FLORIDA  11. ( i) CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM AND CLIMATE FLORIDA  TABLE 11.1: CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS FLORIDA CROP TYPE: ( e. g. transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings) Pepper transplants for fruit production ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL CROP: (# of years between replanting) Annual ( usually 1 yr)

TYPICAL CROP ROTATION ( if any) AND USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR OTHER CROPS IN THE ROTATION: ( if any) Eggplants or cucurbits SOIL TYPES: ( Sand, loam, clay, etc.) Sandy and sandy loam soils FREQUENCY OF METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION: ( e. g. every two years) 1time per year OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: Double cropped with cucurbits U. S. Pepper Page 55 FLORIDA  TABLE 11.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATE AND CROP SCHEDULE MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Sept Oct NOV DEC JAN FEB CLIMATIC ZONES Plant Hardiness Zones 9a; 9b; 10a, 10.

RAINFALL ( mm), TAMPA, FL 65.5 50.0 72.5 134.1 175.8 193.3 152.7 65.0 42.7 158.8 62.0 66.8,

OUTSIDE TEMP. ( ° C); TAMPA, FL 19.4 22.1 25.3 27.6 28.2 28.2 27.3 24.1 19.2 17.3 16.0 16.9 FUMIGATION SCHEDULE A X X X X X X TRANSPLANTING SCHEDULE; , NON DOUBLECROPPED B X X X X X X X KEY HARVEST WINDOW;

NON DOUBLE CROPPED C X X X X X X X X A Non double cropped: earliest start date: August 15; cells marked with an " x" represent variation in fumigation initiation amongst pepper growers. B For Non Double cropped pepper production, transplanting peppers is usually initiated around September 1; cells marked with an " x" represent variation in transplanting dates amongst pepper growers. . C For Non Double Cropped Peppers: Harvest Period usually begins as early as Nov. 15, and may continue until June 15, depending on when planted and weather conditions.

FLORIDA  TABLE 11.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATE AND CROP SCHEDULE   PEPPERS DOUBLE CROPPED WITH ANOTHER VEGETABLE ( USUALLY CUCURBITS)

MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT Oct NOV DEC JAN FEB CLIMATIC ZONES Plant Hardiness Zones 9a; 9b; 10a, 10.

RAINFALL ( mm), TAMPA, FL 65.5 50.0 72.5 134.1 175.8 193.3 152.7 65.0 42.7 158.8 62.0 66.8,

OUTSIDE TEMP. ( ° C); TAMPA, FL 19.4 22.1 25.3 27.6 28.2 28.2 27.3 24.1 19.2 17.3 16.0 16.9 FUMIGATION SCHEDULE,; DOUBLE CROPPED A X X TRANSPLANTING SCHEDULE; DOUBLE CROPPED B 2C 2C P P 2C KEY HARVEST WINDOW; DOUBLE CROPPED C P P 2C 2C 2C P P P P ADouble cropped; assumed to be with cucurbits; earliest start date is August 15; shaded cells represent variation in fumigation initiation among pepper growers who double crop. BFor Double Cropped pepper production, transplanting ( P) is typically initiated on September 1; variance can be until October 31. The second crop of cucurbits ( usually) transplants ( indicated by " 2C") would typically be initiated around Feb 15, and may vary until April 30 C For Double Cropped peppers, Harvest Period usually begins as early as Nov. 15, ( P), may continue until April 15, depending on when planted and weather conditions; Harvesting of second crop ( 2C) may start around May and continue until mid July.

Climate Zone designation ( http:// www. usna. usda. gov/ Hardzone) U. S. Pepper Page 56 FLORIDA   11. ( ii) INDICATE IF ANY OF THE ABOVE CHARACTERISTICS IN 11. ( i) PREVENT THE UPTAKE OF ANY RELEVANT ALTERNATIVES?

The sandy soils of Florida are a contributing factor to the erratic performance suppressing weeds, nematodes, and plant pathogens of the metam sodium + chloropicrin combination, the most promising alternative to methyl bromide currently available for use in Dade County ( because of label restrictions for 1,3 D). Methyl bromide has higher vapor pressure than metam sodium, therefore can penetrate and diffuse throughout the soil more effectively than metam sodium.

Several climatic factors appeared to contribute to increases in plant pathogens, e. g., Southern stem blight, caused by the soil borne fungus ( Sclerotium rolfsii) across the production area, even with methyl bromide. Variations in rainfall and soil and air temperatures may predispose developing plants to diseases caused by plant pathogenic fungi. Furthermore, in the fall, temperature and rainfall patterns favor high levels of nematode infestation.

FLORIDA  12. HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE, AND/ OR MIXTURES CONTAINING METHYL BROMIDE, FOR WHICH AN EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED FLORIDA  TABLE 12.1 HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR AS MANY YEARS AS POSSIBLE AS SHOWN SPECIFY: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 AREA TREATED ( hectares) 8,903 8,903 8,741 8,741 ha 8,195 ha 8,417 RATIO OF FLAT FUMIGATION METHYL BROMIDE USE TO STRIP/ BED USE 100% strip treatments are used in this region AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED ( total kilograms) 1,630,376 1,644,501 1,431,639 1,406,135 1,285,199 1,320,860 FORMULATIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE ( methyl bromide / chloropicrin) A 98: 2 & 67: 33 98: 2 & 67: 33 67: 33 67: 33 67: 33 67: 33 METHOD BY WHICH METHYL BROMIDE APPLIED A Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep Sweptback chiselshank 25 30.5 cm. deep DOSAGE RATE OF STRIP/ BED, G MB/ M 2 18.3 18.5 16.4 16.1 15.7 15.7 A Sources: personal communication, Professor J. W. Noling, November 25, 2003; M. Aerts, December 2, 2003. U. S. Pepper Page 57 Florida  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION FLORIDA  13. REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE FLORIDA   TABLE 13.1: REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES 1,3 dichloropropene 1,3 D provides control of nematode populations, but poor control of plant pathogens and weeds. Control of nematodes is erratic, due to poor distribution of the fumigant in the sandy soils of Florida. 1,3 D's use is prohibited due to groundwater contamination in key pepper growing areas with karst geology, which is estimated to be about 40% in of FL pepper area in 2002. In Dade County, a major pepper production area, 100% of pepper acreage is affected by a label prohibition that addresses groundwater contamination concerns. In areas where 1,3 D use is allowed, set back restrictions (~ 100 meters from occupied structures; ~ 30 meters for emulsified formulations applied via chemigation) may limit the portion of a field that can be treated. In addition, the 28 day waiting period between application and planting can cause delays/ adjustments in production schedules that could lead to missing specific higher end market windows. No Metamsodium potassium Provides limited and erratic performance for suppressing major pepper pathogens and pests. Does not work under high pest pressure. This soil fumigant is considered the best available alternative for Dade County only, where 1,3 D use is prohibited ( Aerts, 2003). This is at best a treatment that complements other fumigants and herbicides, and is not a stand alone option ( Noling, 2003). Metam sodium has a lower vapor pressure than methyl bromide, and therefore cannot penetrate and diffuse throughout the soil as effectively as MB. In addition, the effectiveness of metam sodium is dependent on the organic matter and moisture content of the soil. Metam sodium tends to degrade rapidly in warm soils where it has been previously used. No U. S. Pepper Page 58 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

