**[Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use on
strawberry nurseries in Open Fields or in Protected
Environments]{.smallcaps}**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| [For Administrative Purposes Only:]{.smallcaps}                       |
|                                                                       |
| **[Date received by Ozone Secretariat:]{.smallcaps}**                 |
|                                                                       |
| YEAR: CUN:                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Nominating      | # The United States of America                  |
| Par                |                                                 |
| ty:]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Brief           | Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for      |
| Descriptive Title  | Preplant Soil Use on Strawberries Nurseries     |
| of                 | Grown in Open Fields or in Protected            |
| Nominati           | Environments                                    |
| on:]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **[Nominating Party  |                                               |
| Contact              |                                               |
| De                   |                                               |
| tails]{.smallcaps}** |                                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Contact Person:      | John E. Thompson, Ph. D.                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Title:               | International Affairs Officer                 |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Address:             | Office of Environmental Policy                |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      | U.S. Department of State                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      | 2201 C Street N.W. Room 4325                  |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      | Washington, DC 20520                          |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      | U.S.A.                                        |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Telephone:           | \(202\) 647-9799                              |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Fax:                 | \(202\) 647-5947                              |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| E-mail:              | <ThompsonJE2@state.gov>                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      |                                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Following the        |                                               |
| requirements of      |                                               |
| Decision IX/6        |                                               |
| paragraph (a)(1),    |                                               |
| the United States of |                                               |
| America has          |                                               |
| determined that the  |                                               |
| specific use         |                                               |
| detailed in this     |                                               |
| Critical Use         |                                               |
| Nomination is        |                                               |
| critical because the |                                               |
| lack of availability |                                               |
| of methyl bromide    |                                               |
| for this use would   |                                               |
| result in a          |                                               |
| significant market   |                                               |
| disruption.          |                                               |
|                      |                                               |
| X Yes  No           |                                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

  ------------------------ -----------------------------------------------
  **[Contact or Expert(s)  
  for Further Technical    
  Details]{.smallcaps}**   

  Contact/Expert Person:   Tina E. Levine, Ph.D.

  Title:                   Division Director

  Address:                 Biological and Economic Analysis Division

                           Office of Pesticide Programs

                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                           Mail Code 7503C

                           Washington, DC 20460

                           U.S.A.

  Telephone:               \(703\) 308-3099

  Fax:                     \(703\) 308-8090

  E-mail:                  <levine.tina@epa.gov>

                           
  ------------------------ -----------------------------------------------

# [List of Documents Sent to the Ozone Secretariat in Official Nomination Package]{.smallcaps}

List all paper and electronic documents submitted by the Nominating
Party to the Ozone Secretariat

+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
| 1.  **[Paper Documents:]{.smallcaps}**       | **     | **Date Sent |
|                                              | Number | to Ozone    |
| > **Title of Paper Documents and             | of     | Se          |
| > Appendices**                               | P      | cretariat** |
|                                              | ages** |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+

+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
| 2.  **[electronic copies of all paper        | **Size | **Date Sent |
|     documents:]{.smallcaps}**                | of     | to Ozone    |
|                                              | File   | Se          |
| **Title of Electronic Files**                | (kb)** | cretariat** |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+

***Table of Contents***

[[Part A: Summary]{.smallcaps} 6](#part-a-summary)

[1. Nominating Party 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65593282)

[2. Descriptive Title of Nomination 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65593283)

[3. Crop and Summary of Crop System 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65593284)

[4. Methyl Bromide Nominated 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65593285)

[5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
6](#__RefHeading___Toc65593286)

[6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible
8](#__RefHeading___Toc65593287)

[7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
8](#__RefHeading___Toc65593288)

[8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
9](#__RefHeading___Toc65593289)

[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated for Each Region 10](#__RefHeading___Toc65593290)

[Southeastern States - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}
12](#southeastern-states---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Southeastern States - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl
Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
12](#__RefHeading___Toc65593292)

[Southeastern States - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and
Climate 12](#__RefHeading___Toc65593293)

[Southeastern States - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide,
and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
Requested 13](#__RefHeading___Toc65593294)

[[Southeastern States - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
14](#southeastern-states---part-c-technical-validation)

[Southeastern States - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
14](#__RefHeading___Toc65593296)

[Southeastern States - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and
Potential)* Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as
Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide:
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65593297)

[Southeastern States - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)*
Registration Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65593298)

[Southeastern States - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant
Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target
Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being Requested
22](#__RefHeading___Toc65593299)

[Southeastern States - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives
Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65593300)

[Southeastern States - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce
the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65593301)

[Southeastern States - Summary of Technical Feasibility
23](#southeastern-states---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[California - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}
24](#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
24](#__RefHeading___Toc65593304)

[California - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
24](#__RefHeading___Toc65593305)

[California - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
26](#__RefHeading___Toc65593306)

[[California - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
27](#california---part-c-technical-validation)

[California - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
27](#__RefHeading___Toc65593308)

[California - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 27](#__RefHeading___Toc65593309)

[California - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration
Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
27](#__RefHeading___Toc65593310)

[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 27](#__RefHeading___Toc65593311)

[California - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
32](#__RefHeading___Toc65593312)

[California - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide 32](#__RefHeading___Toc65593313)

[California - Summary of Technical Feasibility
32](#california---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps} 33](#part-d-emission-control)

[19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide
Use and Emissions in the Particular Use 33](#__RefHeading___Toc65593316)

[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used,
or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons 33](#__RefHeading___Toc65593317)

[[Part E: Economic Assessment]{.smallcaps}
34](#part-e-economic-assessment)

[21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period
34](#__RefHeading___Toc65593319)

[California-22. Gross and Net Revenue 34](#__RefHeading___Toc65593320)

[Southeastern States-22. Gross and Net Revenue
35](#__RefHeading___Toc65593321)

[Summary of Economic Feasibility 38](#summary-of-economic-feasibility)

[[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps} 40](#part-f.-future-plans)

[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future? 41](#__RefHeading___Toc65593324)

[25. Additional Comments on the Nomination
41](#__RefHeading___Toc65593325)

[26. Citations 41](#__RefHeading___Toc65593326)

[[APPENDIX B. Summary of New Applicants]{.smallcaps}
50](#__RefHeading___Toc65593327)

***List of Tables***

[*[Part A: Summary]{.smallcaps}* 6](#part-a-summary)

[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65593329)

[Table A.1: Executive Summary 7](#__RefHeading___Toc65593330)

[Table 7.1: Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
8](#table-7.1-proportion-of-crops-grown-using-methyl-bromide)

[Southeastern States and California- Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide
Requested for Critical Use
9](#southeastern-states-and-california--table-8.1-amount-of-methyl-bromide-requested-for-critical-use)

