commodities. With this diversity, however, has come a large number of pest problems that methyl bromide has proven uniquely able to address.

Finally, the above factors have contributed to a harvest of commodities that has enabled the U. S. to meet not only its needs, but also the needs of many other countries. The U. S. produced 88.3 million metric tonnes of fruits and vegetables in 2001, up 10 percent from 1990. At the same time, the land area planted in fruits and vegetables has remained stable and individual farm size increased as the number of farms has fallen. The related yield increases per land area are almost exclusively related to non labor inputs, like the adoption of new varieties, and the application of new production practices, including plastic mulches, row covers, high density planting, more effective pesticides, and drip irrigation, as well as improved irrigation practices. Optimization of yields through these and other scientific and mechanized practices make U. S. agricultural output very sensitive to changes in inputs. Therefore, as evidenced by the U. S. nomination for critical uses of methyl bromide, the phaseout of methyl bromide can have a very significant impact on both the technical and economic viability of production of certain crops in certain areas.

5b. U. S. Strawberry Production Strawberries are an extremely important crop in the U. S. In terms of the value of production, strawberries are the fourth highest fruit crop. Although strawberries are one of the most expensive crops for growers to produce, with total costs per hectare exceeding US$ 37,000, the high value per hectare for harvested strawberries typically makes the investment worthwhile to the grower. In the eastern U. S. and Florida the primary pest problems are nematodes and perennial and annual weeds. In the western U. S. the primary pest problems are disease and nematodes.

U. S. strawberry production exemplifies many of the characteristics of U. S. agriculture noted above. First, the strawberry industry is large in the United States  in dollar terms, it is about a billion dollar a year industry. Second, like many other U. S. crops, it has a significant export component. Third, it relies on mechanized production practices. Strawberries are widely grown in the U. S. with several major production centers that differ significantly in soil and climatic conditions. This nomination covers methyl bromide use in three major strawberry production areas   California, Florida, and states in the southeastern U. S.

California. California produces more than 80 percent of the fresh market and processed strawberries grown in the U. S. Productivity is very high ( only 50 percent of the total U. S. strawberry area is in California). Bearing strawberries are grown on approximately 8,900 to 10,100 hectares per year in California with an average production of 680,400,000 kilograms and an estimated annual value of US$ 5 750 million. California produces about 20 percent of the world's strawberries. Most strawberries exported from California go to Canada, Japan, and Mexico.

California has two distinct strawberry production areas. The southern region produces both fresh ( 63 percent) and processed ( 37 percent) strawberries. The northern region includes both rotated and non rotated strawberry production regimes, with each producing fresh ( 84 percent) and processed ( 16 percent) strawberries. The majority of growers are farming between 4 and 20 hectares of land with strawberry fields in rotation. Because strawberry production in California is concentrated in a small geographic location due to optimal growing conditions, factors that affect this small area can be significant. An example of this, which is discussed later in this chapter, is the regulatory limit on the amount of 1,3 dichloropropene ( Telone) that can be used in each township ( i. e., 36 square mile area, approximately 95 square km) in California.

California strawberry producing operations are mostly in either the largest or the smallest sales category. The largest farms ( more than US$ 500,000 in sales) averaged 98 hectares of cropland and the smallest ( less than US$ 10,000 in sales) averaged only 1.6 hectares of cropland. There is a wide range in size of strawberry production areas on U. S. farms, varying from and average of 32 hectares for the large farms to 0.8 hectares for the smallest farms.

Depending on the region, California strawberries are planted in the Summer or Fall. Prior to planting, fumigation is typically performed on flat ground over the entire surface of the field. Immediately after fumigation the field is covered with plastic. At the end of the fumigation period, the plastic is removed and planting beds are formed and covered with fresh plastic. Strawberry plants are transplanted about two weeks after fumigation to ensure that no phytotoxic levels of methyl bromide remain. Harvest begins about 2 to 3 months later. At the end of the first harvest, the strawberry plants are removed and the field is readied for the next crop. Rotational crops that are planted after strawberries, and that benefit from the previous use of methyl bromide include broccoli, celery, lettuce, radish, leeks, and artichokes.

Florida. Florida is the second largest strawberry producing state with 12 percent of the total U. S. production. Nearly all of the domestically produced strawberries harvested in the winter are grown in Florida. Approximately 2,428 hectares are in production each year in Florida resulting in 76,204,800 kilograms of fresh berries valued in excess of US$ 118.6 million.

Approximately 90 percent of Florida's commercial strawberry production area is located in Hillsborough County with the remainder in several other counties. Like those in California, the Florida strawberry producing operations are mostly in either the largest or the smallest sales category. The largest farms ( more than US$ 500,000 in sales) averaged 160 hectares of total cropland and the smallest ( less than US$ 10,000 in sales) averaged only 1.2 hectares of total cropland. The area in strawberries averaged 20 hectares for the large farms and 0.8 hectares for the smallest farms.

Strawberries are grown as an annual crop in Florida using a raised bed system. Methyl bromide in combination with chloropicrin is applied to the soil during construction of the raised beds approximately two weeks prior to planting transplants. Immediately after application, the bed is covered with plastic mulch. Drip or overhead irrigation is used to help establish plants, irrigate plants, and to protect the plants from frost. Many strawberry growers utilize the beds and drip tubes to grow a second crop, such as cucurbits or solanaceous crops. 6 Eastern U. S. The Eastern U. S. strawberry industry is highly de centralized and primarily consists of small family farms with several hectares of strawberries that are directly marketed through U pick, ready pick, roadside stands, and farmers markets. Approximately 90 percent of the farms are less than 4 hectares. The farmgate value of the 36,665,088 kilograms of strawberries sold by farmers in the nine eastern states represented is approximately US$ 83 million.

Strawberry production in the eastern states differs from that in Florida because of soils type ( Florida typically has sandy soils; eastern soils are heavier); topography ( Florida has much karst topography; much less common in other states), climate ( very mild winters in Florida), farm size ( farms are larger in Florida), and marketing practices ( Florida is typically commercial compared to small U pick operations). In the Eastern U. S., the vast majority of the strawberry farms use an annual cropping plasticulture production system where the berries are grown on raised beds, similar to Florida strawberry production. Planting time is similar to Florida, but the production peak occurs later in the season, between April and May. The texture of about 50 percent of the soils is finer than sandy loam. Nutsedge is a primary pest on about 40 percent of the land which typically has coarse textured soils. Some double cropping of beds occurs.

Given the value of strawberries, the U. S. put a great deal of effort into researching this sector and into preparing this nomination for a critical use exemption for those areas for which alternatives to methyl bromide are not currently available.

6. Results of Review  Determined Need for Methyl Bromide in the Production of Strawberry 6a. Target Pests Controlled with Methyl Bromide U. S. strawberry production is affected by a large number of pests. Pests of particular concern include black root rot ( Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp.), crown rot ( Phytophthora cactorum), root knot nematode ( Meloidogyne spp.), sting nematode ( Belonolaimus spp.), yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus), purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus), ryegrass, and winter annual weeds.

The prevalence and the severity of these pests differ significantly between growing regions and depend on local environmental conditions. For example, nematode pressure may be more severe in sandy soils and plant diseases are likely to occur more frequently in humid environments. In California, diseases such as phytophthora, rhizoctonia, and pythium; nematodes such as sting and rootknot; and weeds such as common purslane, chickweed, mallow, and stinging nettle are the most severe pests. In Florida, the key diseases are black root rot, fruit and crown rot; the key nematodes are sting and rootknot, and key weeds are purple and yellow nutsedge, ryegrass, anthracnose, and phytophthora. In the eastern U. S. states, the key diseases are black root rot; root knot is the key nematode pest; and purple and yellow nutsedge are the key weed pests.

Nutsedge. Yellow and purple nutsedge ( Cyperus spp.) pressure is much greater in Florida and the eastern states than in California. Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus L.) and purple nutsedge Cyperus rotundus L.) are perennial species of the Cyperacea family that are widely recognized for their economic impact in agriculture. Purple nutsedge is considered the worst weed in the world due to its widespread distribution and difficult control ( Holm et al. 1977). Nutsedge is considered a weed in at least 92 countries and is reported to be infesting at least 52 different crops. Yellow nutsedge is listed among the top fifteen worst weeds. Yellow nutsedge is found throughout the continental U. S. Purple nutsedge is primarily found in the coastal southern U. S. and along the Pacific coast in California and Oregon. A 7 survey conducted in Georgia ranked the nutsedge as the most troublesome weeds in vegetable crops ( there are more 30 vegetable crops grown in Georgia) ( Webster et al. 2001).

Nutsedge is propagated by tubers formed along underground rhizomes and corms. The parent tuber could be a tuber or a corm from the previous generation. During tillage of the soil, the underground stems are broken and new plants are established from either single or chains of tubers or corms. A single plant is capable of producing 1,200 new tubers within 25 weeks ( Gilreath et al. 1999). Each tuber is capable of sprouting several times ( Thullen et al. 1975). Tuber populations between 1,000 and 8,700 per/ m2 have been reported for purple nutsedge ( Gamini et al. 1987). Nutsedge is very difficult to eradicate once it is established because of dormancy factors in the tubers and their ability to survive an array of adverse conditions for long periods of time. Nutsedge species are strong competitors with most vegetable crops for water and nutrients and can reduce crop yields at low plant densities.

Purple and yellow nutsedge are serious problems in polyethylene film mulch production systems. Most weeds are controlled by polyethylene films, but nutsedges are able to penetrate the plastic films, and actively compete with the crops causing yield losses reported between 41 to 89 percent ( Patterson, 1998). There are very few herbicides that control nutsedge.

6b. Overview of Technical and Economic Assessment of Alternatives Strawberry growers rely on fumigation with methyl bromide/ chloropicrin within the full bed, plastic mulch production system to control soil borne diseases and pests. There has been extensive research on alternatives for the sector, and where possible, many alternatives and/ or useful cultural practices have been incorporated into the standard practices used in the sector. However, the effectiveness of chemical and non chemical alternatives designed to fully replace methyl bromide must still be characterized as uncertain. These alternatives have not been shown to be stand alone replacements for methyl bromide. Methyl bromide is believed to be the only treatment currently available that consistently provides reliable control of nutsedge species and the disease complex affecting strawberry production.

Hand Weeding. This practice is not technically feasible in strawberries because of the reproductive strategy of some difficult to control perennial weeds such as nutsedge. Sedges reproduce through below ground tubers or nutlets. When a sedge plant is removed by hand the 10 to 30 tubers, which grow 2 to 30 cm ( 1 to 12 inches) below ground, will rapidly produce new plants. Therefore, hand weeding can lead to a rapid 10 to 30 fold increase in weeds. In addition, those sedges that germinate under the plastic mulch cannot be removed by hand without damaging the plastic and reducing its effectiveness in excluding weeds, insects, and pathogens.