NON CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Solarization Solarization is not technically feasible as a methyl bromide alternative for control of nutsedges. Research indicates that the lethal temperature for nutsedge tubers is 50 oC or higher ( Chase et al. 1999. Trials conducted in mid summer in Georgia resulted in maximal soil temperatures of 43 oC at 5 cm depth. Thus, solarization, even in the warmer months in southern states, did not result in temperatures reliably high enough to destroy nutsedge tubers, and tubers lodged deeper in the soil would be completely unaffected. Response of Cyperus species to solarization is sporadic and not well understood and data show solarization to provide, at best, suppression of nutsedge populations ( Chase et al. 1999). In addition, solarization will take fields out of production since it would be needed during the spring and into the summer months, which are optimal for pepper production. No Steam Steam is not a technically feasible alternative for open field pepper production because it requires sustained heat over a required period of time ( UNEP 1998). While steam has been used effectively against fungal pests in protected production systems, such as greenhouses, there is no evidence that it would be effective in open field pepper crops. Any such system would also require large amounts of energy and water to provide sufficient steam necessary to sterilize soil down to the rooting depth of field crops ( at least 20 50 cm). No Biological Control Biological control agents alone cannot control nutsedge and/ or the soil pathogens that afflict peppers. The bacterium Burkholderia cepacia and the fungus Gliocladium virens have shown some potential in controlling some fungal plant pathogens ( Larkin and Fravel 1998). However, no biological control agent has been identified to effectively control nutsedge or Phytophthora. Therefore, biological control is not a stand along replacement for methyl bromide in pepper crops. Only a limited number of biological organisms are effectively used to manage soil borne plant pathogens and pests. No Cover crops and mulching Cover crops and mulches have been integrated to solanaceous crop production management. However there is no evidence these practices effectively substitute for the control methyl bromide provides against nutsedges ( Burgos and Talbert 1996). Some cover crops that have been shown to reduce weed populations also reduced or delayed crop maturity and/ or emergence, as well as yields ( Burgos and Talbert 1996, Galloway and Weston 1996). Mulching has also been shown to be ineffective in controlling nutsedges, since these plants are able to penetrate through both organic and plastic mulches ( Munn 1992, Patterson 1998). No U. S. Pepper Page 59 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Crop rotation and fallow land Crop rotation/ fallow is not a technically feasible alternative to methyl bromide because it does not provide adequate control of nutsedges or fungal pathogens. The crop rotations available to growers are also susceptible to fungi; fallow land can still harbor fungal oospores ( Lamour and Hausbeck 2003). As regards to nutsedges, tubers of these perennial species provide new plants with larger energy reserves than the annual weeds that can be frequently controlled by crop rotations and fallow land ( Thullen and Keeley 1975). Furthermore, nutsedge plants can produce tubers within 2 weeks after emergence ( Wilen et al. 2003). This enhances their survival across different cropping regimes that can disrupt other plants that rely on a longer undisturbed growing period to produce seeds to propagate the next generation. No Flooding/ Water management South Florida is generally subject to natural flooding during summer months, but other areas cannot be flooded because of lack of a shallow, impermeable layer. Although flooding is a pest management tool that has been used effectively to manage various soil borne pest and plant pathogens, nutsedges have shown tolerance to this treatment. Submergence of nutsedge tubers for periods of 8 days to 4 weeks showed no effect on the sprouting capabilities of the tubers ( Horowitz, 1972). Studies in Florida ( Allen, 1999) showed ineffective nematode, plant pathogen, and nutsedge control. Regulatory issues concerning water management, as well as economic feasibility, also preclude its viability as an alternative to methyl bromide. Land structure, frequent and severe droughts, and the economics of developing and managing flood capabilities will prevent flooding from being a viable, cost effective alternative in the Southeastern states. No Grafting/ resistant rootstock/ plant breeding/ soilless culture/ organic production/ substrates/ plug plants. Due to the paucity of scientific information on the utility of these alternatives as methyl bromide replacements in peppers, they have been grouped together for discussion in this document. The U. S. was unable to locate any studies showing any potential for grafting, resistant rootstock or plant breeding as technically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide control of nutsedges. Plug plants are extensively used on high value vegetable crops like pepper but they do not control competition from nutsedges. There are no studies documenting the commercial availability of resistant rootstock immune to the fungal pathogens listed as major pepper pests. Grafting and plant breeding are thus also rendered technically infeasible as methyl bromide alternatives for control of Phytophthora and Fusarium fungi. Soilless culture, organic production, and substrates/ plug plants are also not technically viable alternatives to methyl bromide for fungi. Various aspects of organic production   e. g., cover crops, fallow land, and steam sterilization  have already been addressed in this document and assessed to be technically infeasible methyl bromide alternatives. No COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES U. S. Pepper Page 60 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Metam sodium + Chloropicrin This combination has been used in Florida since the 1970s. It is being tested as a leading alternative to MB in Dade County because of label restrictions for 1,3 D, which do not allow its use in that county. However, it has shown erratic performance suppressing weeds, nematodes, and plant pathogens in the sandy soils of Florida. MB has higher vapor pressure than metam sodium and can penetrate and diffuse throughout the soil more effectively. Trials in tomato have shown inconsistent efficacy of this combination against soil pathogens, though it is generally better than metam sodium alone ( Locascio and Dickson 1998, Csinos et al. 1999). This alternative will require further testing and validation on commercial fields. No, but shows promise 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin ( Telone C35) Although this combination, by itself, is not effective in areas with moderate to high nutsedge pressure, it can provide season long control when coupled with herbicides ( Chellemi et al. 2001; Gilreath and Santos, 2003). Trials comparing Flat Fumigation applications with standard in row applications indicated the need to increase the amount of chloropicrin to compensate for the potential decrease in efficacy of 1,3 D applied via Flat Fumigation. Applications via micro irrigation systems have yielded mixed results, probably due to poor lateral distribution of the chemical in the soil ( Martin 2003; Dungan and Yates, 2003). In addition, 1,3 D's use is prohibited due to groundwater contamination in areas with karst geology, estimated to be about 40% in of FL pepper area in 2002. In Dade County this combination is not allowed at all. A Telone C35 application, along with a herbicide mix ( e. g. clomazone + metolachlor) applied at bed formation, has been identified by the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association as the recommended best MB alternative outside karst geology areas. Although promising, this alternative will require further testing and validation on commercial fields. No, but shows promise for nonkarst geology areas.

1,3 dichloropropene + Metam sodium Trials in tomato have shown inconsistent efficacy of this formulation against fungal pests, though it is generally better than metam sodium alone ( Csinos et al. 1999). Low efficacy in even small plot trials indicates that this is not a technically feasible alternative for commercially produced peppers at this time. In addition, 1,3 D's use is prohibited due to groundwater contamination in all pepper growing areas with karst geology, estimated to be about 40% in of FL pepper area in 2002. In Dade County 100% of pepper acreage is affected by this limitation. No Fumigant combination + herbicide partners Current research suggests that in areas of low pest pressure this combination may be suitable for some growers as an alternative for methyl bromide. In these situations growers may employ a marginal strategy without major economic dislocation if given a reasonable time frame for the transition Yes * Regulatory reasons include local restrictions ( e. g. occupational health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of registration. U. S. Pepper Page 61 FLORIDA  14. LIST AND DISCUSS WHY REGISTERED ( and Potential) PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ARE CONSIDERED NOT EFFECTIVE AS TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE:

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

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

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

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

Since methyl bromide has been used effectively to manage minor crop production, there are limited pesticide alternatives due primarily to the small market share and the high cost associated with pesticide registration. Labeling of these products in minor crops could be more expensive than returns from potential sales, and therefore pesticide manufactures have been reluctant to register pesticides for minor crop uses. Methyl bromide will be needed until a cost effective alternative regimen is in place. U. S. Pepper Page 62 FLORIDA  15. LIST PRESENT ( and Possible Future) REGISTRATION STATUS OF ANY CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,3 D + Pic ( 83 17), chisel injected 327 l 340 a 34.6 c 29.5 Metam Na, Flat Fumigation 300 l 320 a 22.6 a 54.0 Metam Na, drip irrigated 300 l 220 b 32.3 c 34.2 Notes: ( 1) Numbers followed by the same letter ( within a column) are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability, using Duncan's multiple range test. ( 2) Data shown are from the Gainesville/ Horticultural Unit site, 1994 season ( this was one of three sites included in this study). This site had relatively high nutsedge pressure, and data for both pest pressure and marketable yields for all treatments shown. All fumigants were injected 15 20 cm deep, with three chisels per bed, 30 cm apart U. S. Pepper Page 63 Locascio et al. ( 1997) studied MB alternatives on tomatoes grown in small plots at two Florida locations with high nutsedge infestation. The data from the tomato study are being cited because pepper data are not available.

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

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

Iodomethane is being considered for registration as a methyl bromide replacement. Its registration date is not known. Please refer to Table 15.1 for details. U. S. Pepper Page 64 FLORIDA 18. ARE THERE TECHNOLOGIES BEING USED TO PRODUCE THE CROP WHICH AVOID THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE?

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

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

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

In addition, labeling of 1,3 dichloropropene products restricts its use in key pepper growing areas of the U. S. where karst geology exists due to ground water contamination concerns. In areas where 1,3 dichloropropene use is allowed, set back restrictions and a 28 day waiting periods, at the maximum label rate, between application and planting cause delays/ adjustments in production schedules that could lead to missing specific market windows, thus reducing profits on pepper crops. For example, peppers produced during the winter fetch a higher price than peppers produced during warmer months, and many growers rely on this price premium to maintain profitability. U. S. Pepper Page 65 Metam sodium provides limited and erratic performance at suppressing all major solanaceous pathogens and pests. Data indicate that metam sodium is not an effective alternative to methyl bromide for nutsedge control in bell pepper fields ( Webster et al. ( 2002). A 14 30 day planting delay is also recommended for this chemical. In addition there is evidence that both 1,3 dichloropropene and methyl isothiocynate ( the breakdown product of metam sodium) levels decline more rapidly, thus further compromising efficacy, in areas where these are repeatedly applied ( Smelt et al. 1989, Ou et al. 1995, Gamliel et al. 2003). This is due to enhanced degradation of these chemicals by soil microbes ( Dungan and Yates 2003).

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

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

Research on the effectiveness of non chemical alternatives to methyl bromide is still in a preliminary stage, particularly for high value, minor use crops. U. S. Pepper Page 66 CALIFORNIA  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE CALIFORNIA  10. KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS FOR WHICH METHYL BROMIDE IS REQUESTED AND SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST CALIFORNIA  TABLE 10.1: KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS AND REASON FOR METHYL BROMIDE REQUEST REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED KEY DISEASE( S) AND WEED( S) TO GENUS AND, IF KNOWN, TO SPECIES LEVEL) SPECIFIC REASONS WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NEEDED California Crown and root rots caused by soilborne fungi   particularly Phytophthora capsici; plant parasitic nematodes, primarily root knot ( Meloidogyne spp.) Registered alternative fumigants, fungicides, and nematicides are not as cost effective and do not provide the same level of pest control as methyl bromide. One application of methyl bromide can last more than a year ( within a particular field), whereas alternative chemicals must be applied annually.

CALIFORNIA  11. ( i) CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM AND CLIMATE CALIFORNIA TABLE 11.1: CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS CALIFORNIA CROP TYPE: ( e. g. transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings) Pepper transplants for fruit production ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL CROP: (# of years between replanting) Annual; generally 1 year TYPICAL CROP ROTATION ( if any) AND USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR OTHER CROPS IN THE ROTATION: ( if any) Pepper may be followed by pepper, celery, broccoli or leafy vegetables SOIL TYPES: ( Sand, loam, clay, etc.) Sandy loam; clay loam FREQUENCY OF METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION: ( e. g. every two years) 1 time every 2 years OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: High land costs and urban encroachment increasing near production areas. Very few crops can be rotated with peppers that will provide an economic return. U. S. Pepper Page 67 CALIFORNIA  TABLE 11.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATE AND CROP SCHEDULE MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB CLIMATIC ZONE USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 9b RAINFALL ( mm) A, B 16.0 29.7 72.1 112.3 17.3 16.0 0 0 T 17.2 1.0 T T 0 0 T 44.7 74.9 56.9 273.1 9.9 36.3 30.5 62.2 OUTSIDE TEMP. ( ° C) A 14.4 13.2 14.8 12.4 20.8 14.9 25.7 17.1 30.3 17.2 27.4 19.1 25.1 18.2 18.4 16.3 13.4 14.2 9.6 11.4 10.3 2.1 10.6 11.2 FUMIGATION SCHEDULE C X* X* X*

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

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

Urban encroachment and concomitant buffer zones and local ( township) caps restrict the use of the MB alternative 1,3 D ( with or without chloropicrin). This prevents the use of this alternative on approximately 10 % of the pepper growing area in California, according to the applicant. The applicant is requesting MB only for this proportion of their total pepper acreage.