[Table A.2: 2006 Sector Nomination---Strawberry Nurseries
11](#__RefHeading___Toc65593333)

[*[Southeastern States - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}*
12](#southeastern-states---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Southeastern States - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for
Methyl Bromide Request 12](#__RefHeading___Toc65593335)

[Southeastern States - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
12](#__RefHeading___Toc65593336)

[Southeastern States - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop
Schedule 12](#__RefHeading___Toc65593337)

[Southeastern States - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide 13](#__RefHeading___Toc65593338)

[*[Southeastern States - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
14](#southeastern-states---part-c-technical-validation)

[Southeastern States -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible 14](#__RefHeading___Toc65593340)

[Southeastern States -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65593341)

[Southeastern States -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65593342)

[Southeastern States -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives --
Certain Weeds 1 22](#__RefHeading___Toc65593343)

[Southeastern States -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65593344)

[*[California - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}*
24](#california---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[California - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 24](#__RefHeading___Toc65593346)

[California - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
24](#__RefHeading___Toc65593347)

[California - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
25](#__RefHeading___Toc65593348)

[California - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
25](#__RefHeading___Toc65593349)

[California - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
26](#__RefHeading___Toc65593350)

[*[California - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
27](#california---part-c-technical-validation)

[Southeastern States -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible 27](#__RefHeading___Toc65593352)

[Southeastern States -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion 27](#__RefHeading___Toc65593353)

[California -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
27](#__RefHeading___Toc65593354)

[[California -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives
--]{.smallcaps} Chemical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Fumigation --
How Well Do They Work? 29](#__RefHeading___Toc65593355)

[[California -- Table 16.2: Effectiveness of Alternatives]{.smallcaps}
Chloropicrin Effect on Weed Seed Viability.
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65593356)

[[California -- Table 16.3: Effectiveness of Alternatives -]{.smallcaps}
Soil Fumigation and Runner Plant Production.
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65593357)

[[California -- Table 16.4: Effectiveness of Alternatives -]{.smallcaps}
Evaluation of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Soil Fumigation at
Commercial Fruit and Nut Tree Nurseries 31](#__RefHeading___Toc65593358)

[California -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
32](#__RefHeading___Toc65593359)

[*[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps}* 33](#part-d-emission-control)

[Table 19.1: Techniques to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions
33](#table-19.1-techniques-to-minimize-methyl-bromide-use-and-emissions)

[*[Part E: Economic Assessment]{.smallcaps}*
34](#part-e-economic-assessment)

[Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period 34](#__RefHeading___Toc65593363)

[California-Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue
34](#__RefHeading___Toc65593364)

[California-Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue
35](#__RefHeading___Toc65593365)

[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue
35](#__RefHeading___Toc65593366)

[Southeastern States-Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue
35](#__RefHeading___Toc65593367)

[Southeastern States-Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue
35](#__RefHeading___Toc65593368)

[Southeastern States-Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue
35](#__RefHeading___Toc65593369)

[Southeastern States - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives 37](#__RefHeading___Toc65593370)

[California - Table E.2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
37](#__RefHeading___Toc65593371)

[*[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps}* 40](#part-f.-future-plans)

[APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index (BUNI).
46](#__RefHeading___Toc65593373)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Part A: Summary]{.smallcaps}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[1. Nominating Party]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593282
  .anchor}

  The United States of America (U.S.)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[2. Descriptive Title of Nomination]{.smallcaps}**
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc65593283 .anchor}

  Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use on
  Strawberry Nurseries in Open Fields or in Protected Environments
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[3. Crop and Summary of Crop                                        |
| System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593284 .anchor}          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Southeastern growers (Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee) produce    |
| their transplants in open fields on an annual basis. Individual       |
| fields are only planted to strawberries once every three years.       |
| Approximately eighty-five percent of transplants produced are         |
| exported to Florida.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| California growers produce their transplants over a five year cycle.  |
| Screenhouses are utilized during the first two years and open field   |
| plantings are used during the last three years. Methyl bromide is     |
| only needed in production years 2 thru 5. Individual planting sites   |
| are only planted to strawberries once every three years. The fourth   |
| and fifth production years account for 22 and 77 percent,             |
| respectively, of the current methyl bromide nursery usage in          |
| California. Transplants produced are distributed widely throughout    |
| the U.S. and other countries.                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[4. Methyl Bromide
  Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593285 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593329 .anchor}

  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------
  **[Year]{.smallcaps}**   **[Nomination Amount    **[Nomination Area
                           (kg)]{.smallcaps}**     (ha)]{.smallcaps}**

  **2006**                 **56,291**              **209**
  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **5[. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593286 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

-   Quarantine and Pre-Shipment uses are not included in this CUE.

Methyl bromide is needed for strawberry nursery production to produce
plants free of all damaging diseases and nematodes to meet state and
foreign certification standards, as well as prospective buyer
expectations. In addition to these certification-related pest control
concerns, weed control is also essential to insure maximum runner
production and prevent the spread of noxious weeds. The available
alternatives have thus far not been found to provide acceptable levels
of control of the key pests to depths of three feet. In addition, there
are no markets for plants that do not meet the certification standards,
which means that losses up to 100 percent are possible when less than
required levels of pest control occur. Failure to adequately control
pests in transplants would jeopardize the viability of the transplant
and fruit production industries in the US, as well as the viability of
fruit production in countries purchasing U.S. plants (e.g., Canada,
Mexico, Spain, South America, and a number of other countries).

**[Table A.1: Executive
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593330 .anchor}

+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| ### Region                         | *              | **             |
|                                    | **Southeastern | *California*** |
|                                    | States***      |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| #####                              |                |                |
| [Amount of Nomination]{.smallcaps} |                |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms               | 2,086          | 53,751         |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/ha)**       | 413            | 263            |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Area (ha)**                      | 5              | 204            |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| ##### [Amount                      |                |                |
|  of Applicant Request]{.smallcaps} |                |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms               | 41,453         | 443,432        |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/ha)**       | 413            | 263            |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Area (ha)**                      | 100            | 1,683          |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| #### [Economics For                |                |                |
| Next Best Alternative]{.smallcaps} |                |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Marginal Strategy**              | 1,3D+Pic       | 1,3D+Pic       |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| ####  Yield Loss (%)               | 10%            | 10%            |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Loss per hectare (US\$/ha)**     | \$5,469        | \$7,208        |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Loss per kg Methyl Bromide       | \$13.26        | \$27.37        |
| (US\$/kg)**                        |                |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Loss as % of Gross Revenue (%)** | 13%            | 18%            |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Loss as % of Net Revenue (%)**   | 46%            | 61%            |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **6. [Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not                          |
| Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593287 .anchor}        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| The key alternatives are 1,3-D/chloropicrin,                          |
| 1,3-D/chloropicrin/metam-sodium, and 1,3-D/metam-sodium. None of      |
| these alternatives provide an adequate level of disease and nematode  |
| control throughout the root zone (up to 3 feet deep). Additionally,   |
| these alternatives generally provide little or no control of Yellow & |
| Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, C. rotundus) (SE States only)    |
| and a number of other critical weed pests in California (Table 10.1). |
| The state certification requirements (references 7, 32a, 37a, 43a     |
| listed in section 26) associated with the requesting states are very  |
| high (virtually zero tolerance for any damaging diseases and          |
| plant-parasitic nematodes) in order to minimize the prospect of       |
| spreading these nematode and disease pests to other states and        |
| countries where these plants are shipped.                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*i*) [Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593288 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

All growers in the affected states requesting methyl bromide use are
dependent upon its wide pest spectrum and high level of pest control.