Hand weeding strawberries is not a desirable practice for controlling nutsedge. First, it is feasible only in the bare ground between rows of plants which are in plastic mulch. But more importantly, hand weeding may actually exacerbate the weed problem. The practice may seem effective in the short term, but is extremely risky and can significantly compromise the viability of a strawberry field. Hand weeding nutsedge is likely to produce a large number of small pieces of underground reproductive structures. These structures are capable of emerging later as individual plants resulting in a nutsedge infestation greater in magnitude than the original problem. Ironically, then, hand weeding strawberry fields can produce a cascading effect which results in progressively worse nutsedge infestations over time 8 6c. Technical Feasibility of In Kind ( Chemical) Alternatives Table 1 presents a list of the " in kind" methyl bromide alternatives identified by the MBTOC for strawberry fruit production.

Table 1. In kind Methyl Bromide Alternatives Identified by MBTOC for Strawberry Fruit Production. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Technically Feasible Economically Feasible 1,3 Dichloropropene ( 1,3 D, Telone ) No No 1,3 Dichloropropene/ Chloropicrin Yes* Yes** 1,3 Dichloropropene/ Chloropicrin/ Metam sodium Yes* Yes**

Basamid Not registered for use in U. S. Basamid/ Chloropicrin Not registered for use in U. S. Chloropicrin No No Metam sodium No No Metam sodium/ Chloropicrin No No Methyl Iodide Not registered for use in U. S.

* These alternatives are technically feasible only in areas of light nutsedge infestation. ** These alternatives are economically feasible only in areas of light nutsedge infestation.

1,3 Dichloropropene ( 1,3 D, Telone). 1,3 Dichloropropene, by itself, is not a technically feasible alternative because it does not control nutsedge and other weeds. It does however, provide good nematode control and moderate control of some diseases. The use of this chemical would require application of a fungicide and a herbicide that is effective for nutsedge to reach the same level of control that is provided by methyl bromide. Failure to control the primary fungal pathogens and weed seeds in the soil would most likely lead to increased disease and weed pressure over time.

Requirements for buffers and Personal Protective Equipment ( PPE) may make it impractical to adopt 1,3 dichloropropene. The 91 meter ( 300 feet) buffer requirement would be particularly constraining on smaller fields in predominantly urban fringe areas. For small strawberry farms in the Eastern U. S., the 1,3 dichloropropene buffer requirements eliminate a great amount of the area around the field perimeter which impacts the total area available for strawberry production. Additionally, the 1,3 dichloropropene PPE requirements ( which include protective suits) limit the operations that require workers to be in the field. The hot and humid weather in Florida and other southern states presents a health risk, from possible heat exhaustion and heat stroke, to field workers when they are wearing all of the required PPE.

Other constraints on the use of 1,3 dichloropropene include increased pre planting intervals. The reason for increased pre planting intervals is that 1,3 dichloropropene persists longer in the soil than methyl bromide and growers must wait longer after fumigation to put the strawberry transplants in the ground. This forces growers to delay planting and to modify and/ or extend their production schedule which ultimately has a cascading effect on other things such as cultivar options, Integrated Pest Management ( IPM) practices, timing of fruit harvest, marketing window options, land leasing decisions, and subsequent crop rotation schedules. Growers that lease land for rotation into vegetable production could experience extra expenditures for land rent, shorter intervals between 9 crops that may make it impossible to practice crop rotation, and a yield and/ or quality reduction in the vegetable crops that are produced.

In California, 1,3 dichloropropene is not being used alone and is not considered technically feasible because it does not adequately control diseases and weeds. Research with 1,3 dichloropropene in California has primarily been performed in combination with other fumigant chemicals. Hence, there is limited strawberry yield data available for use of 1,3 dichloropropene alone. Research results indicate that the use of registered rates of 1,3 dichloropropene result in yield losses that can be as high as 35 percent of those resulting when a combination of methyl bromide and chloropicrin is used. When higher, unregistered rates of 1,3 dichloropropene were used in research trials, the yield loses decreased to 11 percent. Shank applied 1,3 dichloropropene requires a 30 meter ( 100 feet) buffer zone the first year it is applied, and a 91 meter ( 300 foot) buffer zone for the next two years. Also, in California, the use of this product in strawberry production areas is limited because of the state regulations regarding township caps, as previously described above. Regulatory constraints on 1,3 dichloropropene products impact approximately two thirds of California's strawberry production area when this product is not available as an alternative fumigant.

In Florida and in other eastern states, 1,3 dichloropropene alone is not technically feasible because it does not provide effective control of disease and nutsedge. In Florida use of 1,3 dichloropropene is prohibited in areas characterized by karst topography because of potential drinking water contamination. In other eastern states that have a preponderance of small strawberry fields, the regulatory requirements for buffers for 1,3 dichloropropene means that only a small portion of a farm's central area can be used, since buffer requirements establish such a large perimeter ( 90 percent of the farms are smaller than 4 hectares).

1,3 Dichloropropene/ Chloropicrin. The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin is considered technically feasible as an alternative in certain circumstances. 1,3 dichloropropene is used primarily as a nematicide, and chloropicrin supplies good disease control, but poor nematode and weed control. Together, the combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin provide good nematicidal and fungicidal capabilities, but would still require a herbicide partner to control weeds such as nutsedge.

Sequential application of each one of these chemicals requires significantly more time than using methyl bromide alone since growers must wait longer after fumigation to put the strawberry transplants in the ground. The PPE and buffer concerns mentioned above for the use of 1,3 dichloropropene alone are magnified when chloropicrin is added to the fumigation process. The same buffer and PPE issues exist, but growers have an even longer planting delay of several weeks, which will extend their production schedule. This directly impacts cultivar options, IPM practices, timing of fruit harvest, marketing window options, land leasing decisions, and subsequent crop rotation schedules. As previously mentioned, growers that lease land for rotation into vegetable production could experience extra expenditures for land rent, shorter intervals between crops that may make it impossible to practice crop rotation, and yield and/ or quality reduction in the vegetable crops that are produced.

California This alternative is being used in California on a limited basis and is technically feasible provided that an adequate means of weed control is used in addition to this chemical combination. Weed control with combinations of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin was improved with use of VIF ( virtually impermeable film) in combination with InLine, an emulsified formulation of 1,3 10 dichloropropene plus chloropicrin. However, this combination does not control weeds in the row centers and failure to control weed seeds in soil is likely to increase weed pressure over time. There have also been reports of phytotoxicity on strawberry observed with use of the InLine formulation. Yield estimates based on research results from IR 4 trials on strawberries in California with InLine did not differ from yields obtained with a combination of methyl bromide and chloropicrin. Based on these results, a yield loss is not anticipated with use of this chemical combination under similar pest conditions.

Buffer requirements, longer pre plant intervals, and PPE requirements for 1,3 D make using 1,3 D infeasible for growers in some circumstances. Shank applied 1,3 dichloropropene requires a 30 meter ( 100 feet) buffer zone the first year it is applied, and a 91 meter ( 300 feet) buffer zone for the next two years. Also, in California, the use of this product in strawberry production areas is limited because of the state regulations regarding township caps, as previously described above. Regulatory constraints on 1,3 dichloropropene products impact approximately two thirds of California's strawberry production areas when this product is not available as an alternative fumigant.

Chloropicrin has been determined to be a toxic air contaminant by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. This compound may be subject to future regulatory constraints, including increased buffer zones. Effective rates for chloropicrin of 228 kilograms per hectare or greater are prohibited or strongly discouraged for both shank and drip applications of this product. Products containing chloropicrin cannot be applied through PVC pipe because of the corrosive nature of this chemical. Workers have also reported concerns about eye and lung irritation when applying chloropicrin.

Florida The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin is already being used in Florida on a limited basis and is technically feasible in areas of light nutsedge pressure. However, it is probable that extensive hand weeding would be necessary in areas with high nutsedge pressure, and, as discussed above, although hand weeding can suppress nutsedge in the short term, over the longer term it is likely to severely increase the nutsedge pressure as the plant proliferate from the reproductive material left behind. Data associated with 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin combinations show a range of yield loses from 0 percent to 25 percent compared to strawberry fruit production using methyl bromide.

Additionally, this alternative is not being extensively used in Florida because of the concerns with buffers, PPE requirements, and pre planting intervals. Also, use of 1,3 dichloropropene in Florida is prohibited in areas characterized by karst topography because of groundwater contamination. Research suggests that when chloropicrin is mixed with other chemicals at a level higher than 35 percent and applied at typical rates, it can increase vegetative growth at the expense of strawberry fruit production. When 1,3 dichloropropene is used in combination with chloropicrin, growers experience limited flexibility in scheduling fumigation operations. This is very important in Florida where rain storms can deposit too much water on the strawberry beds or completely wash out the beds. This causes delays in fumigation and planting. Growers may be forced to set all of their transplants out at one time instead of spacing out the plantings so that they don't have to harvest all the berries at one time. This could also eliminate the planting and harvest of early cultivars, which are often the cultivars of great demand and high value in the strawberry market. Also, delays in planting often decrease the yield and quality of the fruit. 11 Eastern U. S. 1,3 Dichloropropene and chloropicrin combinations are already being used in the Eastern U. S. on a limited basis. This combination, however, is technically feasible only where nutsedge is not prevalent, which is approximately 60 percent of the area. Therefore, an effective companion herbicide is needed for the remaining 40 percent where nutsedge is a problem. The yield loss estimate associated with 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin combinations is typically 5 percent, with a range from 0 percent to 60 percent compared to strawberry fruit production with methyl bromide. The eastern U. S. growers can also experience the same weather related delays and concerns as the growers in Florida.

1,3 Dichloropropene/ Chloropicrin/ Metam sodium. The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene, chloropicrin and metam sodium is deemed to be a technically feasible alternative to methyl bromide, requiring a companion herbicide ( or hand weeding). 1,3 dichloropropene is a good nematicide and chloropicrin is a good fungicide. Metam sodium provides moderate but unpredictable disease, nematode, and weed control since it suffers from erratic efficacy, most likely due to irregular distribution of the product through soil. The combination of the three chemicals would still require a companion herbicide ( or hand weeding).