CALIFORNIA  12. HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE, AND/ OR MIXTURES CONTAINING METHYL BROMIDE, FOR WHICH AN EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED In California, the soil injection of MB under tarps has increased from approximately 68% of the area using this fumigant in 1997 to 93% in 2003. The depth of methyl bromide application varies from 15 to 36 cm centimeters below tarps. The low MB dosage rate is due in large part to a shift by all growers to formulations lower than the 98: 2 ratio that was used in the mid 1990s. The formulations most commonly in use currently are 75: 25 or 67: 33 mixture of methyl bromide: chloropicrin. ( Melban 2003). Please see Table 12.1 for further information. U. S. Pepper Page 68 CALIFORNIA TABLE 12.1 HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR AS MANY YEARS AS POSSIBLE AS SHOWN SPECIFY: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 AREA TREATED ( hectares) 864 1,226 995 447 121 Not available RATIO OF FLAT FUMIGATION METHYL BROMIDE USE TO STRIP/ BED USE IF STRIP TREATMENT IS USED Ratio of Flat Fumigation treatments versus bed applications is not known. Two methods of application are used: Flat fumed type, and methyl bromide is injected, and sealed with plastic ground cover. If buffer zones are strict ( e. g., in southern Santa Clara County), then almost all applications are flat fumed, Flat Fumigation. The second type of application involves bed fumed (~ 0.67 A, or 29,000 sq. ft) AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED ( total kilograms) 182,834 247,191 170,830 63,558 25,929 Not available FORMULATIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE ( methyl bromide / chloropicrin) 75: 25 or 67: 33 75: 25 or 67: 33 75: 25 or 67: 33 75: 25 or 67: 33 75: 25 or 67: 33 75: 25 or 67: 33 METHODS BY WHICH METHYL BROMIDE APPLIED Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep Flat fumed or bed fumed, injected 16 36 cm deep APPLICATION RATE OF FLAT FUMIGATION ; FLATFUMED KG A. I./ ha* 212 202 172 142 214 Not available DOSAGE RATE*( G/ M 2) OF FORMULATION USED TO CALCULATE REQUESTED KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 Not available U. S. Pepper Page 69 California  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION CALIFORNIA  13. REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE CALIFORNIA   TABLE 13.1: REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Metam Sodium Control of key fungal pest is inconsistent at best ( Martin 2003). The use of metam sodium also creates a 14 30 day planting delay ( waiting period from application to planting) to avoid risk of phytotoxic injury to crops compared to a 14 day delay for MB. Gilreath et al. ( 1994) found that metam sodium treatments did not match MB in terms of plant vigor at the end of the season; Fusarium was one of several pests present No 1,3 dichloropropene I, 3 D controls nematodes, but performs poorly with soil pathogens and weeds. Furthermore, California has township caps limiting the amount of 1, 3 D that can be used near urban areas and a mandatory buffer ( approx. 100 m) around treated areas. The use of 1,3 D also requires a 28 day waiting period between application and planting. No NON CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Soil solarization California's coastal climate is typically cool ( less than 16 oC frequently through December), rainy, and cloudy, particularly early in the pepper growing season when control of the key pests is particularly important. Since solarization has shown some potential in other crops and regions ( e. g., tomatoes in Florida), the potential for adoption exists ( Schneider et al. 2003). However, at this time it is technically infeasible for California coastal peppers. No Steam While steam has been used effectively against fungal pests in protected production systems, such as greenhouses, there is no evidence that it would be effective in open field pepper crops in California. Any such system would also require large amounts of energy and water to provide sufficient steam necessary to sterilize soil down to the rooting depth of field crops ( at least 20 50 cm). No Biological Control Biological control agents are not technically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide because they alone cannot control the soil pathogens that afflict peppers in California. The bacterium Burkholderia cepacia and the fungus Gliocladium virens have shown some potential in controlling some fungal plant pathogens ( Larkin and Fravel 1998). However, in a test conducted in Michigan, P. capsici was not controlled adequately in summer squash by either of these beneficial microorganisms. Tests in California peppers have apparently not been conducted. No U. S. Pepper Page 70 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Cover crops and mulching There is no evidence these practices effectively substitute for the control methyl bromide provides against P. capsici. Plastic mulch is already in widespread use in California vegetables, and regional crop experts state that it is not an adequate protectant when used without methyl bromide. The longevity and resistance of P. capsici oospores renders cover crops ineffective as a stand alone management alternative to methyl bromide. No Crop rotation and fallow land The crop rotations available to growers in the coastal California region are also susceptible to these fungi, particularly to P. capsici. Fallow land can still harbor P. capsici oospores ( Lamour and Hausbeck 2003). Thus fungi would persist and attack peppers if crop rotation/ fallow land was the main management regime. The same phenomenon applies to nematodes, another important soil pest in this region. No Endophytes Though these organisms ( fungi that grow symbiotically or as parasites within plants) have been shown to suppress some plant pathogens in cucumber, there is no such information for the pepper crops grown in California. Furthermore, the pathogens involved did not include Phytophthora species, which are arguably the greatest single threat to California peppers. No Flooding/ Water management Flooding is not technically feasible as an alternative because it does not have any suppressive effect on P. capsici ( Allen et al. 1999), and is likely to be impractical for California pepper growers. It is unclear whether irrigation methods in this region could be adapted to incorporate flooding or alter water management for pepper fields. In any case, there appears to be no supporting evidence for its use against the hardy oospores of P. capsici. No Grafting/ resistant rootstock/ plant breeding/ soilless culture/ organic production/ substrat es/ plug plants. Due to the paucity of scientific information on the utility of these alternatives as methyl bromide replacements in peppers, they have been grouped together for discussion in this document. There are no studies documenting the commercial availability of resistant rootstock immune to the fungal pathogens listed as major pepper pests. Grafting and plant breeding are thus also rendered technically infeasible as methyl bromide alternatives for control of Phytophthora and Fusarium fungi. Soilless culture, organic production, and substrates/ plug plants are also not technically viable alternatives to methyl bromide for fungi. P. capsici can spread through water ( Gevens and Hausbeck 2003), making it difficult to keep any sort of area ( with or without soil) plant pathogen free. Various aspects of organic production   e. g., cover crops, fallow land, and steam sterilization  have already been addressed in this document and assessed to be technically infeasible methyl bromide alternatives. No COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES U. S. Pepper Page 71 NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

Metam sodium + Chloropicrin Trials in tomato have shown inconsistent efficacy of this formulation against fungal pests, though it is generally better than metam sodium alone ( Locascio and Dickson 1998, Csinos et al. 1999). Low efficacy in even small plot trials indicates that this is not a technically feasible alternative for commercially produced cucurbits at this time. These studies apparently did not measure yield impacts, and did not involve cucurbits. The use of metam sodium requires a 21 day waiting period from application to planting to avoid risk of phytotoxic injury to crops. No 1,3 dichloropropene + metam sodium Trials in tomato have shown inconsistent efficacy of this formulation against fungal pests, though it is generally better than metam sodium alone ( Csinos et al. 1999). Furthermore, the use of metam sodium requires a 21 day waiting period from application to planting, while 1,2 D has a 28 day waiting period. No 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin This combination has shown effectiveness equivalent to that of MB against nematodes ( Eger 2000). However, California has township caps on the amount of 1,3 D and chloropicrin that can be used near urban areas and a mandatory buffer ( approx. 100 m) around treated areas, factors that may result in significant areas remaining untreated. The use of 1,3 D requires a 28 day waiting period between application and planting. No Fumigant combination + herbicide partners Current research suggests that in areas of low pest pressure this combination may be suitable for some growers as an alternative for methyl bromide. In these situations growers may employ a marginal strategy without major economic dislocation if given a reasonable time frame for the transition. Yes * Regulatory reasons include local restrictions ( e. g. occupational health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of registration.

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

NAME OF ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION Other than those options discussed elsewhere, no alternatives exist for the control of the key pests when they are present in the soil and/ or afflict the belowground portions of pepper plants. A number of effective fungicides are available for treatment of these fungi when they infect aerial portions of crops. However, these infections are not the focus of MB use, which is meant to keep newly planted transplants free of these fungi.

California 15. LIST PRESENT ( and Possible Future) REGISTRATION STATUS OF ANY CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES U. S. Pepper Page 72 CALIFORNIA   TABLE 15.1: PRESENT REGISTRATION STATUS OF ALTERNATIVES NAME OF ALTERNATIVE PRESENT REGISTRATION STATUS State if registered for this crop, registered for crop but use restricted, registered for other crops but not target crop, or not registered REGISTRATION BEING CONSIDERED BY NATIONAL AUTHORITIES? ( Y/ N) DATE OF POSSIBLE FUTURE REGISTRATION:

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

1,3 D + chloropicrin has shown effectiveness equivalent to that of MB against nematodes ( Eger 2000). In studies with other vegetable crops, this combination has generally shown better control of soil borne fungi than metam sodium formulations ( though still not as good as control with MB). For example, in a study using a bell pepper/ squash rotation in small plots  conducted in the much warmer conditions of Georgia and without P. capsici as a component of the pest complex  Webster et al. ( 2001) found significantly lower fungal populations with 1,3 D + 35 % chloropicrin ( drip irrigated or chisel injected, 146 kg/ ha of 1,3 D), as compared to the untreated control. However, MB ( 440 kg/ ha, shank injected) lowered fungal populations even more. Methyl iodide had no significant suppressive effect, as compared to the untreated control. In another study, conducted on tomatoes in Florida, Gilreath et al. ( 1994) found that metam sodium treatments did not match MB in terms of plant vigor at the end of the season; Fusarium was one of several pests present. However, California has township caps on the amount of 1,3 D and chloropicrin that can be used near urban areas and a mandatory buffer ( approx. 100 m) around treated areas, factors that may result in significant areas remaining untreated. The use of 1,3 D also requires a 28 day waiting period between application and planting.