#### [[Table 7.1: Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Region where       | **[Total crop area   | **[Proportion of      |
| Methyl Bromide use is | -- 2001-2002 Average | total crop area       |
| req                   | (ha)]{.smallcaps}**  | treated with methyl   |
| uested]{.smallcaps}** |                      | bromide               |
|                       |                      | (%)]{.smallcaps}**    |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| ####                  | Not Available        | Not Available         |
| # Southeastern States |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **California**        | Not Available        | Not Available         |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[National           | Not Available        | Not Available         |
| Total:]{.smallcaps}** |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*ii*) [If only part of the crop area is treated with methyl
  bromide, indicate the reason why methyl bromide is not used in the
  other area, and identify what alternative strategies are used to
  control the target pathogens and weeds without methyl bromide
  there.]{.smallcaps}**

  Not applicable**.** Please see the discussion of each alternative for a
  description of why it cannot be used under these situations.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*iii*) [Would it be feasible to expand the use of these methods
  to cover at least part of the crop that has requested use of methyl
  bromide? What changes would be necessary to enable this?]{.smallcaps}**

  Not applicable because the alternatives have not been proven effective
  for the control of the target pests under these conditions.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **8. [Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593289 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[]{.mark}

#### [Southeastern States And California- Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use]{.smallcaps}

+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| # [Region:]{.smallcaps}         | # [SO           | # [CALIFORN     |
|                                 | UTHEASTERN STAT | IA]{.smallcaps} |
|                                 | ES]{.smallcaps} |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| # [Year of                      | **[2006         | **[2006         |
|  Exemption Request]{.smallcaps} | ]{.smallcaps}** | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl            | 41,453          | 443,432         |
| Bromide]{.smallcaps}            |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Use: Flat fumigation or        | FLAT FUMIGATION | FLAT FUMIGATION |
| Strip/Bed                       |                 |                 |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}          |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}**   | 67:33           | 67:33           |
| *(ratio of methyl               |                 |                 |
| bromide/chloropicrin mixture)*  |                 |                 |
| [to be used for the             |                 |                 |
| CUE]{.smallcaps}                |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Total Area to be treated with  | 100 ha.         | 1,683 ha.       |
| the methyl bromide or methyl    |                 |                 |
| bromide/Chloropicrin            |                 |                 |
| formulation]{.smallcaps} *(m^2^ |                 |                 |
| or ha)*                         |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Application                    | 619             | 395             |
| rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*   |                 |                 |
| [for the                        |                 |                 |
| **formulation**]{.smallcaps}    |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Application                    | 413             | 263             |
| rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*   |                 |                 |
| [for **METHYL                   |                 |                 |
| BROMIDE**]{.smallcaps}          |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps}     | 61.9            | 39.5            |
| *(g/m^2^)* [of **formulation**  |                 |                 |
| used to calculate requested     |                 |                 |
| kilograms of methyl             |                 |                 |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}            |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps}     | 41.3            | 26.3            |
| *(g/m^2^)* [of **METHYL BROMIDE |                 |                 |
| **]{.smallcaps}                 |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
  Nominated for Each Region]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593290
  .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the U.S. was calculated as
follows:

-   The percent of regional hectares in the applicant's request was
    divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered
    by the request. Values greater than 100 percent are due to the
    inclusion of additional varieties in the applicant's request that
    were not included in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
    Service surveys of the crop.

-   Hectares counted in more than one application or rotated within one
    year of an application to a crop that also uses methyl bromide were
    subtracted. There was no double counting in this sector.

-   Growth or increasing production (the amount of area requested by the
    applicant that is greater than that historically treated) was
    subtracted. The two applicants that included growth in their request
    had the growth amount removed.

-   There was a small adjustment for use rate in one of the
    applications.

-   Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares is the area in the
    applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. Both applicants had
    QPS listed the amount requested reflects the subtraction of the QPS
    amount.

-   Only the acreage experiencing one or more of the following impacts
    were included in the nominated amount: moderate to heavy key pest
    pressure.

**[Table A.2: 2006 Sector Nomination---Strawberry
Nurseries\*]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593333 .anchor}

+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| ####      |                            | **           | ####         |
| # 2006 St |                            | Southeastern | # California |
| rawberry  |                            | States**     |              |
| Nurseries |                            |              |              |
|  Sector N |                            |              |              |
| omination |                            |              |              |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| **        | Requested Hectares (ha)    | 100          | 1,683        |
| Applicant |                            |              |              |
| Request   |                            |              |              |
| for       |                            |              |              |
| 2006**    |                            |              |              |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
|           | Requested Application Rate | 413          | 263          |
|           | (kg/ha)                    |              |              |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
|           | Requested Kilograms (kg)   | 41,453       | 443,432      |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| **CUE     | Nominated Hectares (ha)    | 5            | 204          |
| Nominated |                            |              |              |
| for       |                            |              |              |
| 2006**    |                            |              |              |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
|           | Nominated Application Rate | 413          | 263          |
|           | (kg/ha)                    |              |              |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
|           | Nominated Kilograms (kg)   | 2,086        | 53,751       |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
|           |                            |              |              |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| **2006    | Overall reduction (%)      | 88%          |              |
| Sector    |                            |              |              |
| N         |                            |              |              |
| omination |                            |              |              |
| Totals**  |                            |              |              |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
|           | **2006 U.S. CUE Nomination | **55,837**   |              |
|           | (kg)**                     |              |              |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
|           | **Research Amount (kg)**   | **454**      |              |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+
|           | **Total 2006 U.S. Sector   | **56,291**   |              |
|           | Nominated Kilograms (kg)** |              |              |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+

\* See Appendix A for complete description of how nominated amount was
calculated.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Southeastern Stat                                                  |
| es - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeastern States - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl
  Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593292 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[Southeastern States - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason
for Methyl Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593335
.anchor}