Sequential application of each one of these chemicals requires significantly more time than using methyl bromide alone since growers must wait longer after fumigation to put the strawberry transplants in the ground. The concerns mentioned above for the combined use of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin are magnified when metam sodium is added to the fumigation process. The same buffer and PPE issues exist, but growers have a greater planting delay for several weeks, which will extend their production schedule. This directly impacts cultivar options, IPM practices, timing of fruit harvest, marketing window options, land leasing decisions, and subsequent crop rotation schedules. As previously mentioned, growers that lease land for rotation into vegetable production could experience extra expenditures for land rent, shorter intervals between crops that may make it impossible to practice crop rotation, and yield and/ or quality reduction in the vegetable crops that are produced. Also, this combination would be subject to all of the regulatory issues previously mentioned for 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin, such as township caps in California and buffers and PPE restrictions.

California. The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene, chloropicrin and metam sodium is not being used, but is technically feasible. Yield loss estimates based on research results from IR 4 trials performed on strawberries in California with InLine ( 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin), and an additional application of metam sodium, did not differ from yields obtained with a combination of methyl bromide and chloropicrin. Based on these results, a yield loss is not anticipated with use of this chemical combination under similar pest conditions.

Buffer requirements, longer pre plant intervals, and PPE requirements for 1,3 dichloropropene make using this alternative infeasible for growers in some circumstances. Shank applied 1,3 dichloropropene requires a 30 meter ( 100 feet) buffer zone the first year it is applied, and a 91 meter ( 300 feet) buffer zone for the next two years. Also, in California, the use of this product in strawberry production areas is limited because of the state regulations regarding township caps, as previously described above. Regulatory constraints on 1,3 dichloropropene products impact approximately two thirds of California's strawberry production areas when this product is not available as an alternative fumigant. 12 Chloropicrin has been determined to be a toxic air contaminant by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. This compound may be subject to future regulatory constraints, including increased buffer zones. Effective rates for chloropicrin of 228 kilograms per hectare or greater are prohibited or strongly discouraged for both shank and drip applications of this product. Products containing chloropicrin cannot be applied through PVC pipe because of the corrosive nature of this chemical. Workers have also expressed concerns about eye and lung irritation when applying chloropicrin.

Florida. The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene, chloropicrin, and metam sodium is not currently being used, but is technically feasible in the short term when combined with hand weeding. However, it is probable that extensive hand weeding would be necessary in areas with high nutsedge pressure, which would then exacerbate the nutsedge problem. We are unaware of any research for this combination of chemicals in these regions, but data associated with 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin combinations show a range of yield loses from 0 to 25 percent compared to strawberry fruit production using methyl bromide.

Additionally, this alternative is not being used in Florida because of the concerns with buffers, PPE requirements, and pre planting intervals. Also, use of 1,3 dichloropropene in Florida is prohibited in areas characterized by karst topography because of groundwater contamination. Research suggests that when chloropicrin is mixed with other chemicals at a level higher than 35 percent, and applied at typical rates, it can increase vegetative growth at the expense of strawberry fruit production. When 1,3 dichloropropene is used in combination with chloropicrin, growers experience limited flexibility in scheduling fumigation operations. This is very important in Florida since growers often experience bad weather where rain storms can deposit too much water on the strawberry beds or completely wash out the beds. This causes delays in fumigation and planting. Growers may be forced to set all of their transplants out at one time instead of spacing out the plantings so that they don't have to harvest all the berries at one time. This could also eliminate the planting and harvest of early cultivars, which are often the cultivars of great demand and high value in the strawberry market. Also, delays in planting often decrease the yield and quality of the fruit.

Eastern U. S. The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene, chloropicrin, and metam sodium is not currently being used in the Eastern U. S., but it is technically feasible when combined with hand weeding. Since nutsedge is present at moderately high to high levels on approximately 40 to 60 percent of the area, an effective companion herbicide is needed for the area where nutsedge is a problem. We are unaware of any research for this combination of chemicals in these regions, but the yield loss estimate associated with 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin combinations is typically 5 percent, with a range from 0 percent to 60 percent, compared to strawberry fruit production with methyl bromide. The eastern U. S. growers can also experience the same weather related delays and concerns as the growers in Florida. Basamid. Basamid is not registered in the U. S. for strawberry fruit production.

Basamid and Chloropicrin. Basamid is not registered in the U. S. for strawberry fruit production.

Chloropicrin. Chloropicrin, alone, is not a technically feasible alternative because it provides poor nematode and weed control, although it provides good disease control. The failure to control nematodes and weeds in soil could lead to increased pest pressure over time ( See 1,3 Dichloropropene/ chloropicrin and 1,3 Dichloropropene/ chloropicrin/ metam sodium for additional information). 13 California. Chloropicrin is not technically feasible in California because it does not show significant activity against nematodes or weeds. Although research of chloropicrin alone produced some of the best yields compared to a methyl bromide/ chloropicrin combination, large yield losses were shown to occur after several years. Multi year studies using chloropicrin alone have been conducted on fields previously fumigated with methyl bromide and demonstrated increasing yield losses as the pest pressures rebound from the methyl bromide suppressed level. The data show yield loss estimates for chloropicrin alone compared to methyl bromide as being 2.2 percent the first year, 10.6 percent for the second year, and 13.7 percent in the third year. Other trials indicate that use of chloropicrin alone can provide adequate control of soilborne pathogens in locations without significant nematode or weed pressure. However, this control of pathogens has often been accomplished using rates of chloropicrin that are strongly discouraged, if not illegal, in the state of California.

Florida. Chloropicrin alone is not technically feasible in Florida because it does not control nematodes and weeds. The pre plant intervals with chloropicrin cause growers to experience limited flexibility in scheduling fumigation operations. This is very important in Florida since growers often experience rain storms which deposit too much water on the strawberry beds or completely wash out the beds. This causes delays in fumigation and planting. Growers may be forced to set all of their transplants out at one time instead of spacing out the plantings so that they don't have to harvest all the berries at one time. This could also eliminate the planting and harvest of early cultivars, which are often the cultivars of great demand and high value in the strawberry market. Also, delays in planting often decrease the yield and quality of the fruit.

Eastern U. S. Chloropicrin alone is not technically feasible in the Eastern U. S. because it does not control nematodes and weeds. Since nutsedge is present at moderately heavy to heavy levels on approximately 40 to 60 percent of the area, an effective companion herbicide is needed for the areas where nutsedge is a significant problem. The eastern U. S. growers can also experience the same weather related delays and concerns as the growers in Florida. However, in finer textured soils where nutsedge and nematodes are not typically as problematic, chloropicrin has shown promising yields. Two years of trials at one site, and one year at a second site, resulted in yields with a 10 percent loss. Workers did report eye and lung irritation and there were concerns about drift to adjacent neighborhoods.

Metam sodium. Metam sodium alone is not technically feasible because it provides unpredictable disease, nematode, and weed control. Metam sodium suffers from erratic efficacy most likely due to irregular distribution of the product through soil. ( See 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin/ metam sodium for additional information.)

California. Metam sodium alone is not technically feasible in California because it has limited activity against soilborne pathogens in strawberry fields. Failure to adequately control the primary fungal pathogens in soil could lead to increased disease pressure over time. However, metam sodium has some activity against important weeds, and is effective against damaging forms of nematodes in soil. Application of fumigants by drip fumigation will result in subsequent increased disease pressure in the rotated vegetable crops or inability to rotate land into vegetables which could result in increased pathogen pressure in subsequent strawberry crops. 14 An average yield loss of 21 percent was reported from 26 research trials where strawberry transplants were fumigated with metam sodium alone in nursery beds. This point estimate from research studies removed tests where the untreated control did not differ in yield from the methyl bromide plus chloropicrin treatment, which indicates a lack of disease pressure in the test field. The actual range of yield change in the extensive studies on metam sodium on strawberries in California was a reduction of 52 percent to a gain of 10 percent. Growers will experience the same application, crop rotation, and plant back interval issues as discussed above in the discussion about 1,3 dichloropropene / chloropicrin / metam sodium.

Florida. Metam sodium is not technically feasible in Florida because it does not consistently control weeds and soilborne pathogens. In Florida, nutsedge control is vital for strawberry fruit production. Several studies by various researchers have failed to produce consistent and/ or adequate efficacy results. Yield losses have ranged from 10 percent to 50 percent.

Eastern U. S. Metam sodium is not technically feasible in the Eastern U. S. because it does not consistently control weeds and soilborne pathogens. Studies by various researchers have failed to produce consistent and/ or adequate efficacy. However, in trials in the eastern U. S. with relatively low disease or nutsedge pressure, metam has provided results comparable to methyl bromide in multi year trials. Yield losses can range between 0 percent to 20 percent.

Metam sodium and Chloropicrin. The combination of metam sodium and chloropicrin is not a technically feasible alternative because together they do not consistently control diseases, nematodes, and weeds. Metam sodium provides only moderate, unpredictable disease, nematode, and weed control. Metam sodium's erratic efficacy is most likely due to irregular distribution of the product through the soil. Chloropicrin supplies good disease control, but poor nematode and weed control. Failure to adequately control the nematode and weeds in soil could lead to increased pressure over time ( See discussion above for additional information on constraints for these two chemicals).

California. The combination of metam sodium and chloropicrin is not being used and is not technically feasible. Research has shown that there is as little as 2 percent yield loss in trials performed on land previously fumigated with methyl bromide. However, because fumigation with methyl bromide reduces pests pressure to extremely low levels which then recover over successive years in which methyl bromide is not used, it is likely that yield losses would increase in successive years to mirror those found in studies with chloropicrin alone. These could be as high as 13.7 percent by the third year. These compounds cannot be applied at the same time, requiring at least a 5 day interval between applications, further extending field preparation time and an already excessive plant back interval of 28 days compared to a much shorter interval for methyl bromide. See 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin and 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin/ metam sodium for additional information.

Florida and the Southeast U. S. As in California, this alternative combination is not being used and is not technically feasible.

Methyl Iodide. Methyl iodide ( iodomethane) is not currently registered in the U. S. for strawberry fruit production. Several researchers continue to get exemptions to test this promising alternative. Like methyl bromide, this chemical can be drip applied. Preliminary research has shown occasional phytotoxicity symptoms. 15 6d. Economic Feasibility of In Kind ( Chemical) Alternatives The most economically feasible alternative to methyl bromide is the combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin, but this combination is only technically feasible in areas of light to moderate nutsedge pressure where regulatory constraints do not limit the use of 1,3 dichloropropene. In these circumstances this alternative regime is economically feasible, because the additional cost of this alternative is minor. In the eastern U. S. and Florida, the pest pressures, particularly nutsedge, are more severe and this alternative is not viable.

The economic assessment of feasibility for pre plant uses of methyl bromide, such as for strawberries, included an evaluation of economic losses from three basic sources: ( 1) yield losses, referring to reductions in the quantity produced, ( 2) quality losses, which generally affect the price received for the goods, and ( 3) increased production costs, which may be due to the higher cost of using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/ or resulting shifts in other production or harvesting practices.