CALIFORNIA   TABLE C. 1: ALTERNATIVES YIELD LOSS DATA SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE LIST TYPE OF PEST RANGE OF YIELD LOSS BEST ESTIMATE OF YIELD LOSS 1,3 dichloropropene + Chloropicrin Soil borne plant pathogens and nematodes 0   6 % PLUS loss of revenue due to planting delays 6 % loss of revenue due to planting delays Metam sodium ( with or without chloropicrin) Soil borne plant pathogens and nematodes 0   6 % PLUS loss of revenue due to planting delays 6 % loss of revenue due to planting delays OVERALL LOSS ESTIMATE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES TO PESTS 6 % likely with the best alternative ( 1,3 D + chloropicrin) U. S. Pepper Page 73 CALIFORNIA  17. ARE THERE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES UNDER DEVELOPMENT WHICH ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO REPLACE METHYL BROMIDE?

The critical use exemption applicant states that chloropicrin, 1,3 D, metam sodium, water management, and plant varieties will continue to be tested for efficacy against P. capsici and other key soil borne pathogens.

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

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

CALIFORNIA  SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY Without MB, pepper producers in cool weather climates of Ventura and Santa Clara Counties would most likely use a mixture of 1,3 D and chloropicrin ( Telone C 35) to manage nematode and fungal pathogen populations prior to transplanting pepper. There is evidence from numerous small plot and large scale trials to indicate that these MB alternatives, in combination, will control nematodes to the extent that MB does nematodes ( e. g. Eger 2000). However fungal pests, particularly P. capsici, may not be controlled to a similar extent. No large plot studies have yet been performed to show commercial feasibility against fungal pests in coastal California peppers. Regulatory constraints on 1,3 D and chloropicrin must also be kept in mind: township caps on the amounts used ( which may affect the use rate, and hence efficacy), and mandatory 100 m buffers near inhabited structures, both of which could cause negative economic impacts on the pepper industry. These planting restrictions may inhibit widespread grower adoption of this MB alternative.

Currently unregistered alternatives, such as furfural and sodium azide, have shown good efficacy against the key pests involved. However, even if registration is pursued soon ( and there is no indication of plans to do so) these options will need more validation and adaptation research specific to commercial pepper production in California. There are no non chemical alternatives that are currently viable for MB replacement for commercial pepper growers. In sum, while the potential exists for a combination of chemical and non chemical alternatives to replace MB use in California pepper, this goal still is a few years away. U. S. Pepper Page 74 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL 19. TECHNIQUES THAT HAVE AND WILL BE USED TO MINIMIZE METHYL BROMIDE USE AND EMISSIONS IN THE PARTICULAR USE:

TABLE 19.1: TECHNIQUES TO MINIMIZE METHYL BROMIDE USE AND EMISSIONS TECHNIQUE OR STEP TAKEN VIF OR HIGH BARRIER FILMS METHYL BROMIDE DOSAGE REDUCTION INCREASED % CHLOROPICRIN IN METHYL BROMIDE FORMULATION LESS FREQUENT APPLICATION WHAT USE/ EMISSION REDUCTION METHODS ARE PRESENTLY ADOPTED? Currently some growers use HDPE tarps. Growers have switched from a 98% MB formulation to a 67 % formulation. Between 1997 and 2001, the U. S. has achieved a 36 % reduction in use rates. From 2 % to 33 % No WHAT FURTHER USE/ EMISSION REDUCTION STEPS WILL BE TAKEN FOR THE METHYL BROMIDE USED FOR CRITICAL USES? Research is underway to develop use in commercial production systems A 50 % MB formulation is being tested in Michigan pepper fields. A similar formulation was tested in Florida and found to be ineffective. A 50 % MB formulation is being tested in Michigan pepper fields. A similar formulation was tested in Florida and found to be ineffective. The U. S. anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to try less frequent applications.

OTHER MEASURES ( please describe) Examination of promising but presently unregistered alternative fumigants and herbicides, alone or in combination with non chemical methods, is planned in all regions ( Please see Section 17 for each region for details) Measures adopted in Michigan will likely be used in the other regions when fungi are the only key pests involved Measures adopted in Michigan will likely be used in the other regions when fungi are the only key pests involved Unknown U. S. Pepper Page 75 20. IF METHYL BROMIDE EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNIQUES ARE NOT BEING USED, OR ARE NOT PLANNED FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE NOMINATION, STATE REASONS In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, each party is required to describe ways in which it strives to minimize use and emissions of MB. The use of MB in the growing of peppers in the United States is minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity, MB has, for the last 40 years, been regulated as a restricted use pesticide in the United States. As a consequence, MB can only be used by certified applicators who are trained at handling these hazardous pesticides. In practice, this means that MB 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 MB and keep related emissions to the lowest level possible, MB application for cucurbits is most often machine injected into soil to specific depths.

As MB has become scarce, users in the United States have, where possible, experimented with different mixes of MB and chloropicrin. Specifically, in the early 1990s, MB was typically sold and used in MB mixtures made up of 92% MB 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 MB, users have been experimenting with significant increases in the level of chloropicrin and reductions in the level of MB. While these new mixtures have generally been effective at controlling target pests, at low to moderate levels of infestation, it must be stressed that the long term efficacy of these mixtures is unknown.

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

Reduced MB concentrations in mixtures, cultural practices, and the extensive use of tarpaulins to cover land treated with MB has resulted in reduced emissions and an application rate that we believe is among the lowest in the world for the uses described in this nomination. U. S. Pepper Page 76 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Economic data from the 2004 submission for all applicants were not substantially different from those in 2003 ( greater or less than a 10% change in costs and revenue). Given these insignificant differences, the economic analyses were not updated for any applicants other than Michigan, which was updated to reflect a change in the requested pounds of MeBr.

The following economic assessment is organized by MeBr critical use application. Cost of MeBr and alternatives are given first in table 21.1. This is followed in table 22.1 by a listing of net and gross revenues by applicant. Expected losses when using MeBr alternatives are then further decomposed in tables E1 through E5.

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

21. OPERATING COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD: U. S. Pepper Page 77 TABLE 21.1: PEPPERS   OPERATING COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD ALTERNATIVE YIELD* COST IN YEAR 1 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 2 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 3 ( US$/ ha) California Methyl Bromide 100% $ 17,246 $ 17,246 $ 17,246 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 94% $ 17,160 $ 17,160 $ 17,160 Florida Methyl Bromide 100% $ 20,341 $ 20,341 $ 20,341 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 71% $ 18,510 $ 18,510 $ 18,510 Metam Sodium 56% $ 16,999 $ 16,999 $ 16,999 Georgia Methyl Bromide 100% $ 28,623 $ 28,623 $ 28,623 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 71% $ 25,790 $ 25,790 $ 25,790 Metam Sodium 56% $ 23,598 $ 23,598 $ 23,598 Michigan Methyl Bromide 100% $ 23,938 $ 23,938 $ 23,938 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 94% $ 25,607 $ 25,607 $ 25,607 Southeast USA Methyl Bromide 100% $ 18,758 $ 18,758 $ 18,758 1,3 D + Chloropicrin 71% $ 18,844 $ 18,844 $ 18,844 Metam Sodium 56% $ 16,731 $ 16,731 $ 16,731 * As percentage of typical or 3 year average yield, compared to methyl bromide e. g. 10% more yield, write 110. U. S. Pepper Page 78 22. GROSS AND NET REVENUE:

TABLE 22.1: PEPPERS   YEAR 1, 2, AND 3 GROSS AND NET REVENUES YEAR 1, 2, AND 3 ALTERNATIVES ( as shown in question 21) GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) California Methyl Bromide $ 21,344 $ 4,098 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 20,063 $ 2,903 Florida Methyl Bromide $ 29,498 $ 9,158 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 20,944 $ 2,433 Metam Sodium $ 16,519 $( 479) Georgia Methyl Bromide $ 35,176 $ 6,553 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 24,975 $( 816) Metam Sodium $ 19,698 $( 3,900) Michigan Methyl Bromide $ 24,056 $ 118 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 20,916 $( 2,994) Southeastern USA Methyl Bromide $ 30,579 $ 11,822 1,3 D + Chloropicrin $ 21,711 $ 2,867 Metam Sodium $ 17,124 $ 393 NOTE: Year 1 equals year 2 and 3. U. S. Pepper Page 79 MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES CALIFORNIA PEPPER  TABLE E1: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES CALIFORNIA PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 6%

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

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

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

5. PROFIT MARGIN (%) 19% 14%

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

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

FIVE LOSS MEASURES *

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

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE (%) 0% 73% 105%

5. PROFIT MARGIN (%) 31% 12%  3% U. S. Pepper Page 80 GEORGIA PEPPER  TABLE E. 3: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES GEORGIA PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN METAMSODIUM YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 29% 44%

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

FIVE LOSS MEASURES *

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

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

5. PROFIT MARGIN (%) 19%  3%  20%

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

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

FIVE LOSS MEASURES *

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

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

5. PROFIT MARGIN (%) 0%  22% U. S. Pepper Page 81 SOUTHEASTERN USA ( EXCEPT GEORGIA) PEPPER  TABLE E. 5: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES SOUTHEASTERN USA ( EXCEPT GEORGIA) PEPPER METHYL BROMIDE 1, 3 D + CHLOROPICRIN METAMSODIUM YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 29% 44%

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

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

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

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

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

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

The economic conditions facing pepper growers were quantified as best as possible but, primarily due to limited data availability, every aspect of the economic picture was not included in the numeric assessment. Factors not accounted for are distribution of yield loss across individual growers and the yield risk associated with using MeBr alternatives. U. S. Pepper Page 82 Michigan The US concludes that, at present, no economically feasible alternatives to MeBr exist for use in Michigan pepper production. Two factors have proven most important in this conclusion. These are yield loss and missed market windows, which are discussed individually below.