+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **[Region  | **[Key disease(s) and | **[Specific reasons why methyl |
| where      | weed(s) to genus and, | bromide is                     |
| methyl     | if known, to species  | needed]{.smallcaps}\           |
| bromide    | level]{.smallcaps}**  | **                             |
| use is     |                       |                                |
| requ       |                       |                                |
| ested]{.sm |                       |                                |
| allcaps}** |                       |                                |
+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| So         | Weeds: Yellow         | None of the available          |
| utheastern | nutsedge (*Cyperus    | alternatives provide an        |
| States     | esculentus*), Purple  | acceptable level of control of |
|            | nutsedge (*Cyperus    | nutsedge; the affected states' |
|            | rotundus*)            | regulatory requirements to     |
|            |                       | meet certification standards   |
|            | Diseases: Black root  | which amount to virtually      |
|            | rot (*Rhizoctonia*    | complete control of fungal     |
|            | and *Pythium spp.*);  | diseases and nematodes, is     |
|            | Crown rot             | only attainable with methyl    |
|            | (*Phytophthora        | bromide                        |
|            | cactorum*); root-knot |                                |
|            | nematodes             |                                |
|            | (*Meloidogyne spp.*)  |                                |
+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+

[]{.mark}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeastern States - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of
  Cropping System and
  Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593293 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[Southeastern States - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593336 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}     | ### [Southe                |
|                                         | astern States]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.     | Strawberry Transplants     |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings)* |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                  | Annual crop, replanted in  |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years       | same site once every three |
| between replanting)*                    | years                      |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop Rotation]{.smallcaps}** | Various crops planted      |
| *(if any)* **[and use of methyl bromide |                            |
| for other crops in the                  |                            |
| rotation:]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,   | 93% medium and 7% light    |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                      | soils, containing up to 2% |
|                                         | organic matter             |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide          | Every year                 |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}**              |                            |
|                                         |                            |
| *(e.g. every two years)*                |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                       | None identified            |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                 |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

[]{.mark}

**[Southeastern States - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop
Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593337 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-temperatezones-6a-to-8b"><span
class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone<br />
</span><em>( temperate,zones 6a to 8b)</em></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>163</td>
<td>124</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>146</td>
<td>113</td>
<td>202</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>116</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>76</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C)</em></span></td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>14.5</td>
<td>17.7</td>
<td>23.4</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>25.9</td>
<td>22.6</td>
<td>14.9</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>4.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Harvest
schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>2X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\* Macon, GA

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeastern States --]{.smallcaps} 11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of
  the above characteristics in 11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake
  of any relevant alternatives?]{.smallcaps}**

  None were identified as being limiting factors.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeastern States - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide,
  and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593294 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[Southeastern States - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593338 .anchor}

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many   | **1   | **1   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as         | 997** | 998** | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** |
| possible as      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| :]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area          | 82    | 82    | 82    | 55    | 67    | 71    |
| Treate           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of flat | Virt  | Virt  | Virt  | Virt  | Virt  | Virt  |
| fumigation       | ually | ually | ually | ually | ually | ually |
| methyl bromide   | all   | all   | all   | all   | all   | all   |
| use to strip/bed | flat  | flat  | flat  | flat  | flat  | flat  |
| use if strip     | fumig | fumig | fumig | fumig | fumig | fumig |
| treatment is     | ation | ation | ation | ation | ation | ation |
| use              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of     | 4     | 4     | 3     | 2     | 2     | 2     |
| methyl bromide   | 9,386 | 9,386 | 3,764 | 2,900 | 7,747 | 9,251 |
| active           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kilograms)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 |
| of methyl        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromid           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| e]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(methyl         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide/         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| chloropicrin)*   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by     | Flat  | Flat  | Flat  | Flat  | Flat  | Flat  |
| which methyl     | fumig | fumig | fumig | fumig | fumig | fumig |
| bromide          | ation | ation | ation | ation | ation | ation |
| applie           | soil  | soil  | soil  | soil  | soil  | soil  |
| d]{.smallcaps}** | inje  | inje  | inje  | inje  | inje  | inje  |
|                  | ction | ction | ction | ction | ction | ction |
| *(e.g. injected  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| at 25cm depth,   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| hot gas)*        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application   | 616   | 616   | 619   | 619   | 619   | 619   |
| rate of          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulations     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kg/ha\***        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application   | 604   | 604   | 413   | 413   | 413   | 413   |
| rate of METHYL   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| BROMIDE          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kg/ha\***        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage | 61.6  | 61.6  | 61.9  | 61.9  | 61.9  | 61.9  |
| rate of          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulation      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| s]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[\   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage | 60.4  | 60.4  | 41.3  | 41.3  | 41.3  | 41.3  |
| rate of METHYL   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| BROMID           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| E]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[\   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

*\* For flat fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may
be the same.*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Southeastern States - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeastern States - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593296 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[Southeastern States -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593340 .anchor}