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

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

( 2) Absolute losses per hectare. For crops, this measure is closely tied to income. It is relatively easy to measure, but may be difficult to interpret in isolation.

( 3) Losses per kilogram of methyl bromide requested. This measure indicates the value of methyl bromide to crop production but is also useful for structural and post harvest uses.

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

( 5) Changes in profit margins. We define profit margin to be profits as a percentage of gross revenues, where profits are gross revenues minus all fixed and operating costs. This measure would provide the best indication of the total impact of the loss of methyl bromide to an enterprise. Again, operating costs may be difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult.

These measures represent different ways to assess the economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide users, who are strawberry producers in this case. Because producers ( suppliers) represent an integral part of any definition of a market, we interpret the threshold of significant market disruption to be met if there is a significant impact on commodity suppliers using methyl bromide. The economic measures provide the basis for making that determination. 16 Yield loss estimates based on research results from IR 4 trials performed on strawberries in California with both Telone InLine ( a formulation of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin) and also with Telone InLine with an additional application of metam sodium did not differ from yields obtained with a combination of methyl bromide and chloropicrin. The additional application of metam sodium increases the cost and delays planting without significantly improved yields, therefore this alternative regime is disadvantaged economically ( i. e. costs are higher and yields are not improved) relative to 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin without metam sodium.

Loss Estimates. The losses to strawberry producers as a consequence of using alternatives to methyl bromide are summarized in Table 2. These losses assume the use of 1,3 dichloropropene in combination with chloropicrin for Florida and the eastern U. S., and these chemicals plus metam sodium for California. These losses are based on the likely yield loss, which is the estimated yield loss assuming light pest pressure, the situation for which this combination is considered technically feasible.

In California, 1,3 D with chloropicrin would be economically feasible under conditions of light to moderate pest pressure. However, where the regulatory constraints of township caps limit the amount of 1,3 D that can be used in a year, growers may still have a critical need to obtain methyl bromide. In this case the yield is comparable to the yield obtained with methyl bromide are assumed. The combination of 1,3 D with chloropicrin and metam sodium costs more, which is indicated in Table 2.

In Florida and Eastern U. S., the estimated losses are based on the alternative 1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin, a 5 percent yield loss, and hand weeding costs of about US$ 1250   US$ 5000 per hectare. As previously indicated, hand weeding, if effective, is only effective in the short term, until the reproductive material left behind becomes active, and the nutsedge multiplies. The range of weeding costs drives the ranges of losses and profit margins in Table 2. The upper end of the loss ranges assumes higher weeding costs, but no further loss of yield. Even under these favorable assumptions, the loss per kilogram of methyl bromide is sufficiently high for 1,3 dichloropropene / chloropicrin to be economically infeasible.

As a percent of gross revenue, 1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin ranges from marginally feasible to economically infeasible, depending on the indicator chosen. In summary, under ideal pest and soil conditions with very low or no yield losses and low hand weeding costs, and in the absence of regulatory constraints, such as township caps, buffer zones or karst topography, 1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin is barely be economically feasible. If, however, the actual yield losses are not at the lowest range of the estimated losses this alternative becomes economically infeasible. The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene, chloropicrin and metam sodium demonstrates no improvement in yield relative to the same combination without metam sodium, but it does cost more, so the cost of this combination was not estimated and it is not included in Table 2. If anything, the cost of this alternative combination would be higher and the revenues likely lower due to delayed planting required when metam is used to avoid destruction of the crops. 17 Table 2. Measures of Economic Impact for 1,3 Dichloropropene/ Chloropicrin for All Regions, and Also for 1,3 Dichloropropene/ Chloropicrin/ Metam Sodium ( For California Only). Loss Measure California Florida Eastern US % Yield Loss with best alternative likely* 0% 0 25% likely* 5% 0 60% likely* 5% Increased Costs ( % of Gross Revenue) 2 5% 2 5% 2 9%

Loss* as a % of Gross Revenue 2 5% 7 10% 7 14%

Loss* Per Acre Loss* Per Hectare US$ 600 1,600 US$ 1,600 4,000 US$ 2,800 4,300 US$ 6,900 10,600 US$ 1,400 2,900 US$ 3,500 7,200 Loss* Per Lb MeBr Loss* Per Kg MeBr US$ 4 9 US$ 8 20 US$ 17 26 US$ 37 57 US$ 11 22 US$ 24 48 Loss* as a % of Net Cash Returns 9 24% NA 17 34%

Profit Margins* with MeBr without MeBr 6% 2 5% NA 30% 17 25% * Loss estimates are based on likely yield loss. In the ranges above, the higher losses and lower profits margins are for: California   as a result of using metam sodium after 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin; Florida and Eastern U. S.   higher costs for extra weed control, which is assumed to be sufficient to control the weed pressure while maintaining yield loss of 5 percent.

Other Economic Impacts. The following economic impacts of alternatives to methyl bromide were not addressed because of a lack of relevant production and economic data.

1.) Increases in nematode damage may become increasingly significant in the future should methyl bromide no longer be available. Failure to adequately control the primary pests in soil could lead to increased pressure and yield losses over time. Increased disease pressure in the rotated vegetable crops or inability to rotate land into vegetables could result in further increased pathogen pressure in subsequent strawberry crops. Yield results in California are from experiments performed on land previously fumigated with methyl bromide. As discussed earlier, this is likely to result in an underestimate of yield losses due to the nearly complete suppression of pathogens and the subsequent long time required for the pest population to recover in fields where methyl bromide has been used. As more planting seasons pass without methyl bromide use, pest pressures have been shown to increase.

2.) Phytotoxicity to alternatives may result in economic losses but these potential losses are not included in this assessment.

3.) Variability of yields are a risk of economic loss not included in this assessment but significantly influencing farmer adoption of alternatives. All yield loss estimates reflect averages. High variability in losses causes farmers at the high end of the loss range to cease production.

4.) Time loss due to different production practices and the often longer time required for alternatives to be efficacious against target pests can result in economic losses and may affect a farmers ability 18 meet a prime marketing window. Some growers grow a second crop, and a significant delay could preclude this practice.

5.) Regulatory constraints such as township caps, buffer zones, karst topography make currently available alternatives technically infeasible in areas where they apply. If buffer zones were to remain in strawberry production, producers would need to rely on metam sodium in those zones, resulting in significant yield impacts.

6.) Time of Harvest can significantly affect the strawberry prices and alternatives to methyl bromide are expected to affect output to seasonal markets.

Economic Conclusion. The best alternative, a combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin, is economically feasible where pest pressure, such as that produced by nutsedge infestation, is light to moderate. Because nutsedge is ubiquitous in areas of the eastern U. S. and the coastal west where fruit and vegetable crops are grown, but in some areas such pressure is light to moderate, the total nomination for methyl bromide for this sector has been adjusted to only reflect the proportion of the area where the alternatives are technically and economically feasible.

6e. Technical Feasibility of Not in kind ( Non chemical) Alternatives This section summarizes the analysis of the remainder of the methyl bromide alternatives identified by MBTOC for strawberry production, primarily non chemical alternatives. Table 3 contains a summary of the technical assessment, which is that none of these alternatives were found to be technically feasible. Because no not in kind alternative was found to be technically feasible, no economic assessment was conducted. A description of each alternative follows.

Table 3. Not in kind Methyl Bromide Alternatives Identified by MBTOC for Strawberry Nursery Production. Methyl Bromide Alternative Technically Feasible Economically Feasible Nematicides No No Ozone No No Biofumigation No No Solarization No No Steam No No Biological control No No Cover crops/ Mulching No No Crop rotation/ Fallow No No Flooding/ Water management No No General IPM ( Integrated Pest Management) No No Grafting/ Resistant rootstock/ Plant breeding No No Organic amendments/ Compost No No Organic production No No Resistant cultivars No No Soilless culture No No Substrates/ Plug plants No No 19 Nematicides. Nematicides are not technically feasible alone because they do not control diseases and weeds. Additionally, there are no nematicides registered for use on fruit bearing strawberries in California.

Ozone. Ozone is not being used and it is not technically feasible. Early research showed promise ( SoilZone, 1999. Ozone Gas as a Soil Fumigant. 1998 Research Program. Electric Power Research Institute) but researchers have abandoned this line of investigation. Ozone is a very unstable and short lived molecule and the inconsistent results obtained by researchers are assumed to be a consequence of the difficulty of keeping an ozone molecule in contact with the soil long enough to be effective.

Biofumigation. Biofumigation is not technically feasible because of the quantity of Brassica crop that would be needed to control target pests in strawberries. Approximately three hectares of Brassica would be required for every hectare of strawberry production. Further, incorporation of Brassica at these levels are likely to have allelopathic effects on the target crop. In the eastern U. S., production field trials with cabbage residue and tomato produced inconsistent and inadequate efficacy, and poor yields in two years out of three. Additionally, summer Brassica are not available in Florida.

Solarization. Solarization, as a stand alone pre plant fumigation alternative, is not technically feasible because it does not provide adequate control of a wide range of soil borne diseases and pests. Solarization is a weather sensitive process that requires ideal soil moisture and sunlight conditions. Solarization treatment is most successful in regions with continuous high temperature periods during summer. As part of an IPM program, soil solarization is compatible with raised bed, plastic mulch production systems, and can be an effective tool for the management of many economically important pests and diseases, with the exception of nutsedge. The response of nutsedge to solarization is sporadic and not well understood. Data show solarization to provide, at best, some suppression of nutsedge populations ( Chase et al., 1998; Egley, 1983). Field studies indicate that raising and maintaining soil temperatures throughout the soil profile to levels shown to control nutsedge is extremely difficult. Nutsedge has shown the ability to emerge from deep in the soil profile and to re infest from areas outside the solarization zone, so solarization alone will not be an effective and dependable control method for nutsedge.

In California, use of solarization is not practical due to the depth of heating required to eliminate viable weed seed. It is only performed in areas where clear plastic is used over beds. In Florida , this alternative is not being used and it is not technically feasible. The yield loss range could be as much as 10 percent to 50 percent. Several solarization studies by various researchers have failed to produce consistent and/ or adequate efficacy results. Although temperatures and solar radiation in the Southeast are adequate for solarization, deep heating for nematode control is not achieved. Unpredictable, stormy summer weather still creates risks and may damage mulch. This alternative could be valuable when used in combination with other treatments to enhance disease control. The Southeast is similar to Florida except that in one Southeast field trial, solarization gave yields in two years out of three with a loss ranging from 0 percent to 40 percent compared to methyl bromide.