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

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

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

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

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

Georgia No technically ( and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MeBr are presently available to U. S. Pepper Page 83 the effected pepper growers. As such, the US concludes that use of MeBr is critical in Georgia pepper production.

Southeastern USA Except Georgia No technically ( and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MeBr are presently available to the effected pepper growers. As such, the US concludes that use of MeBr is critical in Southeastern USA pepper production. U. S. Pepper Page 84 PART F. FUTURE PLANS 23. WHAT ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN TO RAPIDLY DEVELOP AND DEPLOY ALTERNATIVES FOR THIS CROP?

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

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to methyl bromide, the Agency has worked to reduce the burdens on data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the Agency's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the Agency has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application, allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, Agency scientists routinely meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants, counseling them through the preregistration process to increase the probability that the data is done right the first time and rework delays are minimized The U. S. EPA has also co chaired the U. S. DA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research, development and the registration of viable alternatives. This coordination has resulted in key registration issues ( such as worker and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and drinking water concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural Research Service's U. S.$ 15 million per year research program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also EPA's participation in the evaluation of research grant proposals each year for USDA's U. S. $ 2.5 million per year methyl bromide alternatives research has further ensured close coordination between the U. S. government and the research community.

The amount of methyl bromide requested for research purposes is considered critical for the development of effective alternatives. Without methyl bromide for use as a standard treatment, the research studies can never address the comparative performance of alternatives. This would be a serious impediment to the development of alternative strategies. The U. S. government estimates that peppers research will require 2844 kg per year of methyl bromide for 2005 and 2006. This amount of methyl bromide is necessary to conduct research on alternatives and is in addition to the amounts requested in the submitted CUE applications. One example of the research is a field study testing the comparative performance of methyl bromide, host resistance, cultural practices, pest management approaches for control of rootknot nematodes. Another example is a five year field study comparing methyl bromide to 1,3 D combined with biologically based materials including transplant treatments for control of weeds, root knot nematodes and soil borne fungal pathogens. U. S. Pepper Page 85 24. HOW DO YOU PLAN TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE CRITICAL USE IN THE FUTURE?

See Section 23 above.

25. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE NOMINATION?

New data used in this CUN 1. Southeastern states, including Georgia New data on potential MB alternatives for use on peppers were submitted by the Georgia and Southeast U. S. Peppers Consortium. Results of a small plot field study conducted in Tifton, Georgia by Culpepper and Langston ( 2004) show that 1,3 D + chloropicrin, followed by more chloropicrin, was more effective than MB against yellow nutsedge, but less effective against purple nutsedge. Although this treatment performed as well as MB in terms of spring crop yield, its fall yield performance was inferior to that of MB. In a second treatment, 1,3 D by itself, followed by chloropicrin, was significantly less effective than methyl bromide for the control of both purple and yellow nutsedge, but as effective as MB for the control soil nematodes. In terms of spring and fall pepper yield, however, this treatment performed as well as MB. In a third treatment, 1,3 D + chloropicrin, followed by metam sodium, was as effective as MB against yellow nutsedge, 36% less effective than MB against purple nutsedge, and as effective as MB for the control of soil nematodes. This treatment also performed as well as MB in terms of both spring and fall pepper yield. Although these combinations are showing promise, they will require further testing and validation.

Ongoing research at University of Florida includes various techniques with existing chemical alternatives as well as the development of new chemistries, such as propargyl bromide, a compound with reduced risk. The efficacy of pre plant herbicides and soil applied fumigants depends on the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil. The depth of the incorporation could play a critical role in the efficacy of a given chemical alternative, because of the changes in soil humidity, microbial activity, and temperature. These changes could alter the chemistry of the applied chemicals.

In addition, the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association has been screening, as stand alone MB replacements, 1,3 D, chloropicrin, metam sodium, and dazomet evaluated against 98: 2 and 67: 33 MB + chloropicrin formulations at the maximum allowable label rate at multiple locations. Results indicate that the best alternatives will likely include a pre plant application of 1,3 D + chloropicrin, followed by an application of chloropicrin injected into the raised bed and a herbicide mix applied to the raised bed at plastic laying. U. S. Pepper Page 86 26. CITATIONS Aerts, M. 2003. Asst. Director, Environmental and Pest Management Division, FFVA ( Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association). Personal Communication with G. Tomimatsu, U. S. EPA, December 2, 2003.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chellemi, D. O., J. Mirusso, J. Nance, and K. Shuler. 2001. Results from field scale demonstrations/ validation studies of Telone ® products on the Florida east coast. Proceedings, Florida Tomato Institute, University of Florida, Pp 51 58.

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

Culpepper, A. S. 2004. Survey of infestations of nutsedges in Georgia vegetable crops. ( Unpublished).

Culpepper A. S. and D. B. Langston. 2004. Fumigant/ herbicide combinations. Unpublished report. University of Georgia, Tifton. U. S. Pepper Page 87 Csinos, A. S., D. R. Sumner, R. M. McPherson, C. Dowler, C. W. Johnson, and A. W. Johnson. 1999. Alternatives for methyl bromide fumigation of tobacco seed beds, pepper, and tomato seedlings. Proc. Georgia Veg. Conf. Available on the Web at http:// www. tifton. uga. edu/ veg/ Publications/ Gfvga99. pdf Dowler, C. C. 1999. Herbicide activity of metham, methyl iodide, and methyl bromide applied through irrigation systems. Proc. Southern Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 77   78.

Dungan, R. S. and S. R. Yates. 2003. Degradation of fumigant pesticides: 1,3 Dichloropropene, methyl isothiocyanate, chloropicrin, and methyl bromide. Vodose Zone Journal 2: 279 286.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gilreath, J. P. and B. M. Santos. 2003. Herbicide dose and incorporation in combinations with 1,3dichloropropene plus chloropicrin for Ceperus rotundus control in tomato and pepper. Crop Protection 23( 3): 205 210.

Hausbeck, M. K. and B. D. Cortright. 2003. Evaluation of fumigants for managing Phytophthora crown and fruit rot of solanaceous and cucurbit crops, plot two, 2003. Unpublished study ( MI CUE # 03 0061). U. S. Pepper Page 88 Horowitz, M. 1972. Effects of desiccation and submergence on the viability of rhizome fragments of bermudagrass, johnsongrass, and tubers of nutsedge. Israel J. Agric. Res. 22( 4): 215 220.

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

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

Lamour, K. H. and M. Hausbeck, 2003. Effect of Crop Rotation on the survival of Phytophthora capsici in Michigan. Plant Dis. 87: 841 845.

Larkin, R. P., and Fravel, D. R. 1998. Efficacy of various fungal and bacterial biocontrol organisms for control of Fusarium wilt of tomato. Plant Dis. 82: 1022  1028.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noling, J. W. 2003. University of Florida Lake Alfred. Personal Communication with G. Tomimatsu. Jwn@ lal. ufl. edu. 11/ 25/ 2003. U. S. Pepper Page 89 Noling, J. W., E. Rosskopf, and D. L. Chellemi. 2000. Impacts of alternative fumigants on soil pest control and tomato yield. Proc. Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on the web at http:// www. mbao. org/ mbrpro00. html.

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

Phatak, S. C., D. R. Sumner, H. D. Wells, D. K. Bell, and N. C. Glaze. 1983. Biological control of yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus, with the indigenous rust fungus Puccinia canaliculata. Science. 219: 1446   1448.

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

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

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

Schaetzl, R. J. and D. M. Tomczak. 2001. Wintertime temperatures in the fine textured soils of the Saginaw Valley, Michigan. The Great Lake Geographer, 8( 2): 87 99. http:// geography. ssc. uwo. ca/ great_ lakes_ geographer/ GLG_ volume8/ Schaetzl_ Tomczak. pdf Smelt, J. H., S. J. H. Crum, and W. Teinissen. 1989. Accelerated transformation of the fumigant methyl isocyanate in soil after repeated application of metam sodium. J. Environ. Sci. Health B24: 437 455.

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

University of California, Davis. Undated. Management of plant parasitic nematodes, Chemical management techniques, Factors affecting the effectiveness of Telone II. http:// ucdnema. ucdavis. edu/ imagemap/ nemmap/ ent156html/ 204NEM/ 204INDEX,

http:// ucdnema. ucdavis. edu/ imagemap/ nemmap/ ent156html/ 204NEM/ CHEM/ XTELCH RT U. S. EPA. 2002. Peppers Field. Peppers Grown Outdoors on Plastic Mulch. CUN2003/ 058 U. S. Pepper Page 90 Verhagen, C., G. Lebbink, and J. Bloem. 1996. Enhanced biodegradation of the nematicides 1,3 dichloropropene and methyl isothiocyanate in a variety of soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 28: 1753   1756.