+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| **[Name of | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons for  | **[Is     |
| Altern     | the alternative not being feasible or      | the]{.sma |
| ative]{.sm | available]{.smallcaps}**                   | llcaps}** |
| allcaps}** |                                            |           |
|            |                                            | **[al     |
|            |                                            | ternative |
|            |                                            | c         |
|            |                                            | onsidered |
|            |                                            | cost      |
|            |                                            | effecti   |
|            |                                            | ve?]{.sma |
|            |                                            | llcaps}** |
+============+============================================+===========+
| # [Chem    |                                            |           |
| ical Alter |                                            |           |
| natives]{. |                                            |           |
| smallcaps} |                                            |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Ch         | Objectionable odors in residential areas;  | No        |
| loropicrin | little or nor efficacy on nutsedge         |           |
|            | (Locascio 1997 & 1999); in some instances  |           |
|            | it caused increased emergence of nutsedge  |           |
|            | (Motis and Gilreath 2002); very unlikely   |           |
|            | that the near-perfect levels of disease    |           |
|            | and nematode control required by state     |           |
|            | certification programs cannot be attained  |           |
|            | throughout the 1 m. root zone.             |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | Chloropicrin is generally considered a     |           |
|            | good control measure for certain diseases  |           |
|            | (*Pythium, Phytophthora, Fusarium,         |           |
|            | Verticillium*), but is not generally       |           |
|            | considered very effective for nematode or  |           |
|            | weed control. See also chloropicrin issues |           |
|            | addressed in the fumigant combination      |           |
|            | entries in this section.                   |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| ####       |                                            |           |
|  [Non Chem |                                            |           |
| ical Alter |                                            |           |
| natives]{. |                                            |           |
| smallcaps} |                                            |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Bio        | Lack of adequate data on the activity of   | No        |
| fumigation | biofumigation materials on nutsedge        |           |
|            | control; Based on studies with other       |           |
|            | crops, allelochemicals may cause           |           |
|            | phytotoxic effects (Norsworthy 2002;       |           |
|            | Johnson et al. 1993); very unlikely that   |           |
|            | the near-perfect level of disease and      |           |
|            | nematode control required by state         |           |
|            | certification programs can be attained     |           |
|            | throughout the 1m. deep root zone.         |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | Biofumigation is not technically feasible  |           |
|            | because it does not provide adequate       |           |
|            | control of target pests to produce a       |           |
|            | certifiable strawberry nursery stock.      |           |
|            | Research conducted in Florida showed some  |           |
|            | control of plant pathogens but no control  |           |
|            | of nematodes or weeds in the soil. In      |           |
|            | cases where biofumigation have been shown  |           |
|            | to control weeds, the data are mostly for  |           |
|            | small-seeded weed species that have small  |           |
|            | carbohydrate energy sources compared to    |           |
|            | nutsedge. The data on biofumigation are    |           |
|            | too limited to consider it as a practical  |           |
|            | alternative to methyl bromide.             |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | In addition, biofumigation is not          |           |
|            | technically feasible because the quantity  |           |
|            | of Brassica crop needed to control target  |           |
|            | pests would be approximately 3 hectares    |           |
|            | for every hectare of strawberry            |           |
|            | production. Incorporation of Brassica at   |           |
|            | these levels would be likely to have       |           |
|            | allelopathic effects on the target crop.   |           |
|            | In the Southeast, production field trials  |           |
|            | with cabbage residue and tomato produced   |           |
|            | inconsistent and inadequate efficacy, and  |           |
|            | poor yields in two years out of three. The |           |
|            | yield losses could range from 0% - 50%.    |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| So         | Even in warmer climates (Georgia) it is    | No        |
| larization | impossible to attain temperatures lethal   |           |
|            | to nutsedge (50-55°C) at depths below 10   |           |
|            | centimeters (Miles et. al. 2002);          |           |
|            | near-perfect level of disease and nematode |           |
|            | control required by state certification    |           |
|            | programs very unlikely to be attained      |           |
|            | throughout the 1 m. deep root zone.        |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | Solarization is not a technically feasible |           |
|            | alternative because it does not provide    |           |
|            | adequate control of target pests to        |           |
|            | produce certifiable strawberry nursery     |           |
|            | stock. Use of solarization is not          |           |
|            | practical due to the depth of heating      |           |
|            | required to eliminate viable weed seed,    |           |
|            | nematodes, and disease organisms. The time |           |
|            | for solarization to raise soil             |           |
|            | temperatures to the level needed to kill   |           |
|            | soil pathogens in any strawberry nursery   |           |
|            | region is likely to also be the time when  |           |
|            | the crops themselves must complete their   |           |
|            | growth cycle. Unpredictable, stormy summer |           |
|            | weather still creates risks and may damage |           |
|            | mulch. In one Southeast field trial,       |           |
|            | solarization gave poor yields in two years |           |
|            | out of three with losses ranging from 0%   |           |
|            | to 40%.                                    |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| General    | Nothing available for control of nutsedge; | No        |
| IPM        | near-perfect level of disease and nematode |           |
|            | control required by state certification    |           |
|            | programs very unlikely to be attained      |           |
|            | throughout the 1 m. root zone.             |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | IPM, the use of pest monitoring activities |           |
|            | coupled with chemical and non-chemical     |           |
|            | management tools, has been adopted for     |           |
|            | management of weed, diseases, and          |           |
|            | nematodes on many crops. However,          |           |
|            | problematic weeds like nutsedge and        |           |
|            | nightshade, and soilborne diseases and     |           |
|            | nematodes are not effectively controlled   |           |
|            | by these practices in strawberry           |           |
|            | nurseries.                                 |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | General IPM is being used in strawberry    |           |
|            | nursery stock production, but it is not    |           |
|            | technically feasible alone to provide      |           |
|            | adequate pest control. IPM practices       |           |
|            | include field sanitation to limit inoculum |           |
|            | buildup, crop rotation to provide non host |           |
|            | periods, and breeding for resistance to    |           |
|            | pathogens.                                 |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Cover      | Cover crops/mulching is currently being    | No        |
| crops      | used but it is not technically feasible as |           |
| mulching   | a complete replacement for methyl bromide  |           |
|            | to control the target pest and certify the |           |
|            | nursery stock; level of disease and        |           |
|            | nematode control required by state         |           |
|            | certification programs cannot be attained. |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | Cover crops/mulching is currently being    |           |
|            | used but it is not technically feasible as |           |
|            | a complete replacement for methyl bromide  |           |
|            | to control the target pests and certify    |           |
|            | the nursery stock. The use of cover crops  |           |
|            | is a common practice to improve soil       |           |
|            | structure and suppress an array of         |           |
|            | soilborne pathogens. Cover crops and       |           |
|            | mulches have been integrated into          |           |
|            | strawberry nursery crop production         |           |
|            | systems.                                   |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | 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 et al., 1996;       |           |
|            | Galloway et al., 1996). Cowpea and sunn    |           |
|            | hemp have been shown to suppress nutsedge, |           |
|            | but the effect is short lived, due to the  |           |
|            | weed's capacity for rapid tuber            |           |
|            | production. Allelochemicals released by    |           |
|            | some cover crops or organic mulches can    |           |
|            | injure crops (Johnson et al., 1993;        |           |
|            | Norsworthy, 2002).                         |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Crop       | Growers typically utilize this practice by | No        |
| rotat      | growing other crops every 2 out of three   |           |
| ion/fallow | years; this practice has not resulted in a |           |
|            | level of disease and nematode control      |           |
|            | required by state certification programs   |           |
|            | throughout the 1 m. deep root zone; no     |           |
|            | suitable nutsedge controls available       |           |
|            | during production of the rotational crops  |           |
|            | (Culpepper 2002).                          |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | A three-year crop rotation/fallow is being |           |
|            | used in strawberry nursery stock           |           |
|            | production, but it is not technically      |           |
|            | feasible when used alone to control the    |           |
|            | key target pests.                          |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | Although such crop rotation and fallow     |           |
|            | procedures are generally considered useful |           |
|            | pest management tools for weeds, diseases  |           |
|            | and nematodes, they are rarely considered  |           |
|            | standalone control measures. Significantly |           |
|            | longer time frames may produce higher      |           |
|            | levels of control for most pests, but are  |           |
|            | generally considered impractical because   |           |
|            | of limited land availability and high      |           |
|            | costs.                                     |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | There are registered herbicides that are   |           |
|            | effective for nutsedge control in          |           |
|            | agronomic crops. These herbicides are not  |           |
|            | available for most fruit or vegetable      |           |
|            | crops, and many of them have 12- to        |           |
|            | 26-month carryover restrictions for        |           |
|            | vegetable crops.                           |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | Crop rotation and fallow will not suppress |           |
|            | nutsedge. Johnson & Mullinix (1997) showed |           |
|            | that uninterrupted plantings of peanut,    |           |
|            | corn, or cotton, with moderate levels of   |           |
|            | weed management suppressed yellow nutsedge |           |
|            | in Georgia. Their data also showed an      |           |
|            | increase in nutsedge densities in fallow   |           |
|            | plots, likely due to the longevity of      |           |
|            | nutsedge tubers in soil, mild winters that |           |
|            | prevent winter-kill of tubers, and the     |           |
|            | ability of tubers to regenerate with the   |           |
|            | long growing season in the southeastern    |           |
|            | coastal plain. There are also reports of   |           |
|            | increasing populations of yellow nutsedge  |           |
|            | in fallowed fields, even when weed         |           |
|            | control/management is performed. Since     |           |
|            | there are no herbicides registered for use |           |
|            | on strawberry plants that will effectively |           |
|            | control nutsedge, management of these      |           |
|            | weeds during short-term rotations and      |           |
|            | fallow is not effective.                   |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Soilless   | Soilless culture is not being used and it  | No        |
| culture    | is not technically feasible because it     |           |
|            | requires a complete transformation of the  |           |