Steam. Steam, as a stand alone pre plant fumigation alternative for strawberry fruit production, is not technically feasible because it is not operationally practicable due to slow application speed and high energy requirements. For example, when treating with steam, it could take from 1 to 3 weeks 20 to treat one hectare to a depth of about 20 cm in sandy soil. To treat more hectares, it would require more time and/ or more equipment. Results with steam often vary because of differences in terrain and soil density. Since the use of steam requires significantly more time than using methyl bromide alone, growers actually delay planting for several weeks, which will extend their production schedule. This directly impacts cultivar options, IPM practices, timing of fruit harvest, marketing window options, land leasing decisions, and subsequent crop rotation schedules. As previously mentioned, growers that lease land for rotation into vegetable production could experience extra expenditures for land rent, shorter intervals between crops that may make it impossible to practice crop rotation, and yield and/ or quality reduction in the vegetable crops that are produced.

Biological Control. Some strawberry producers are already using biological control of some target pests as part of an IPM program. However, it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide because it does not provide adequate control of the target pests. There are a very limited number of biological organisms that can be used to effectively manage soil borne diseases and pests. Biological control agents are usually very specific in regards to the organisms they control and their successful establishment is highly dependent on environmental conditions. California growers use biological control organisms primarily for insects that this industry routinely employs. Any choice of alternative fumigants must be evaluated for compatibility with this important component of their existing IPM system.

Cover crops/ mulching. Cover crops/ mulching is already being used by strawberry producers as a part of an integrated pest management. By itself, the use of cover crops/ mulching does not provide adequate control of the target pests.

Crop rotation/ fallow. Crop rotation/ fallow is already being used in many strawberry production areas, but does not adequate control the target pests. In California, crop rotation is used as an effective pest management technique that helps keep strawberry productivity 50 percent higher per hectare than the national average. In Florida, current strawberry production is concentrated in areas where there is inadequate land available for multi year crop rotation. In the Southeast where production areas per grower is small, rotation does not always work since easy access to fields, and more importantly, visibility of the fields from passing cars is especially important for U pick operations.

Flooding and water management. Flooding and water management are not currently being used and are not technically feasible. The limited water resources and the uneven topographic features of many production areas prevents the use of these alternatives in California. In Florida, and many eastern states, sandy soils in the strawberry production areas would not retain the flood for an adequate time period to control the target pests.

General IPM. General IPM is being already being used in strawberry production, but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide. IPM practices that are commonly practiced in strawberries include monitoring for pests, field sanitation, crop rotation to provide non host periods, and developing disease resistant varieties. IPM practices do not offer adequate pest control by itself.

Grafting/ resistant rootstock/ plant breeding. Grafting/ resistant rootstock/ plant breeding is not being used and it is not technically feasible because grafting is not possible given the physical characteristics of strawberry plants. Breeding for resistance to pathogens is valuable as a long term 21 endeavor and the U. S. continues work in this area. At this point in time, plant breeding has not resulted in a cultivar that is sufficiently resistant to the major target pests.

Organic amendments/ compost. Organic amendments/ compost is already being used in certain regions of the U. S., but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide. Composting is management intensive and it does not offer adequate pest control by itself. Yield loss are estimated to ranged from 0 percent to 50 percent. In the eastern U. S., current trials are testing managed composts and composts inoculated with biological control agents in production fields. Where nutsedge is not prevalent and disease pressures are moderate, composts have resulted in good yields despite the weak disease suppression.

Organic production. In certain regions of the U. S. some organic production of strawberries occurs. However, as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide it is not a technically feasible alternative because of reduced yields. Production systems completely reliant on non chemical methods for pest control comprise less than 1 percent of the commercial strawberry production in the U. S. Growers that choose to convert to certified organic production realize significantly lower yields from their crop but command a higher price. It is not feasible for all strawberry production in the U. S. to convert to organic production because as more growers convert, the price of organic strawberries will decline with increased availability ( they will loose their scarcity rent). To receive the monetary benefits, the farm must receive an organic certification. The conversion to certified organic production requires a considerable investment of time, many changes in production practices, new record keeping, and different pest control strategies.

Resistant Cultivars. Resistant cultivars are already being used in certain regions of the U. S., but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide.

Soilless culture. Soilless culture is not being used and it is not technically feasible because it requires a complete transformation of the U. S. production system. There are high costs associated with this as compared to current production practices. Limited information was provided by the applicants on soilless culture.

Substrates/ plug plants. Substrates/ plug plants is currently being used, but is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide. Plug plants, as compared to bare root transplants, have actually proven to be more vigorous and provide increased yields over bare root transplants in several research trials. However, it is unknown what pathogens will be controlled and to what degree in nurseries producing plug transplants. This method of production would require extensive retooling by the industry and considerably more research in order to determine the feasibility of nurseries converting to the system. A change to this system would not be possible for all growers. A complete change to plug plant production would require many changes in production schedules. Amplification of pest problems that occur in the nursery is highly likely. In California, only 1 percent of transplants are produced as plugs plants in soilless media. The use of plug plants is more extensive in the southeast U. S.

7. Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Strawberry The critical use exemption nomination for the strawberry sector is for production in three distinct geographic U. S. regions   California, Florida, and Eastern U. S. states. The California strawberry growers critical use actual amount requested is for a total of 10,100 hectares for each year. Rates as 22 requested conform to standard practices in this region. Refer to Table 4 for additional usage information.

Table 4. Methyl Bromide Usage and Requests for California Strawberry Production. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2005 2006 2007 kilograms 1,830,000 1,930,000 2,360,000 1,920,000 1,920,000 2,040,000 2,040,000 2,040,000 hectares 6,810 7,420 8,600 8,250 10,200 10,100 10,100 10,100 rate ( kg/ ha) 269 260 275 233 189 202 202 202 The Florida strawberry growers critical use actual amount requested is for a total of 2,870 hectares for each year. Rates as requested conform to standard practices in this region. Refer to Table 5 for additional usage information.

Table 5. Methyl Bromide Usage and Requests for the Florida Strawberry Production. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2005 2006 2007 kilograms 542,000 551,000 464,000 471,000 531,000 580,000 580,000 580,000 hectares 2,470 2,510 2,510 2,550 2,870 2,870 2,870 2,870 rate ( kg/ ha) 220 220 185 185 185 202 202 202 The Eastern U. S. strawberry critical use actual amount requested is for approximately 2,041 hectares of strawberry plasticulture production in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Rates as requested conform to standard practices in this region. Refer to Table 6 for additional usage information.

Table 6. Methyl Bromide Usage and Requests for the Southeastern Strawberry Consortium 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2005 2006 2007 kilograms 262,000 276,000 210,000 227,000 239,000 273,000 246,000 246,000 hectares 1,190 1,260 1,400 1,510 1,590 1,820 1,640 1,540 rate ( kg/ ha) 220 220 150 150 150 150 150 150 The U. S. nomination ( Table 7) has been determined based first on consideration of the requests we received and an evaluation of the supporting material. This evaluation, which resulted in a reduction in the amount being nominated, included careful examination of issues including the area afflicted with the key target ( economically significant) pests for which methyl bromide is required, the extent of regulatory constraints on the use of registered alternatives ( buffer zones, township caps), environmental concerns such as soil based restrictions due to potential groundwater contamination, and historic use rates, among other factors.

Table 7. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Strawberries Year Total Request by Applicants ( kilograms) U. S. Sector Nomination ( kilograms) 2005 2,893,763 2,468,873 8. Minimizing Use/ Emissions of Methyl Bromide in the United States/ Stockpiles In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, we will now describe ways in which we strive to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. While each sector based nomination 23 includes information on this topic, we thought it would be useful to provide some general information that is applicable to most methyl bromide uses in the country The use of methyl bromide in the United States is minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl bromide is regulated as a restricted use pesticide in the United States. As a consequence, methyl bromide can only be used by certified applicators who are trained at handling these hazardous pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl bromide is applied by a limited number of very experienced applicators with the knowledge and expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level possible to achieve the needed results. In keeping with both local requirements to avoid " drift" of methyl bromide into inhabited areas, as well as to preserve methyl bromide and keep related emissions to the lowest level possible, methyl bromide is machine injected into soil to specific depths. In addition, as methyl bromide has become more scarce, users in the United States have, where possible, experimented with different mixes of methyl bromide and chloropicrin. Specifically, in the early 1990s, methyl bromide was typically sold and used in methyl bromide mixtures made up of 98% methyl bromide and 2% chloropicrin, with the chloropicrin being included solely to give the chemical a smell enabling those in the area to be alerted if there was a risk. However, with the outset of very significant controls on methyl bromide, users have been experimenting with significant increases in the level of chloropicrin and reductions in the level of methyl bromide. While these new mixtures have generally been effective at controlling target pests, it must be stressed that the long term efficacy of these mixtures is unknown. Reduced methyl bromide concentrations in mixtures, more mechanized soil injection techniques, and the extensive use of tarps to cover land treated with methyl bromide has resulted in reduced emissions and an application rate that we believe is among the lowest in the world.

In terms of compliance, in general, the United States has used a combination of tight production and import controls, and the related market impacts to ensure compliance with the Protocol requirements on methyl bromide. Indeed, over the last   years, the price of methyl bromide has increased substantially. As Chart 1 in Appendix D demonstrates, the application of these policies has led to a more rapid U. S. phasedown in methyl bromide consumption than required under the Protocol. This accelerated phasedown on the consumption side may also have enabled methyl bromide production to be stockpiled to some extent to help mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with the Protocol's 2003 and 2004 70% reduction. We are currently uncertain as to the exact quantity of existing stocks going into the 2003 season that may be stockpiled in the U. S. We currently believe that the limited existing stocks are likely to be depleted during 2003 and 2004. This factor is reflected in our requests for 2005 and beyond.

At the same time we have made efforts to reduce emissions and use of methyl bromide, we have also made strong efforts to find alternatives to methyl bromide. The section that follows discusses those efforts.

9. U. S. Efforts to Find, Register and Commercialize Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Over the past ten years, the United States has committed significant financial and technical resources to the goal of seeking alternatives to methyl bromide that are technically and economically feasible to provide pest protection for a wide variety of crops, soils, and pests, while also being acceptable in terms of human health and environmental impacts. The U. S. pesticide registration program has established a rigorous process to ensure that pesticides registered for use in the United States do no present an unreasonable risk of health or environmental harm. Within the program, we have given 24 the highest priority to rapidly reviewing methyl bromide alternatives, while maintaining our high domestic standard of environmental protection. A number of alternatives have already been registered for use, and several additional promising alternatives are under review at this time. Our research efforts to find new alternatives to methyl bromide and move them quickly toward registration and commercialization have allowed us to make great progress over the last decade in phasing out many uses of methyl bromide. However, these efforts have not provided effective alternatives for all crops, soil types and pest pressures, and we have accordingly submitted a critical use nomination to address these limited additional needs.