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

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

Wilen, C. A., M. E. McGiffen, and C. L. Elmore. 2003. Nutsedge: Integrated Pest Management for Home Gardeners and Landscape Professionals. University of California IPM Publication # 4732. Available on the Web at www. ipm. ucdavis. edu. U. S. Pepper Page 91 APPENDIX A. 2007 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). 37,557 35%

2003 Hectares % of 2001 & 2002 Avg Requested %

10,659 3% 7%

5,806 16% 28%

2,899 79% 80%

7,893 107% 107%

816 16% 16%

28,074 43% 47%

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

28,524 7,606 12,522 80 157 96,560 56,729 66,089 440 150 251,519 156,432 178,778 1,190 150 1,085,364 817,072 880,121 5,538 159 11,396 11,396 11,396 95 120 1,473,364 1,049,237 1,148,907 7,343 156 32% 51% 47% 44% 4%

Low EPA High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW % adopt % per year 157 157 0 0 0 0 100 100 26 17 0 0 0 0 75% 20% 75% 15%

150 150 0 0 0 0 80 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 80% 47% 86% 11%

150 150 8 8 0 0 80 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 82% 51% 84% 11%

159 159 40 40 1 1 80 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 89% 67% 75% 9%

120 120 0 0 0 0 75 75 0 0 0 0 75 75 75% 75% 0% 0%

Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

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

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

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No Yes + Yes 1/ year 76 $ 37% 97%

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

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No Yes + Yes 1/ year 70 $ 30% 160%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No Yes  Yes 1/ year 45 $ 23% 73%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No Yes  Yes 1/ year 64 $ 33% 105%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No No N/ A Yes 1/ year 40 $ 20% 100%

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

29% 44% 29%

Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)

6% 29% 44% 1,3 D + Pic 22%  6 yield + 16 planting delay Metam Sodium 1,3 D + Pic 2007 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) 44% 1,3 D + Pic 1,3 D + Pic Metam Sodium 1,3 D + Pic Metam Sodium ** Georgia Acreage estimates verified at http:// www. caed. uga. edu/ 2003gafgveg. pdf * Georgia rotates crops with solanaceous crops therefore we had to balance the distribution with the other sectors in Georgia's application.

GEORGIA SOUTHEASTERN US 10,453 $ 6,724 $

FLORIDA Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs)

REGION REGION REGION GEORGIA FLORIDA MICHIGAN GEORGIA Other Issues Regulatory Issues (%) 0% Conversion Units:

*** Michigan rates are higher for 2007 based on more current information.

MICHIGAN CALIFORNIA SOUTHEASTERN US MICHIGAN MICHIGAN ***

CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA* SOUTHEASTERN US GEORGIA FLORIDA FLORIDA Other Considerations Nomination Amount % Reduction from Initial Request CALIFORNIA Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

SOUTHEASTERN US Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst ( Telone) (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 13%

(%) Key Pest Distribution 0% 0% 13% 1,631,815 1,160,289 13% 24% 46%

2,153,749 2,153,749 1,883,560

 69,540  1,883,560 1,883,560 1,197,643 901,597 15,195     11,396 11,396 1,415,207  108,191 63,562 347,183  4,467   281,027 174,785 240,086  104,848  () QPS HIGH LOW 136,078  91,334   33,558 8,949 2007 Request () Double Counting () Growth () Use Rate Adjustment 133 120 0%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 2,153,749 13,213 163 1,884,288 12,067 156 15,195 127 120 15,924 2,282 150 0%

1,415,207 8,417 168 1,345,667 8,468 159 0%

347,183 2,312 150 342,716 284 157 0%

240,086 1,599 150 135,238 900 150 0%

136,078 759 179 44,743 2007 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

REGION 2007 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: PEPPERS % of Average Hectares Requested:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 1/ 28/ 2005 Average Hectares in the US: Regional Hectares Combined Impacts (%) MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE Adoption / Transition Research Amount ( kgs)

2844 Adoption Transition Adjustment ( kgs)

Most Likely Impact Value:

9,637 $ 4,808 $ Economic Analysis Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) 1,194 $ 8,954 $ 11,429 $ 7,368 $ U. S. Pepper Page 92 Footnotes for Appendix A: Values may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1. Average Hectares in the US   Average Hectares in the US is the average of 2001 and 2002 total hectares in the US in this crop when available. These figures were obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2. % of Average Hectares Requested  Percent (%) of Average Hectares Requested is the total area in the sector's request divided by the Average Hectares in the US. Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 3. 2007 Amount of Request   The 2007 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination. 4. 2001 & 2002 Average Use   The 2001 & 2002 Average Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures provided by the applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to unavailable 2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use figure is used. 5. Quarantine and Pre Shipment   Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the percentage (%) of the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. 6. Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares   Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares is the 2001 and 2002 average estimate of hectares within the defined region. These figures are taken from various sources to ensure an accurate estimate. The sources are from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and from other governmental sources such as the Georgia Acreage estimates. 7. Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage %  Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage % is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 8. 2007 Nomination Options   2007 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure. 9. Subtractions from Requested Amounts   Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount. 10. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2007 Request   Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2007 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms. 11. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting is the estimate measured in kilograms in situations where an applicant has made a request for a CUE with an individual application while their consortium has also made a request for a CUE on their behalf in the consortium application. In these cases the double counting is removed from the consortium application and the individual application takes precedence. 12. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the difference in the 2007 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE application compared with the 2007 request from the applicant's 2003 CUE application. 13. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2007 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then U. S. Pepper Page 93 multiplied by the percentage subject to QPS treatments. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, QPS = ( 2007 Request   Double Counting   Growth)*( QPS %) 14. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate Difference   Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2007 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares. 15. Adjustments to Requested Amounts   Adjustments to requested amounts were factors that reduced to total amount of methyl bromide requested by factoring in the specific situations were the applicant could use alternatives to methyl bromide. These are calculated as proportions of the total request. We have tried to make the adjustment to the requested amounts in the most appropriate category when the adjustment could fall into more than one category. 16. (%) Karst topography   Percent karst topography is the proportion of the land area in a nomination that is characterized by karst formations. In these areas, the groundwater can easily become contaminated by pesticides or their residues. Regulations are often in place to control the use of pesticide of concern. Dade County, Florida, has a ban on the use of 1,3D due to its karst topography. 17. (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones   Percentage of the acreage of a field where certain alternatives to methyl bromide cannot be used due the requirement that a 100 foot buffer be maintained between the application site and any inhabited structure. 18. (%) Key Pest Impacts  Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For example, the key pest in Michigan peppers, Phytophthora spp. infests approximately 30% of the vegetable growing area. In southern states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge. 19. Regulatory Issues (%)  Regulatory issues (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps) pursuant to state and local limits on their use. 20. Unsuitable Terrain (%)   Unsuitable terrain (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance) or terrain configuration, such as hilly terrain. Where the use of alternatives poses application and coverage problems. 21. Cold Soil Temperatures   Cold soil temperatures is the proportion of the requested acreage where soil temperatures remain too low to enable the use of methyl bromide alternatives and still have sufficient time to produce the normal ( one or two) number of crops per season or to allow harvest sufficiently early to obtain the high prices prevailing in the local market at the beginning of the season. 22. Combined Impacts (%)  Total combined impacts are the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc. In each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available ( e. g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive). For example, if 50% of the requested area had moderate to severe key pest pressure and 50% of the requested area had karst topography, then 75% of the area was assumed to require methyl bromide rather than the alternative. This was calculated as follows: 50% affected by key pests and an additional 25% ( 50% of 50%) affected by karst topography. 23. Adaptation / Transition  Estimate of the percentage of the weighted usage that can be transitioned to a marginal strategy. This estimate is for areas of low to moderate pest pressure, where some growers may employ a marginal strategy without major economic dislocation if given a reasonable time frame for the transition. 24. Qualifying Area  Qualifying area ( ha) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined impacts. 25. Use Rate  Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for 2007 or the historic average use rate. 26. CUE Nominated amount  CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. 27. Percent Reduction  Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. 28. Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector  Self explanatory. 29. Total US Sector Nomination  Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector. U. S. Pepper Page 94 30. Dichotomous Variables   dichotomous variables are those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no. These variables were used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination. 31. Strip Bed Treatment   Strip bed treatment is ` yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise. 32. Currently Use Alternatives   Currently use alternatives is ` yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made. 33. Research/ Transition Plans   Research/ Transition Plans is ` yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to transition to alternatives. 34. Tarps/ Deep Injection Used   Because all pre plant methyl bromide use in the US is either with tarps or by deep injection, this variable takes on the value ` tarp' when tarps are used and ` deep' when deep injection is used. 35. Pest free cert. Required  This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be certified as ` pest free' in order to be sold 36. Other Issues. Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 37. Change from Prior CUE Request This variable takes a `+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a ` 0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a `` if the current request is smaller that the previous request. 38. Verified Historic Use/ State This item indicates whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been compared to records of historic use in that area. 39. Frequency of Treatment   This indicates how often methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from multiple times per year to once in several decades. 40. Economic Analysis   provides summary economic information for the applications. 41. Loss per Hectare   This measures the total loss per hectare when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 42. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide   This measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 43. Loss as a % of Gross revenue   This measures the loss as a proportion of gross ( total) revenue. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 44. Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue  This measures loss as a proportion of total revenue minus operating costs. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. This item is also called net cash returns. 45. Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)   When this measure is available it measures the sum of losses including quality losses, non productive time, missed market windows and other yield losses when using the marginal strategy. 46. Marginal Strategy  This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. U. S. Pepper Page 95 APPENDIX B. 2006 Methyl Bromide Reconsideration for Peppers.