|            | U.S. production system. There are high     |           |
|            | costs associated with this as compared to  |           |
|            | current production practices.              |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | Soilless culture is not being used and it  |           |
|            | is not technically feasible because it     |           |
|            | requires a complete transformation of the  |           |
|            | U.S. production system. There are high     |           |
|            | costs associated with this as compared to  |           |
|            | current production practices. According to |           |
|            | data provided by The National Center for   |           |
|            | Food and Agricultural Policy, a greenhouse |           |
|            | typically costs between US\$12.5 million   |           |
|            | and US\$20 million per hectare. Although   |           |
|            | yields obtained through greenhouse         |           |
|            | production are higher than yields of the   |           |
|            | best growers, the issue of capitalization  |           |
|            | for this and other Sectors make the        |           |
|            | alternative not practically feasible as a  |           |
|            | near term strategy to reduce reliance on   |           |
|            | methyl bromide..                           |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Subst      | Even if effective, it would be cost        | No        |
| rates/plug | prohibitive to change over to the required |           |
| plants     | technology.                                |           |
| grown      |                                            |           |
| hydr       | Substrates/plug plants are currently being |           |
| oponically | produced and sold in the southeast and to  |           |
|            | a very limited extent in California but    |           |
|            | this method alone does not provide pest    |           |
|            | control and would fail to produce a pest   |           |
|            | free product. Furthermore, this method     |           |
|            | would require extensive retooling by the   |           |
|            | nursery industry.                          |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| #### [C    |                                            |           |
| ombination |                                            |           |
| s of Alter |                                            |           |
| natives]{. |                                            |           |
| smallcaps} |                                            |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 1,3-D +    | Little or no efficacy on nutsedge          | No        |
| ch         | (Locascio 1997 & 1999); level of disease   |           |
| loropicrin | and nematode control required by state     |           |
|            | certification programs cannot be attained  |           |
|            | throughout the 1 m. deep root zone; may be |           |
|            | the best alternative where nutsedge is not |           |
|            | a problem (50% of production area).        |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | The combination of 1,3-D and chloropicrin  |           |
|            | is not technically feasible because it     |           |
|            | does not adequately control nematodes and  |           |
|            | diseases to the level required by various  |           |
|            | state laws, and results in yield losses in |           |
|            | nursery plants. 1,3 D provides good        |           |
|            | nematode control, only moderate disease    |           |
|            | control, and poor weed control. A 30.5     |           |
|            | meter (100 feet) 1,3-D buffer requirement, |           |
|            | to mitigate area resident exposure, would  |           |
|            | be particularly constraining on smaller    |           |
|            | fields in predominantly urban fringe       |           |
|            | areas, which is typical for the            |           |
|            | Southeastern U.S. growers. Personal        |           |
|            | Protective Equipment (PPE) requirements    |           |
|            | also limit operations that require workers |           |
|            | in the field, particularly given the high  |           |
|            | temperatures which occur in the southeast, |           |
|            | which are exacerbated by high humidity.    |           |
|            | Workers wearing the required Personal      |           |
|            | Protective Equipment become at risk for    |           |
|            | possible heat exhaustion or heat stroke.   |           |
|            | For example, PPE may require applicators   |           |
|            | to wear fully sealed suits, with           |           |
|            | respirators. Such suits do not have        |           |
|            | refrigeration components, and under        |           |
|            | conditions of high heat and humidity,      |           |
|            | rapidly become unbearable for a typical    |           |
|            | applicator. Growers believe that the       |           |
|            | requirements for buffers and PPE may make  |           |
|            | it impractical to adopt 1,3-D. The buffer  |           |
|            | requirements, especially for the small     |           |
|            | acreage farms in the Southeastern U.S.,    |           |
|            | eliminate so much area around the          |           |
|            | perimeter of a field that there is very    |           |
|            | little left that can be treated using      |           |
|            | 1,3-D alone to grow strawberries.          |           |
|            | Chloropicrin provides good disease         |           |
|            | control, but poor nematode and weed        |           |
|            | control. Workers complain about eye and    |           |
|            | lung irritation when applying              |           |
|            | chloropicrin, which is virtually the same  |           |
|            | as tear gas.                               |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 1,3-D +    | Little or no efficacy on nutsedge; very    | No        |
| chlo       | unlikely that the near-perfect levels of   |           |
| ropicrin + | disease and nematode control required by   |           |
| me         | state certification programs cannot be     |           |
| tam-sodium | attained throughout the 1 m. root zone.    |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | The combination of 1,3-D, chloropicrin and |           |
|            | metam sodium is not technically feasible   |           |
|            | because it does not adequately control     |           |
|            | pests and diseases to the level required   |           |
|            | by various state laws, and therefore this  |           |
|            | decrease in efficacy results in yield      |           |
|            | losses in nursery plants. 1,3-D is a good  |           |
|            | nematicide and chloropicrin is a good      |           |
|            | fungicide. Metam sodium provides moderate  |           |
|            | but unpredictable disease, nematode, and   |           |
|            | weed control since it suffers from erratic |           |
|            | efficacy, most likely due to irregular     |           |
|            | distribution of the product through soil.  |           |
|            | Metam sodium degrades in the soil to form  |           |
|            | methylisothiocyanate, which has activity   |           |
|            | against nematodes, fungi, insects, and     |           |
|            | weeds. Methyl bromide has a higher vapor   |           |
|            | pressure than metam sodium, therefore can  |           |
|            | penetrate and diffuse throughout the soil  |           |
|            | more effectively than metam sodium. In     |           |
|            | addition, the effectiveness of metam       |           |
|            | sodium is very dependent on the organic    |           |
|            | matter and moisture content of the soil.   |           |
|            | Studies to evaluate best delivery systems  |           |
|            | for metam sodium are being conducted. Some |           |
|            | studies have shown that soil injections    |           |
|            | and drenches are more effective than drip  |           |
|            | irrigation. Research trials show that      |           |
|            | incorporation of metam sodium with a       |           |
|            | tractor-mounted tillovator provides good   |           |
|            | results but most growers do not have this  |           |
|            | equipment.                                 |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | A 3-week time interval before planting is  |           |
|            | required to avoid phytotoxic levels;       |           |
|            | causing delays in production schedules     |           |
|            | that could lead to missing specific market |           |
|            | windows, thus reducing profit or actually  |           |
|            | causing a loss for a grower.               |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | The combination of the three chemicals     |           |
|            | would still require a companion herbicide  |           |
|            | or hand weeding. Failure to control the    |           |
|            | full spectrum of weeds could lead to       |           |
|            | increased disease pressure over time       |           |
|            | because the weeds can be reservoirs for    |           |
|            | disease or harbors insect vectors of       |           |
|            | disease. Also, in strawberry fruit         |           |
|            | production, there is demand for pest free  |           |
|            | strawberry root stock. The nursery growers |           |
|            | who do not supply this type of product     |           |
|            | will be forced out of the market.          |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 1,3-D +    | 1,3-D or metam-sodium possess little or no | No        |
| me         | efficacy on nutsedge (Webster et. al.      |           |
| tam-sodium | 2001); metam component is likely to        |           |
|            | provide inconsistent nematode, weed and    |           |
|            | disease control due to poor movement       |           |
|            | within soil; very unlikely that the        |           |
|            | near-perfect levels of disease and         |           |
|            | nematode control required by state         |           |
|            | certification programs can be attained     |           |
|            | with this combination throughout the 1 m.  |           |
|            | deep root zone.                            |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | The combination of 1,3-D and metam sodium  |           |
|            | is not technically feasible because it     |           |
|            | does not adequately control pests and      |           |
|            | diseases to the level required by various  |           |
|            | state laws, and results in yield losses in |           |
|            | nursery plants. 1,3-D is a good nematicide |           |
|            | and metam sodium provides moderate but     |           |
|            | unpredictable disease, nematode, and weed  |           |
|            | control. As indicated above, metam also    |           |
|            | suffers from erratic efficacy, most likely |           |
|            | due to irregular distribution of the       |           |
|            | product through soil. The combination of   |           |
|            | these chemicals would still require a      |           |
|            | companion herbicide or hand weeding.       |           |
|            | Failure to control the weed seed in soil   |           |
|            | would most likely lead to increased        |           |
|            | disease pressure over time. Also, in       |           |
|            | strawberry fruit production, there is      |           |
|            | demand for pest free strawberry root       |           |
|            | stock. The nursery growers who do not      |           |
|            | supply this type of product will be forced |           |
|            | out of the market.                         |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | As with the other suggested combinations   |           |
|            | (above) there are issues with the use of   |           |
|            | Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in the |           |
|            | hot or hot and humid climates of           |           |
|            | California and the southeastern U.S. In    |           |
|            | addition, the buffer requirement of 90     |           |
|            | meters (300 feet) would be particularly    |           |
|            | constraining on smaller fields in          |           |
|            | predominantly urban fringe areas. For      |           |
|            | small strawberry nursery operations in the |           |
|            | southeastern U.S., the 1,3-D buffer        |           |
|            | requirements eliminate a large area around |           |
|            | the field perimeter which impacts the      |           |
|            | total acreage available for strawberry     |           |
|            | nursery production.                        |           |
|            |                                            |           |
|            | Sequential application of each one of      |           |
|            | these chemicals requires significantly     |           |
|            | more time than using methyl bromide alone  |           |
|            | since growers must wait longer after       |           |
|            | fumigation to put the strawberry root      |           |
|            | stock in the ground. Growers have a        |           |
|            | greater planting delay for several weeks,  |           |
|            | which will extend their production         |           |
|            | schedule. This delay directly impacts      |           |
|            | cultivar options, Integrated Pest          |           |
|            | Management practices, timing of planting   |           |
|            | and harvest for strawberry fruit           |           |
|            | production, marketing window options, land |           |
|            | leasing decisions, and subsequent crop     |           |
|            | rotation schedules. Since growers will     |           |
|            | require rootstock at a fixed time during   |           |
|            | the year, the nursery plants could be of   |           |
|            | lower grade and quality (smaller) causing  |           |
|            | loss to both the nursery grower and the    |           |
|            | fruit grower.                              |           |
+------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+