Research Program When the United Nations, in 1992, identified methyl bromide as a chemical that contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer and the Clean Air Act committed the U. S. to phase out the use of methyl bromide, the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) initiated a research program to find viable alternatives. Finding alternatives for agricultural uses is extremely complicated compared to replacements for other, industrially used ozone depleting substances because many factors affect the efficacy such as: crop, climate, soil type, and target pests, which change from region to region and even among localities within a region.

Through 2002, the USDA Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) alone has spent US$ 135.5 million to implement an aggressive research program to find alternatives to methyl bromide ( see Table below). Through the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA has provided an additional $ 11.4m since 1993 to state universities for alternatives research and outreach. This federally supported research is a supplement to extensive sector specific private sector efforts, and that all of this research is very well considered. Specifically, the phaseout challenges brought together agricultural and forestry leaders from private industry, academia, state governments, and the federal government to assess the problem, formulate priorities, and implement research directed at providing solutions under the USDA's Methyl Bromide Alternatives program. The ARS within USDA has 22 national programs, one of which is the Methyl Bromide Alternatives program ( Select Methyl Bromide Alternatives at this web site: http:// www. nps. ars. usda. gov ). The resulting research program has taken into account these inputs, as well as the extensive private sector research and trial demonstrations of alternatives to methyl bromide. While research has been undertaken in all sectors, federal government efforts have been based on the input of experts as well as the fact that nearly 80 percent of preplant methyl bromide soil fumigation is used in a limited number of crops. Accordingly, much of the federal government pre plant efforts have focused on strawberries, tomatoes, ornamentals, peppers and nursery crops, ( forest, ornamental, strawberry, pepper, tree, and vine), with special emphasis on tomatoes in Florida and strawberries in California as model crops. 25 Table 8. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research Funding History Year Amount ( Million) 1993 US$ 7.255 M 1994 US$ 8.453 M 1995 US$ 13.139 M 1996 US$ 13.702 M 1997 US$ 14.580 M 1998 US$ 14.571 M 1999 US$ 14.380 M 2000 US$ 14.855 M 2001 US$ 16.681 M 2002 US$ 17.880 M The USDA/ ARS strategy for evaluating possible alternatives is to first test the approaches in controlled experiments to determine efficacy, then testing those that are effective in field plots. The impact of the variables that affect efficacy is addressed by conducting field trials at multiple locations with different crops and against various diseases and pests. Alternatives that are effective in field plots are then tested in field scale validations, frequently by growers in their own fields. University scientists are also participants in this research. Research teams that include ARS and university scientists, extension personnel, and grower representatives meet periodically to evaluate research results and plan future trials.

Research results submitted with the CUE request packages ( including published, peer reviewed studies by ( primarily) university researchers, university extension reports, and unpublished studies) include trials conducted to assess the effectiveness of the most likely chemical and non chemical alternatives to methyl bromide, including some potential alternatives that are not currently included in the MBTOC list.

As demonstrated by the table above, U. S. efforts to research alternatives for methyl bromide have been substantial, and they have been growing in size as the phaseout has approached. The United States is committed to sustaining these research efforts in the future to continue to aggressively search for technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. We are also committed to continuing to share our research, and enable a global sharing of experience. Toward that end, for the past several years, key U. S. government agencies have collaborated with industry to host an annual conference on alternatives to methyl bromide. This conference, the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach ( MBAO), has become the premier forum for researchers and others to discuss scientific findings and progress in this field.

The numerous methyl bromide alternative research trials that have been produced quantitative yield data are summarized in Table 9. This table shows that, even among studies that demonstrate significant yields using the alternatives, there is significant variation in the performance of the alternative. Thus, while a given alternative may perform well in one study, it may also perform below acceptable standards in another study. The standard used to characterize success in the analysis presented here is if the alternative produced crops with at least 95 percent of the yield of the crop with a methyl bromide control. However, in some instances, even a 95 percent yield may involve some profit losses. 26 Table 9: Summary of Research Results for Methyl Bromide Alternatives on U. S. Strawberry. Alternatives Total Number of Studies Number of Studies with Yield at Least 95% of Methyl Bromide Basamid ( Dazomet) and combinations 27 12 Chloropicrin and combinations 58 36 Compost systems 11 6 Enzone 3 0 Metam sodium ( Vapam) and combinations 73 24 Organic production 5 1 Ozone 1 1 Solarization and Combinations 22 6 Tarps 3 1 Telone ( 1,3 dichloropropene) and combinations 93 41 The California Strawberry Commission has invested approximately US$ 8 million in research to develop alternatives. Current research programs supported in whole or in part by the California Strawberry Commission include long term research on sustainable production practices, short term investigation of available alternatives, nursery production alternatives, breeding for resistance, and research on soil microbiology. This research has produced a great deal of data indicating which alternatives may be the most promising for strawberry production in California and where more information is needed. The research results generated under this program have been useful for many commodities seeking information on alternatives.

Nematodes are not extremely damaging pests in berry production in California at this time. However, they may become increasingly important in the future as methyl bromide is no longer used, especially if strawberry nursery producers do not retain the ability to continue using it. There is a clear need for research performed in successive years on the same land to evaluate the durability of control achieved with alternative fumigants in strawberries. More studies are needed where VIF films are utilized with alternatives to clearly define the conditions which will result in the phytotoxicity observed in some research trials where VIF films were used. Also, use of alternative application technology including drip fumigation alone and combined with VIF films require more experience to develop workable systems due to difficulties in laying this type of plastic and longer plant back intervals required when alternatives are combined with this plastic. Availability of VIF films is also uncertain. Deep fumigation techniques using newly developed equipment for application of 1,3 dichloropropene also require more research.

Because the vast majority of research data on strawberry production was performed using nursery plants produced on methyl bromide fumigated soil, there will likely be many unanticipated future scenarios in production fields should the nursery industry not retain use of methyl bromide and growers begin using planting stock that is less clean than is currently available. Studies have shown that transplants produced using alternative fumigants are less vigorous and have reduced yields compared to transplants produced on methyl bromide fumigated soil. There is a clear need for studies to be implemented using plants produced on ground fumigated with alternatives. Also, long term studies to develop more sustainable production systems for strawberry should remain of highest priority due to the uncertain future availability and environmental and human health issues concerning alternative chemical fumigants.

Florida and Eastern U. S. Methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry production in these areas continue to a very active area of research. Research is currently being conducted by USDA, 27 University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, and the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association. Over 100 peer reviewed articles have been published to date based on trials conducted by the above groups. Control of nutsedge and winter annual weeds is crucial to successful berry production in Florida. Control of nutsedge is also extremely important to 40 percent of the Eastern strawberry production land where nutsedge is a problem. In the near term, research is needed to find a suitable pre emergent herbicide, or to find ways to get better herbicidal efficacy from currently available fumigants. In the long term, efforts should be continued to find non chemical means to suppress nutsedge damage. Some additional research to fine tune use of alternative fumigants to maximize efficacy and yield is also needed.

Research studies submitted with the critical use exemption request packages include trials conducted to assess the effectiveness of the most likely chemical and non chemical alternatives to methyl bromide, including some potential alternatives that are not currently included in the MBTOC list. Based on preliminary results from research conducted in this area and largely in the area of tomatoes and strawberries, researchers believe that a mix of fumigants together with an herbicide treatment is the best possible alternative to methyl bromide. Combinations of 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin, and metam sodium/ chloropicrin are being tested for disease and weed control. Future research plans will test combinations of these fumigants with chemicals such as halosulfuron, metolachlor, and sulfentrazone. A program to evaluate host resistance to Phytophthora root and crown rot has been implemented. Growers are starting to deploy lines identified as having both genetic resistance and acceptable horticultural qualities.

While the U. S. government's role to find alternatives is primarily in the research arena, we know that research is only one step in the process. As a consequence, we have also invested significantly in efforts to register alternatives, as well as efforts to support technology transfer and education activities with the private sector.

Registration Program The United States has one of the most rigorous programs in the world for safeguarding human health and the environment from the risks posed by pesticides. While we are proud of our efforts in this regard, related safeguards do not come without a cost in terms of both money and time. Because the registration process is so rigorous, it can take a new pesticide several years ( 3 5) to get registered by EPA. It also takes a large number of years to perform, draft results and deliver the large number of health and safety studies that are required for registration.

The U. S. EPA regulates the use of pesticides under two major federal statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), both significantly amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA). Under FIFRA, U. S. EPA registers pesticides provided its use does not pose unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment. Under FFDCA, the U. S. EPA is responsible for setting tolerances ( maximum permissible residue levels) for any pesticide used on food or animal feed. With the passage of FQPA, the U. S. EPA is required to establish a single, health based standard for pesticides used on food crops and to determine that establishment of a tolerance will result in a " reasonable certainty of no harm" from aggregate exposure to the pesticide.

The process by which U. S. EPA examines the ingredients of a pesticide to determine if they are safe is called the registration process. The U. S. EPA evaluates the pesticide to ensure that it will not have 28 any unreasonable adverse effects on humans, the environment, and non target species. Applicants seeking pesticide registration are required to submit a wide range of health and ecological effects toxicity data, environmental fate, residue chemistry and worker/ bystander exposure data and product chemistry data. A pesticide cannot be legally used in the U. S. if it has not been registered by U. S. EPA, unless it has an exemption from regulation under FIFRA.

Since 1997, the U. S. EPA has made the registration of alternatives to methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because the U. S. EPA currently has more applications for all types of pesticides pending in its review process than resources to evaluate them, U. S. EPA prioritizes the applications in its registration queue. By virtue of being a top registration priority, methyl bromide alternatives enter the science review process as soon as U. S. EPA receives the application and supporting data rather than waiting in turn for the EPA to initiate its review. This review process takes an average of 38 months to complete. Additionally, the registrant ( the pesticide applicant) has, in most cases, spent approximately 7 10 years developing the data necessary to support registration.

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to methyl bromide, the U. S. EPA has worked to reduce the burdens on data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the U. S. EPA's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the U. S. EPA has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application, allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, U. S. EPA scientists routinely meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants, counseling them through the preregistration process to increase the probability that the data is done right the first time and rework delays are minimized The U. S. EPA has also co chaired the USDA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research, development and the registration of viable alternatives. The work group conducted six workshops in Florida and California ( states with the highest use of methyl bromide) with growers and researchers to identify potential alternatives, critical issues, and grower needs covering the major methyl bromide dependent crops and post harvest uses.