Overview of the U. S. Nomination The U. S. requested 1,498.53 metric tons of methyl bromide for use on pepper crops in the U. S. for 2006. This amount was requested for California ( 59.659 metric tons), Florida ( 1,006.074 metric tons), Georgia ( 242.761 metric tons), Michigan ( 9.482 metric tons), and a group of States in the southeastern part of the U. S. ( 77.711 metric tons). 1 The U. S. nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are not suitable. In U. S. pepper production there are several factors that make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable. These include:

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

geographic distribution of key target pests2: i. e., some alternatives may be comparable to methyl bromide as long as key pests occur at low pressure, and in such cases the U. S. is only nominating a CUE for peppers where the key pest pressure is moderate to high. An example is areas of moderate to high nutsedge infestation in the Southeastern U. S.

regulatory constraints: e. g., 1,3 D use is limited in Georgia and Florida due to the presence of karst geology and in California due to township caps.

delay in planting and harvesting: e. g., the plant back interval for 1,3 D + chloropicrin is two weeks longer than methyl bromide + chloropicrin, and in Michigan an additional delay would occur because soil temperature must be higher to fumigate with alternatives ( this is a regulatory requirement). Delays in planting and harvesting result in users missing key market windows, and adversely affect revenues through lower prices. In addition, delay in planting and harvesting may preclude the planting and harvesting of an additional crop on the treated acreage, causing an additional economic loss.

cold soil temperatures: some alternatives cannot be used effectively and are precluded from such uses by the label until the soil temperatures is above 40   F ( approximately 5   C.)

MBTOC recommended 804.033 tons of methyl bromide for this use distributed as follows: 9.482 tons for Michigan; 172.629 tons for Georgia; 525.121 tons for Florida; 55.261 tons for the southeastern US; and 41.511 tons for California.

MBTOC does not appear to have accounted for the new information regarding the extent of nutsedge infestation affecting this crop. MBTOC suggests that alternatives are available in California, that growers are using more than 200kg/ ha, and that alternatives are both technically and economically feasible in non karst areas of the southeastern U. S. ( including Georgia and Florida) so that 20% is deducted for that phasing of alternatives. We will address each of these issues separately.

1 These states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. These States have similar climate and terrain and face similar pests. 2 Key target pasts are those pests that cannot be controlled by available alternatives to methyl bromide. U. S. Pepper Page 96 a. MBTOC used their own numbers for nutgrass ( nutsedge) rather than the numbers provided by the U. S.

In 2003, Dr. Stanley Culpepper of the University of Georgia conducted a survey of land under cultivation with various crops to determine the proportion of land ( by crop) that was infested with various levels of nutsedge. The values selected were those used in published literature and characterized as ` none' ( no plants per square yard3), ` light' ( fewer than five plants per square yard), ` moderate' ( five to thirty plants per square yard), and ` severe' ( more than thirty plants per square yard). This information was used to estimate nutsedge information for the entire southeastern region ( including the State of Florida) because the entire region has similar climate, soils and rainfall. In the judgment of U. S. government experts, familiar with U. S. agriculture and with the southeastern growing regions in particular, nutsedge infestations are similar throughout the region4. For the previous year's estimates of nutsedge infestation ( those used in the 2005 nomination), similar estimates were used throughout the southeastern growing region. These estimates were the fruit of a half dozen phone calls to growers with large tomato operations in one or more of the southeastern states. The estimates derived were applied to all crops in all of the southeastern states. The new data represented a significant improvement in accuracy over the previous estimates, in the judgment of U. S. experts familiar with the circumstances of the nomination. The USG is requesting restoration of the amount deducted for this factor. 5 Information used for the 2005 nomination was developed by asking some large tomato operations ( growers with large tomato acreages in several states) to ` guestimate' the proportion of tomato growing acreage impacted by ` none', ` light', ` moderate' and ` heavy' nutsedge infestations and to compare these across that various states in which the growers have operations. Information on the proportion of impacted tomato area was then used for other crops throughout the southeastern growing region.

The effort to gather more refined and reliable estimates of the prevalence of this key pest was one of many improvements in estimating the amount of methyl bromide critically needed by U. S. agriculture, which was undertaken to provide MBTOC with the best information possible. Replacing U. S. provided survey values with MBTOCderived values with no explanation of how MBTOC is better able to make this judgment than are the U. S. officials familiar with actual conditions casts doubt on the integrity of the MBTOC deliberative process.

3 One square yard is approximately 9/ 10 of a square meter. 4 Conversations with officials in the State of Florida regarding the extent of nutsedge infestation indicate that these officials believe that the infestation in Florida is more severe that in Georgia. They are currently investigating whether a survey of cultivated land in Florida for nutsedge infestation can be undertaken. 5 The U. S. is unable to exactly determine how that various factors that MBTOC used were reflected in the final amounts. The U. S. technical experts had been promised a spreadsheet so that the amounts could be disaggregated but were not provided with one. U. S. Pepper Page 97 b. Alternatives are technically and economically feasible so a 20% reduction for phase in of alternatives such as 1,3D/ Pic or metam sodium was used: alternatives can be used in areas where 1,3 D use is not appropriate MBTOC disagrees with the U. S. assessments of yield loss, which is the basis for the MBTOC recommendation of economic feasibility.

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

  Included an untreated control for comparison purposes   Included information on the ( key) pests present in the treated area   Give estimates of yield changes ( differences)   Include methyl bromide as a standard The U. S. nomination was restricted to those situations where the presence and prevalence of pests (` key' pests) that could not be controlled by alternatives to methyl bromide was moderate to severe6 and would result in yield loss.

The U. S. technical experts asked MBTOC to explain the basis for their decision7 and were told that in some cases a meta analysis served as the basis, and in other cases the basis was ` experience'. The procedure MBTOC used, as we understand it, was not a meta analysis. A meta analysis includes a statistical analysis of the information, and compares only those studies which are similar enough from a statistical standpoint that they can be combined and analyzed as if they comprised one study. Further, the studies need to be identified, appraised and summarized according to an explicit and reproducible methodology that is designed to answer a specific research question. In this case, the appropriate research question would be the performance of alternatives to methyl bromide under the conditions of the U. S. nomination ( i. e. with moderate to severe pressure from key pests). The studies used in the meta analysis are not listed and no indication is given of the criteria used to include or exclude a study from the analysis, which presents a serious problem in applying the results. Our understanding is that this analysis does include some studies conducted under circumstances that are not similar to the limited conditions included in the U. S. nomination, such as the presence of moderate to severe pest pressure.

The null hypothesis would be that alternatives work as well as methyl bromide in the conditions of the U. S. nomination. The U. S. nomination is specifically for the use of methyl bromide where key pests ( pests not adequately controlled by alternatives to methyl bromide) are present at moderate to severe levels and/ or soil, climate, terrain, or regulatory conditions are such that alternatives to methyl bromide either cannot be used or result in significant economic losses 6 In the judgment of U. S. experts pressure was such that yield losses of the magnitude of those used in the economic assessment would be sustained. 7 MBTOC asserted that alternatives were both technically and economically feasible for the pre plant sectors of field grown peppers, strawberries, and tomatoes. U. S. Pepper Page 98 when used. These economic losses must be of sufficient magnitude that they render the alternative not economically feasible.

When asked for references, USG experts were directed to " the Porter paper in press". USG experts have examined a " Porter paper in press" 8 and find a number of concerns with respect to its application to the specific circumstances of the U. S. nomination. Although it is difficult to be certain how the MBTOC analysis was conducted and what it includes because it has not been reviewed and published and was not provided to the U. S. experts to evaluate9, U. S. experts were able to make some educated guesses about the analysis10.

A version of the paper was presented by Dr. Ian Porter at the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Organization meeting in San Diego, November 2003 and was the subject of some controversy and concern among a number of participants. Dr. Porter's paper included a number of papers, which U. S. experts believe are not appropriate for use in determining the usefulness of alternatives because the research was carried out under conditions of no pest pressure, and are therefore not relevant to the specific circumstances of our nomination11. If few or no pests are present, any alternative, or indeed not using any pesticide at all, will all work equally well. By including situations where there is no pest pressure one in effect adds ( many) " 100" to the equation12 describing the differences in yield between crops grown using methyl bromide and those grown using an alternative. This has the effect of lowering the average difference between yields using methyl bromide and yields using an alternative. If a sufficient number of " 100" are added, the result will be to ( falsely) eliminate the yield differences between methyl bromide and the alternatives.

In other papers, pests were present but they were not the pests present in all of the U. S. circumstances. Taking the case of the southeastern US, for example, weeds, diseases, fungi, and nematodes all afflict the crops. Some of these pests can be controlled with alternatives, but some of the weeds, in particular nutsedges ( nut grasses), nightshades, and some hard coated seeds, cannot. Situations without weeds will show small or no yield losses when alternatives are used while the true situation when ( key) weeds are present is that there are relatively large yield 8 Porter, I., S. Mattner, R. Mann, R. Gounder, J. Banks, and P. Fraser. 1994. Strawberry Fruit Production and results from trials in Different Geographic Regions. A Presentation to the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Conference, Lisbon, September 1994. 9 U. S. experts requested references from some of the authors of the studyso that the studies included could be evaluated against the circumstances of the U. S. nomination, but they have not been provided.

10 Some of this material had been previously presented at the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Organization 2003 meeting ( San Diego). At that time U. S. experts expressed their view that many if not most of the studies were not an appropriate application of the information.

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

12 The actual procedure was to add in yields expressed as a percentage of ( anticipated) yield using methyl bromide. How this yield was estimated is puzzling as many of the studies did not include a methyl bromide control. Because there was no indication of pest pressure in many instances, many of the entries indicated yields of approximately 100%, obviating the differences between methyl bromide and the alternatives. U. S. Pepper Page 99 losses. Including these factors again has the effect of adding " 100" yield difference as many times as there are these papers.

If the issue in question was to average all papers, describing some " average" worldwide situation, the procedure would be correct. However, The U. S. submitted requests for continued methyl bromide use only in instances of sufficiently high pest pressure ( not ` average' conditions) for pests which cannot be controlled by alternatives to methyl bromide.