*\* Regulatory reasons include local restrictions (e.g. occupational
health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of
registration.*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeastern States - 14. List and Discuss Why
  Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and Potential)* **[Pesticides and
  Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to
  Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593297 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[]{.mark}

**[Southeastern States -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible
Alternatives Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593341
.anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+====================+=================================================+
| Other fungicides,  | There are no other pesticides (with the         |
| herbicides, or     | exception of iodomethane) in the registration   |
| nematicides.       | process that can take the place of methyl       |
|                    | bromide.                                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeastern States -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present
  ]{.smallcaps}***(and Possible Future)* **[Registration Status. of Any
  Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593298 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[]{.mark}

**[Southeastern States -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593342 .anchor}

+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| **[Name of | ##### [Present Regi          | **            | **[Date  |
| Altern     | stration Status]{.smallcaps} | [Registration | of       |
| ative]{.sm |                              | being         | possible |
| allcaps}** |                              | considered by | future   |
|            |                              | national      | regi     |
|            |                              | authorities?  | stration |
|            |                              | (Y/N)]{       | :]{.smal |
|            |                              | .smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| I          | Not registered for any crop  | Yes           | Unknown  |
| odomethane | uses in the US.              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Registration in the U.S. has | No            | Unknown  |
| bromide    | not yet been requested.      |               |          |
|            | Comparative performance data |               |          |
|            | not presented in any of the  |               |          |
|            | studies submitted.           |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Registration in the U.S. has | No            | Unknown  |
| azide      | not yet been requested.      |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeastern States - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant
  Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target
  Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593299 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Preamble]{.underline} - The following is the only directly relevant
study conducted thus far in the southeastern states. Another study
conducted in 2003 is nearing completion. Neither study utilizes methyl
bromide (MB) as the comparative treatment, but rather uses methyl iodide
(MI) as the principal alternative and compares it to Telone C-35 and an
untreated control. Based on researchers' opinions from numerous studies,
MI when used as a soil fumigant generally provides yields and levels of
pest control comparable to methyl bromide. Accordingly, we assumed that
the results of the available study are representative of previous
studies and can be relied upon for assessing the comparative value of
the best available alternative (1,3-D + 35% chloropicrin).