This coordination has resulted in key registration issues ( such as worker and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and groundwater concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural Research Service's $ 13.5 million per year research program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also EPA's participation in the evaluation of research grant proposals submitted to the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service methyl bromide alternatives research program of US$ 2.5 million per year has further ensured that critical registration issues are being addressed by the research community.

Since 1997, EPA has registered the following chemical/ use combinations as part of its commitment to expedite the review of methyl bromide alternatives:

1999: Pebulate to control weeds in tomatoes 2000: Phosphine to control insects in stored commodities 2001: Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus to control Indian meal moth in stored grains 2001: Terrazole to control pathogens in tobacco float beds 2001: Telone applied through drip irrigation  all crops 2002: Halosulfuron methyl to control weeds in melons and tomatoes 29 EPA is currently reviewing several additional applications for registration as methyl bromide alternatives, with several registration eligibility decisions expected within the next year, including:

  Iodomethane as a pre plant soil fumigant for various crops   Fosthiazate as a pre plant nematicide for tomatoes   Sulfuryl fluoride as a post harvest fumigant for stored commodities   Trifloxysulfuron sodium as a pre plant herbicide for tomatoes   Dazomet as a pre plant soil fumigant for strawberries and tomatoes Again, while these activities appear promising, it must be noted that issues related to toxicity, ground water contamination, and the release of air pollutants may pose significant problems with respect to some alternatives that may lead to use restrictions since many of the growing regions are in sensitive areas such as those in close proximity to schools and homes. Ongoing research on alternate fumigants is evaluating ways to reduce emission under various application regimes and examining whether commonly used agrochemicals, such as fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors, could be used to rapidly degrade soil fumigants. For example, if registration of iodomethane or another alternative occurs in the near future, commercial availability and costs will be factors that must be taken into consideration. Several additional, promising alternatives are under review at EPA that may be able to be used on strawberries in the future. These include: iodomethane ( methyl iodide) and propargyl bromide, which currently look very promising in field studies. Although iodomethane is chemically similar to methyl bromide, it photodegrades before it reaches the stratosphere, and therefore is not a significant ozone depleter. While iodomethane and propargyl bromide are not currently registered for use as pesticides in the U. S., research on combinations of pesticides with chemicals like methyl iodide are also planned. Some of these trials will incorporate screening of strawberry varieties for tolerance/ resistance to Phytophthora capsici. Again, while these activities appear promising, it must be noted that concerns about toxicity, drinking water contamination, and the release of air pollutants regarding some alternatives presents another difficulty that may restrict use since many of the growing regions are in sensitive areas such as those in close proximity to schools and homes. Ongoing research on alternate fumigants is evaluating ways to reduce emission under various application regimes and examining whether commonly used agrochemicals, such as fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors, could be used to rapidly degrade soil fumigants. If registration of iodomethane or propargyl bromide occurs in the near future, commercial availability and costs will be factors that must be taken into consideration.

It must be emphasized, however, that finding potential alternatives, and even registering those alternatives is not the end of the story. Alternatives must be tested by users and found to be technically and economically feasible before they are widely adopted. As noted by TEAP, a specific alternative, once available may take two or three cropping seasons of use before efficacy can be determined in the specific circumstance of the user. In an effort to speed adoption, the U. S. government has also been involved in these steps by promoting technology transfer, experience transfer, and private sector training.

10. Conclusion and Policy Issues Associated with the Nomination On the basis of an exhaustive review of a large, multi disciplinary team of sector and general agricultural experts, we have determined that the TEAP listed potential alternatives for the specific crops and areas covered in this nomination are not currently technically or economically viable from 30 the standpoint of United States growers covered by this exemption request. We have also determined that the absence of methyl bromide for the nominated uses will result in a significant market disruption to the effected sectors. We have and continue to expend significant efforts to find and commercialize alternatives, and that potential alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for many important uses are under investigation and may be on the horizon. Based on this analysis, we believe those requests included in this nomination meet the criteria set out by the Parties in Decision IX/ 6.

In accordance with those Decisions, we believe that the U. S. nomination contained in this document provides all of the information that has been requested by the Parties. On the basis of an exhaustive review of a large, multi disciplinary team of sector and general agricultural experts, we have determined that the MBTOC listed potential alternatives for the strawberry sector are not currently technically or economically feasible in certain circumstances from the standpoint of U. S. strawberry growers covered by this critical use exemption nomination. Under certain circumstances in the absence of heavy pest pressure and regulatory constraints, 1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin, and possibly also with metam sodium, may be economically feasible, and indeed, the U. S. nomination has been reduced to take into account possible use in areas that may meet such circumstances. However, any of the following factors would or could make the alternatives economically infeasible:

  Regulatory constraints such as township caps, buffer zones, and karst topology,   Heavy pest pressure such as nutsedge,   Increasing nematode damage over time from not using methyl bromide,   Phytotoxicity,   Variation in yields,   Time lost due to delays in planting,   Missing early harvests with high strawberry prices, and   Less vigorous starter plants if strawberry nurseries cannot use methyl bromide.

We have demonstrated that we have and continue to expend significant efforts to find and commercialize alternatives, and that potential alternatives to the use of methyl bromide in strawberries may be on the horizon. The registration process, which is designed to ensure that new pesticides do not pose an unacceptable risk, is long and rigorous. The U. S. need for methyl bromide for strawberries will be maintained for the period being requested.

In addition, significant efforts have been made to reduce the use and emissions of methyl bromide associated with strawberries. It is particularly valuable to note that the strawberry production industry in California has done a good job of integrating more sustainable and environmentally compatible techniques into their current production system. These currently employed strategies include the use of insects for biological control, and many techniques that limit losses to disease including use of crop rotation, alternation of chemicals fungicides to limit resistance buildup, clean tillage, water management and field sanitation. Unfortunately the continued success of their well constructed IPM system is dependent on the use of methyl bromide as a pre plant soil fumigant. Initial reductions in populations of the entire pest complex achieved with methyl bromide make it feasible to use more environmentally sound control measures throughout the season to keep reduced pest populations in check. Without a replacement capable of controlling all of the pests that methyl bromide controls, the entire IPM strategy must be reconstructed. Research on alternatives for this commodity has been progressive and productive. There have been promising advances towards the 31 development of alternative fumigants and application methodologies. The regulatory constraints for employment of the currently available alternatives remain as the largest obstacle to their adoption for strawberry production.

In reviewing this nomination, we believe that it is important for the MBTOC, the TEAP and the Parties to understand some of the policy issues associated with our request. A discussion of those follows:

a. Request for Aggregate Exemption for All Covered Methyl Bromide Uses: As mandated by Decision XIII/ 11, the nomination information that is being submitted with this package includes information requested on historic use and estimated need in individual sectors. That said, we note our agreement with past MBTOC and TEAP statements which stress the dynamic nature of agricultural markets, uncertainty of specific production of any one crop in any specific year, the difficulty of projecting several years in advance what pest pressures might prevail on a certain crop, and, the difficulty of estimating what a particular market for a specific crop might look like in a future year. We also concur with the MBTOC's fear that countries that have taken significant efforts to reduce methyl bromide use and emissions through dilution with chloropicrin may be experiencing only short term efficacy in addressing pest problems. On the basis of those factors, we urge the MBTOC and the TEAP to follow the precedent established under the essential use exemption process for Metered Dose Inhalers ( MDIs) in two key areas.

First, because of uncertainties in both markets and the future need for individual active moieties of drugs, the TEAP has never provided a tonnage limit for each of the large number of active moieties found in national requests for a CFC essential use exemption for MDIs, but has instead recommended an aggregate tonnage exemption for national use. This has been done with an understanding that the related country will ensure that the tonnage approved for an exemption will be used solely for the group of active moieties/ MDIs that have been granted the exemption. We believe that the factors of agricultural uncertainty surrounding both pest pressures in future year crops, and efficacy of reduced methyl bromide application provide an even stronger impetus for using a similar approach here. The level of unpredictability in need leads to a second area of similarity with MDIs, the essential need for a review of the level of the request which takes into account the need for a margin of safety.

b. Recognition of Uncertainty in Allowing Margin for Safety: With MDIs, it was essential to address the possible change in patient needs over time, and in agriculture, this is essential to address the potential that the year being requested for could be a particularly bad year in terms of weather and pest pressure. In that regard, the TEAP's Chart 2 in Appendix D demonstrates the manner in which this need for a margin of safety was addressed in the MDI area. Specifically, Chart 2 in Appendix D tracks national CFC requests for MDIs compared with actual use of CFC for MDIs over a number of years.

Chart 2 in Appendix D demonstrates several things. First, despite the best efforts of many countries to predict future conditions, it shows that due to the acknowledged uncertainty of out year need for MDIs, Parties had the tendency to request, the TEAP recommended, and the Parties approved national requests that turned out to include an appreciable margin of safety. In fact, this margin of safety was higher at the beginning   about 40% above usage   and then went down to 30% range after 4 years. Only after 5 years of experience did the request come down to about 10% above usage. While our experience with the Essential Use process has aided the U. S. in developing its 32 Critical Use nomination, we ask the MBTOC, the TEAP and the Parties to recognize that the complexities of agriculture make it difficult to match our request exactly with expected usage when the nomination is made two to three years in advance of the time of actual use.

Chart 2 in Appendix D also demonstrates that, even though MDI requests included a significant margin of safety, the nominations were approved and the countries receiving the exemption for MDIs did not produce the full amount authorized when there was not a patient need. As a result, there was little or no environmental consequence of approving requests that included a margin of safety, and the practice can be seen as being normalized over time. In light of the similar significant uncertainty surrounding agriculture and the out year production of crops which use methyl bromide, we wish to urge the MBTOC and TEAP to take a similar, understanding approach for methyl bromide and uses found to otherwise meet the critical use criteria. We believe that this too would have no environmental consequence, and would be consistent with the Parties aim to phaseout methyl bromide while ensuring that agriculture itself is not phased out.

c. Duration of Nomination: It is important to note that while the request included for the use above appears to be for a single year, the entire U. S. request is actually for two years   2005 and 2006. This multi year request is consistent with the TEAP recognition that the calendar year does not, in most cases, correspond with the cropping year. This request takes into account the facts that registration and acceptance of new, efficacious alternatives can take a long time, and that alternatives must be tested in multiple cropping cycles in different geographic locations to determine efficacy and consistency before they can be considered to be widely available for use. Finally, the request for multiple years is consistent with the expectation of the Parties and the TEAP as evidenced in the Parties and MBTOC request for information on the duration of the requested exemption. As noted in the Executive Summary of the overall U. S. request, we are requesting that the exemption be granted in a lump sum of 9,920,965 kilograms for 2005 and 9,445,360 kilograms for 2006. While it is our hope that the registration and demonstration of new, cost effective alternatives will result in even speedier reductions on later years, the decrease in our request for 2006 is a demonstration of our commitment to work toward further reductions in our consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses. At this time, however, we have not believed it possible to provide a realistic assessment of exactly which uses would be reduced to account for the overall decrease.