In the case of crops other than strawberries, the basis for MBTOC's suggestion of no differences in yields between methyl bromide treatments and treatments with the alternatives is more difficult to assess. MBTOC indicated to us in recent meetings at MOP 16 that their expert judgment was the basis for the finding that alternatives were technically and economically feasible. It is impossible to determine from this statement whether the conditions used by the experts to make their findings are similar to the particular conditions of the U. S. nomination. Given what we already know about the applicability of the meta analysis for strawberries to the U. S. circumstances, we are concerned that MBTOC may not be limiting their evaluation to experience accrued in situations similar to those prevailing in the portions of the U. S. for which methyl bromide is requested, but rather relying on more generalized experience to make these judgments for which references have been provided. The U. S. disagrees with the MBTOC assessment of yield loss in the circumstances of the U. S. nomination.

Turning now to the component of economic loss that is a consequence of market timing we find that MBTOC has not accounted for losses arising from missing market windows, and other losses due to timing, such as shorter harvesting periods and loss of the opportunity to plant a ` follow on' or second crop.

Experts are familiar with high prices for fresh produce early in the season, prices which decline as the produce becomes abundant ( and more familiar) later in the season. The U. S. has provided marketing data documenting the existence of these market windows and their effects on the revenue and profits earned by farmers. Anecdotally, farmers tell us that virtually al of their net revenue ( approximately 90%) above cost is earned during the short period of high prices. For some crops, 75% of the economic loss is due to missing a market window rather than through smaller crops, lower fruit quality, or higher costs of using alternatives Many of the alternatives will cause farmers to miss the market window. In conditions of cold soil temperatures, such as in Michigan and coastal California, where the growing season is short, alternatives cannot be used until the soil temperatures reach at least 40 F. This temperature is reached 3 4 weeks into the growing season, delaying planting and consequently harvesting for that time. Because the Michigan growing season is already short due to the cold temperatures, even apart from missing the market window, delaying planting will result in a smaller harvestable amount. In other situations the " plant back" interval is longer, by two weeks, relative to the methyl bromide plant back times. Requiring a longer interval before a crop can be planted will delay the harvesting, again causing a farmer to miss a market window. Some alternatives also require a different bed preparation, which will also delay the planting time. The strawberry crop in California is one example of this situation. U. S. Pepper Page 100 It is not clear that MBTOC considered the specific circumstances of the U. S. nomination, which are that methyl bromide is requested only for situations where regulatory concerns preclude use of an alternative or where there are ` key' pests present at moderate to severe levels, or where terrain conditions ( temperature, topography) result in no alternative being technically and economically feasible. MBTOC has not referenced research findings to support their view that alternatives are both technically and economically feasible, while the U. S. has presented extensive results in the circumstances of the nomination to support our request.

Georgia Peppers are generally produced using mechanized practices that involve injection of methyl bromide to a depth of 20   25 cm. Weeds, especially nutsedge, are the most serious concern precipitating MB use in both transplant beds and the field although nightshade and hard coated seeds are also problems. Nutsedge species grow even under adverse conditions, resist traditional and modern methods of weed control, and are endemic to large tracts of pepper producing area in the Southeastern United States. Herbicides are applied to the row middles between raised production beds to manage grass and broadleaf weeds. Most preemergence herbicides do not provide effective control of nutsedge for one crop cycle let alone multiple crop cycles. Many of the newer sulfonyl urea herbicides are not as effective preemergence as is necessary to be effective under the plastic tarps as postemergence ( 60 to 70 percent for one crop cycle versus 90% postemergence). In addition to weeds, soil borne fungal pathogens ( such as Phytophthora blight) and plant parasitic nematodes ( e. g. Meloidogyne spp.) are endemic to the region and nearly all production areas have severe infestations, thereby necessitating annual treatment with a broad spectrum soil fumigant. Fungal pests are expected to become serious problems for pepper production if MB were not available for pre plant fumigation. Methyl bromide is believed to be the only treatment currently available that consistently provides reliable control of nutsedge species and the disease complex affecting pepper production. ( Locascio et al., 1997).

Alternatives like 1,3 dichloropropene and metam sodium require a 21 to 28 day interval before planting, compared to 14 days for MB or methyl bromide with Pic. This interval can cause delays/ adjustments in production schedules that could lead to missing specific market windows, thus reducing profits on pepper crops ( Kelley, 2003 Nutsedge management has proven to be difficult due to the perennial growth habit of nutsedge and tubers as primary means of propagation. There are no herbicides which control nutsedge in the crop row. Paraquat and glyphosate will suppress emerged nutsedge, but cannot be used in the crop row because of potential crop injury ( SE Pepper Consortium CUE 02 0041.) Smetolachlor can suppress yellow nutsedge for a single crop cycle but would need to be reapplied for multiple crops along with removing and replacing the existing plastic tarps. Approximately 81% of the Georgia pepper area is considered to have moderate to severe infestations of nutsedge ( Culpepper, 2004). Research suggests that metam sodium can, in some situations, provide effective pest management for certain diseases and weeds. However, even though there have been nearly 50 years experience with metam sodium, ( which breaks down to methyl isothiocyanate) nutsedge control results have been unpredictable. U. S. Pepper Page 101 Locascio et al. ( 1997) studied MB alternatives on tomatoes grown in small plots at two Florida locations with high nutsedge infestation. ( The data from this tomato study are being cited because comparable pepper data are not available.)

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

Furthermore, trials of metam sodium and 1,3 D + chloropicrin ( and various combinations thereof) are based on small plot research trials conducted in the Southeastern United States on crops other than peppers. For fungi and nutsedge, no on farm, large scale trials have yet been done. Some researchers have also reported that these MB alternatives degrade more rapidly in areas where they are applied repeatedly due to enhanced metabolism by soil microbes ( Dungan and Yates 2003, Gamliel et al. 2003). This may compromise long term efficacy of these compounds and appears to need further scientific scrutiny.

For the Southeastern United States, including Florida and Georgia, metam sodium and 1,3 D + chloropicrin are alternatives for nutsedges and nematodes, respectively, the key target pests in these regions. However, peppers treated with metam sodium, the best available alternative, have an estimated 44 percent yield decrease compared to MB. 1,3 D + chloropicrin is infeasible because it cannot used on karst geology or in Dade county, Florida, and because there is a 28 day planting delay.

There is also evidence that the efficacy of 1,3 D and metam sodium declines in areas where it is repeatedly applied due to enhanced degradation of methyl isothiocyanate, the active ingredient, by soil microbes ( Ashley et al. 1963, Ou et al. 1995, Verhagen et al. 1996, Gamliel et al. 2003).

In sum, neither of these MB alternatives is presently technically and economically feasible for control of key pests, and MB remains a critical use for peppers in the Southeastern United States. U. S. Pepper Page 102 The U. S. assessment that the alternatives are not technically and economically feasible rests on two kinds of losses13: changes in yields which result in a lesser amount harvested and therefore lower revenues to farmers, and later yields which resulted in further reduced revenues to farmers ( missed market windows, shorter harvest periods, the inability to grow a second crop). The proportion of loss attributable to each component differs from sector to sector, and within sectors, depending on the local circumstances of the nomination. As an example, for tomatoes in both Michigan and the southeastern United States, approximately 70% to 75% of the loss is attributable to missing the high value market time and 25% to 30% of the loss is attributable to lower yield.

There are currently few alternatives to methyl bromide for use in peppers. Furthermore, there are factors that limit existing alternatives' usability and efficacy from place to place. These include pest complex, climate, and regulatory restrictions. As described above, the two most promising alternatives to methyl bromide in Georgia for control of nutsedge in peppers ( 1,3 D + chloropicrin and metam sodium) are considered not technically feasible. This derives from regulatory restrictions and the magnitude of expected yield losses when they are used. MBTOC does not appear to have taken into account planting delays resulting from use of alternative pesticide treatments. These delays cause growers to lose all or part of a market window. In the case of peppers ( in particular) missing the early part of the winter growing season causes hugely disproportionate losses in grower net revenues.

Florida Peppers are generally produced using mechanized practices that involve injection of methyl bromide to a depth of 20   25 cm. Weeds, especially nutsedge, are the most serious concern precipitating MB use in both transplant beds and the field, although nightshade and hard coated seeds are also problems. Nutsedge species grow even under adverse conditions, resist traditional and modern methods of weed control, and are endemic to large tracts of pepper producing area in the Southeastern United States. Herbicides are applied to the row middles between raised production beds to manage grass and broadleaf weeds  but there are no currently registered herbicides that control nutsedges near pepper plants. In addition to weeds, soil borne fungal pathogens and plant parasitic nematodes are endemic to the region and nearly all production areas have severe infestations, thereby necessitating annual treatment with a broad spectrum soil fumigant.

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

Quality difference in the yield, such as smaller, scarred, less sweet, or other differences in fruit quality would also be factors in assessing economic loss. In practice quality differences have not been reported in the available literature and so losses from his source cannot be incorporated into the analysis. U. S. Pepper Page 103 There has been extensive research on alternatives for solanaceous crops, and methyl bromide minimizing practices have been incorporated into pepper production systems where possible. However, the effectiveness of chemical and non chemical alternatives designed to fully replace methyl bromide must still be characterized as preliminary. These alternatives have not been shown to be stand alone replacements for methyl bromide, and no combination has been shown to provide effective, economical pest control. Methyl bromide is believed to be the only treatment currently available that consistently provides reliable control of nutsedge species and the disease complex affecting pepper production. ( Locascio et al., 1997) Nematodes, especially root knot nematodes ( Meloidogyne spp.), and fungal diseases ( such as Phytophthora blight) are also of concern. Fungal pests are expected to become serious problems for pepper production if MB were not available for pre plant fumigation.

The sandy soils of Florida are a contributing factor to the erratic performance suppressing nematodes and plant pathogens of the metam sodium + chloropicrin combination, the most promising alternative to methyl bromide currently available for use in Dade County ( because of label restrictions for 1,3 D) 14. Methyl bromide has higher vapor pressure than metam sodium, therefore can penetrate and diffuse throughout the soil more effectively than metam sodium.