11. Contact Information For further general information or clarifications on material contained in the U. S. nomination for critical uses, please contact:

John E. Thompson, Ph. D. Office of Environmental Policy US Department of State 2201 C Street NW Rm 4325 Washington, DC 20520 tel: 202 647 9799 fax: 202 647 5947 e mail: ThompsonJE2@ state. gov 33 Alternate Contact: Denise Keehner, Director Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticides Programs US Environmental Protection Agency, 7503C Washington, DC 20460 tel: 703 308 8200 fax: 703 308 8090 e mail: methyl. bromide@ epa. gov 12. References California Department of Food and Agriculture. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

Carpenter, Janet, Lori Lynch and Tom Trout. 2001. Township Limits on 1,3 DC will Impact Adjustment to Methyl bromide Phase out. California Agriculture, Volume 55, Number 3.

Carpenter, Janet and Lori Lynch. 1999. Impact of 1,3 D Restrictions in California after a Ban on Methyl Bromide. Presentation at the 1999 Annual International Conference of Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Crop Profile for Strawberries in California. 1999. United States Department of Agriculture, NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management.

Crop Profile for Strawberries in Florida. 2002. United States Department of Agriculture, NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management.

Crop Profile for Strawberries in Virginia. 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service.

Florida Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Oct. 2002. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Gamini, S. and R. K. Nishimoto. 1987. Propagules of purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) in soil. Weed Technol. 1: 217 220.

Georgia Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Jan. 2000. Georgia Department of Agriculture.

Gilreath, J. P., J. W. Noling, and P. R. Gilreath. 1999. Nutsedge management with cover crop for tomato in the absence of methyl bromide. Research summary., USDA Specific Cooperative Agreement 58 6617 6 013.

Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The world's worst weeds: distribution and biology. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 8 24. 34 North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics Service.

North Carolina Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Jan. 2003. North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Patterson, D. T. 1998. Suppression of purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) with polyethylene film mulch. Weed Technol. 12: 275 280.

SoilZone, 1999. Ozone Gas as a Soil Fumigant. 1998 Research Program. Electric Power Research Institute.

Sorenson, Kenneth A., W. Douglas Gubler, Norman C. Welch, and Craig Osteen. The Importance of Pesticides and Other Pest Management Practices in U. S. Strawberry Production. 1997. Special Funded Project of the United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment program. Document Number 1 CA 97.

Tennessee State Department of Agriculture. Tennessee Agricultural Statistics Service.

Tennessee Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Apr. 2000. Tennessee Department of Agriculture.

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

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service.

Webster, T. M., A. S. Csinos, A. W. Johnson, C. C. Dowler, D. R. Sumner, and R. L. Fery. 2001( a). Methyl bromide alternatives in a bell pepper squash rotation. Crop Rotation 20: 605 614 Webster, T. M. and G. E. Macdonald. 2001( b). A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15: 771 790.

13. Appendices Appendix A. List of Critical Use Exemption ( CUE) Requests for Strawberry CUE 02 0024: California Strawberry Commission CUE 02 0037: Southeast Strawberry Consortium CUE 02 0053: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association   Strawberry 35 Appendix B. Spreadsheets Supporting Economic Analysis This appendix presents the calculations, for each sector, that underlie the economic analysis presented in the main body of the nomination chapter. As noted in the nomination chapter, each sector is comprised of a number of applications from users of methyl bromide in the United States, primarily groups ( or consortia) of users. The tables below contain the analysis that was done for each individual application, prior to combining them into a sector analysis. Each application was assigned a unique number ( denoted as CUE #), and an analysis was done for each application for technically feasible alternatives. Some applications were further sub divided into analyses for specific sub regions or production systems. A baseline analysis was done to establish the outcome of treating with methyl bromide for each of these scenarios. Therefore, the rows of the tables correspond to the production scenarios, with each production scenario accounting for row and the alternative( s) accounting for additional rows.

The columns of the table correspond to the estimated impacts for each scenario. ( The columns of the table are spread over several pages because they do not fit onto one page.) The impacts for the methyl bromide baseline are given as zero percent, and the impacts for the alternatives are given relative to this baseline. Loss estimates include analyses of yield and revenue losses, along with estimates of increased production costs. Losses are expressed as total losses, as well as per unit treated and per kilogram of methyl bromide. Impacts on profits are also provided.

After the estimates of economic impacts, the tables contain basic information about the production systems using methyl bromide. These columns include data on output price, output volume, and total revenue. There are also columns that include data on methyl bromide prices and amount used, along with data on the cost of alternatives, and amounts used. Additional columns describe estimates of other production ( operating) costs, and fixed/ overhead costs.

The columns near the end of the tables combine individual costs into an estimate of total production costs, and compare total costs to revenue in order to estimate profits. Finally, the last several columns contain the components of the loss estimates. 36 # Notes 1 Provides no weed control. 5% yield loss based on biologist.

2 Based on IR 4 trials that showed no significant difference with MeBr.

3 Assumes that the high cost for weed control will control the nutsedge or other weed pressure.

* kg ai that would be applied/ hectare = application rate for the alternatives or requested application rate for methyl bromide.

* Other pest control costs are those other than methyl bromide or its alternatives. 37 38 39 40 Appendix C: U. S. Technical and Economic Review Team Members Christine M. Augustyniak ( Technical Team Leader). Christine has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1985. She has held several senior positions, both technical and managerial, including Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Chief of the Analytical Support Branch in EPA's office of Environmental Information and Deputy Director for the Environmental Assistance Division in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. She earned her Ph. D. ( Economics) from The University of Michigan ( Ann Arbor). Dr. Augustyniak is a 1975 graduate of Harvard University ( Cambridge) cum laude ( Economics). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Augustyniak was a member of the economics faculty at the College of the Holy Cross ( Worcester).

William John Chism ( Lead Biologist). Bill has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2000. He evaluates the efficacy of pesticides for weed and insect control. He earned his Ph. D. ( Weed Science) from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ( Blacksburg), a Master of Science ( Plant Physiology) from The University of California ( Riverside) and a Master of Science ( Agriculture) from California Polytechnic State University ( San Luis Obispo). Dr. Chism is a 1978 graduate of The University of California ( Davis). For ten years prior to joining the EPA Dr. Chism held research scientist positions at several speciality chemical companies, conducting and evaluating research on pesticides.

Technical Team Jonathan J. Becker ( Biologist) Jonathan has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He has held several technical positions and currently serves as a Senior Scientific Advisor within the Office of Pesticides Programs. In this position he leads the advancement of scientific methods and approaches related to the development of pesticides use information, the assessment of impacts of pesticides regulations, and the evaluation of the benefits from the use of pesticides. He earned his Ph. D. ( Zoology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville) and a Masters of Science ( Biology/ Zoology) from Idaho State University ( Pocatello). Dr. Becker is a graduate of Idaho State University. Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Becker worked as a senior environmental scientist with an environmental consulting firm located in Virginia.

Diane Brown Rytlewski ( Biologist) Diane is the Nursery and Landscape IPM Integrator at Michigan State University, a position she has held since 2000. She acts as liaison between industry and the university, facilitating research partnerships and cooperative relationships, developing outreach programs and resource materials to further the adoption of IPM. Ms. Rytlewski holds a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) and a Bachelor of Science ( Entomology), both from the University of Wisconsin ( Madison). She has over twenty year experience working in the horticulture field, including eight years as supervisor of the IPM program at the Chicago Botanic Garden.

Greg Browne ( Biologist). Greg has been with the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1995. Located in the Department of Plant Pathology of the University of California ( Davis), Greg does research on soilborne diseases of crop systems that currently use methyl bromide for disease control, with particular emphasis on diseases caused by Phytophthora species. He is the author of numerous articles on the use of alternatives to methyl bromide for the control of diseases in fruit and nut crops He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from the University of California ( Davis) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from the same institution. Dr. Browne is a graduate of The University of California ( Davis). Prior to joining USDA was a farm advisor in Kern County. 41 Nancy Burrelle ( Biologist). Nancy Burelle is a Research Ecologist with USDA's Agricultural Research Service, currently working on preplant alternatives to methyl bromide. She earned both her Ph. D. and Master of Science degrees ( both in Plant Pathology) from Auburn University ( Auburn).

Linda Calvin ( Economist). Linda Calvin is an agricultural economist with USDA's Economic Research Service, specializing in research on topics affecting fruit and vegetable markets. She earned her Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of California ( Berkeley).

Kitty F. Cardwell ( Biologist). Kitty has been the National Program Leader in Plant Pathology for the U. S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service since 2001. In this role she administrates all federally funded research and extension related to plant pathology, of the Land Grant Universities throughout the U. S. She earned her Ph. D. ( Phytopathology) from Texas A& M University ( College Station). Dr. Cardwell is a 1976 graduate of The University of Texas ( Austin) cum laude ( Botany). For twelve years prior to joining USDA Dr. Cardwell managed multinational projects on crop disease mitigation and food safety with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Cotonou, Bénin and Ibadan, Nigeria.

William Allen Carey ( Biologist). Bill is a Research Fellow in pest management for southern forest nurseries, supporting the Auburn University Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative. He is the author of numerous articles on the use of alternative fumigants to methyl bromide in tree nursery applications. He earned his Ph. D. ( Forest Pathology) from Duke University ( Durham) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville). Dr. Carey is a nationally recognized expert in the field of nursery pathology.

Margriet F. Caswell ( Economist). Margriet has been with the USDA Economic Research Service since 1991. She has held both technical and managerial positions, and is now a Senior Research Economist in the Resource, Technology & Productivity Branch, Resource Economics Division. She earned her Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from the University of California ( Berkeley). Dr. Caswell also received a Master of Science ( Resource Economics) and Bachelor of Science ( Natural Resource Management) from the University of Rhode Island ( Kingston). Prior to joining USDA, Dr. Caswell was a member of both the Environmental Studies and Economics faculties at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Tara Chand Goyal ( Biology). Tara has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as a plant pathologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on risk reduction. He earned his Ph. D. ( Mycology and Plant Pathology) from The Queen's University ( Belfast) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology and Mycology) from Punjab University ( Ludhiana). Dr. Chand Goyal is a graduate of Punjab University. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Chand Goyal was a member of the faculty of The Oregon State University ( Corvallis) and of The University of California ( Riverside). His areas of research and publication include: the biology of viral, bacterial and fungal diseases of plants; biological control of plant diseases; and, genetic manipulation of microorganisms.