Given the soil types present in production areas the root zone required
to be protected is generally as deep as 3 feet. Although several of the
alternatives provide adequate levels of pest control at shallower
depths, none consistently provide suitable control levels at 3 feet.
Failure to provide levels of pest control at the required depth will
result in inadequate levels of control which will result in rejection of
the plants produced under these conditions (100% loss in affected
fields). Accordingly, the maximum loss estimate is listed as 100%
because the various State certification requirements which equate to a
zero tolerance for disease symptoms and nematodes.

**[Southeastern States -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives
Certain weeds]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593343 .anchor}

+-----------------+----------+-----+---+------+----------+---------+
| **Treatment**   | **App    | **% |   |      | **% MB   | **Com   |
|                 | lication | MB  |   |      | Yield**  | ments** |
|                 | Rate**   | P   |   |      |          |         |
|                 |          | est |   |      |          |         |
|                 | **(      | Con |   |      |          |         |
|                 | kg/ha)** | tro |   |      |          |         |
|                 |          | l** |   |      |          |         |
+=================+==========+=====+===+======+==========+=========+
|                 |          | N   | D | W    |          |         |
|                 |          | em. | i | eeds |          |         |
|                 |          |     | s |      |          |         |
|                 |          |     | . |      |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+-----+---+------+----------+---------+
| **Methyl Iodide | 263      | NQ  | N | As   | Assume   | No      |
| (100%)**        |          |     | Q | sume | 100%     | methyl  |
|                 |          |     |   | 100% |          | bromide |
|                 |          |     |   |      |          | tested  |
+-----------------+----------+-----+---+------+----------+---------+
| **Methyl        | 263/66   | NQ  | N | 92%  | 81%      |         |
| Iodi            |          |     | Q |      |          |         |
| de/Chloropicrin |          |     |   |      |          |         |
| (75:25)**       |          |     |   |      |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+-----+---+------+----------+---------+
| **1,3           | 254/139  | NQ  | N | 87%  | 73%      |         |
| -D/Chloropicrin |          |     | Q |      |          |         |
| (Telone C-35)** |          |     |   |      |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+-----+---+------+----------+---------+

**Source:** Gilreath, J.P., E.B. Poling, J.W. Noling, 2001, unpublished
study

**Key to Table Abbreviations:** NQ = not quantified (too low and
non-uniform); Nem. = nematodes; Dis. = diseases

MI alone yield was statistically higher than the combination with
chloropicrin (CP) and the 1,3-D/CP treatments. There was no statistical
difference between these later two treatments, however, they both
provided statistically higher yields than the untreated controls. The
prominent weeds present were hairy galinsoga ([Galinsoga]{.underline}
[cillata]{.underline}), carpetweed ([Mollugo]{.underline}
[verticillata]{.underline}), and purslane ([Portulaca]{.underline}
[oleracea]{.underline}). The most difficult weed to control was hairy
galinsoga, with MI alone providing the highest levels of control of this
as well as the other weeds. The post treatment disease and nematode
incidence data were too variable and too low in any of the plots to
formulate any conclusions. The yield benefit exhibited by MI is likely
to be a combination of weed control plus control of other unidentified
microbial pests. The comparative weed control percentages are based
solely on control of hairy galinsoga. Note: Another similar study was
initiated in 2003 and was near completion in December 2003.

**[Southeastern States -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593344 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | ##### [List   | ##### [Rang    | **[Best         |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |  Type of Pest | e of Yield Los | Estimate of     |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} | s]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                  |               |                | Loss            |
|                  |               |                | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 1,               | Certain Weeds | 0-27%          | 10%             |
| 3-D/chloropicrin |               |                |                 |
| (Telone C-35)    | (see above    |                |                 |
|                  | table)        |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Metam Sodium     | Certain Weeds |                | 50%             |
|                  |               |                |                 |
|                  | (see above    |                |                 |
|                  | table)        |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [          |               |                | **10%**         |
| Overall Loss Est |               |                |                 |
| imate for All Al |               |                |                 |
| ternatives to Pe |               |                |                 |
| sts]{.smallcaps} |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Southeastern States - 17. Are There Any Other Potential            |
| Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace  |
| Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593300 .anchor}  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Iodomethane is in a pending registration status and is being          |
| evaluated as an alternative. It is generally considered to be as      |
| efficacious as methyl bromide for most preplant crop uses and         |
| virtually all pests. Growers can easily transition to this            |
| alternative.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Dazomet is also in a pending registration status as a nematicide on   |
| strawberries. Based on previous studies on other crops, it is         |
| reportedly not likely to be a suitable alternative for strawberry     |
| nurseries.                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

[]{.mark}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeastern States - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to
  Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593301 .anchor}

  We are not aware of any that are feasible in the short run. The
  technology changeover costs for adopting soilless culture techniques
  are extremely high. Although yields reportedly obtained through
  greenhouse production are higher than that of the best conventional
  growers, the issue of capitalization for this and other sectors make
  the alternative not practically feasible as a near term strategy to
  reduce reliance on methyl bromide. No information was presented on the
  long term viability of this option. Reportedly, the organic strawberry
  fruit production growers are dependent upon methyl bromide treated
  transplants.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [[Southeaster                                                       |
| n States - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.underline}]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| None are considered technically feasible at the present time due to   |
| the high levels of disease and nematode control required by the       |
| current state certification standards.                                |
|                                                                       |
| Since chloropicrin is virtually the same as tear gas worker eye       |
| irritation concerns exist for this option.                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Californ                                                           |
| ia - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593304 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[California - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593346 .anchor}

+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| **[Region    | **[Key disease(s) and | **[Specific reasons why       |
| where methyl | weed(s) to genus and, | methyl bromide                |
| bromide use  | if known, to species  | needed]{.smallcaps}\          |
| is           | level]{.smallcaps}**  | **                            |
| requested]{. |                       |                               |
| smallcaps}** |                       |                               |
+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| California   | [D                    | The State mandatory           |
|              | iseases]{.underline}: | certification program has     |
|              | Phytophthora Crown    | strict requirements for       |
|              | and Root Rots         | control of diseases and       |
|              | (*Phytophthora        | nematodes which amount to     |
|              | spp.*);               | virtually complete control of |
|              |                       | the key pests. Given the      |
|              | Red Stele             | growing situations            |
|              | (*Phytophthora        | encountered over the course   |
|              | fragariae*);          | of the 5-year transplant      |
|              | Verticillium Wilt     | production cycle (a different |
|              | (*Verticillium        | growing location is used each |
|              | dahliae*); and        | year), none of the            |
|              | possibly others       | alternatives have thus far    |
|              |                       | been shown to be consistently |
|              | [Ne                   | perform at a highly effective |
|              | matodes]{.underline}: | level at soil depths to 3     |
|              |                       | feet.                         |
|              | Root-knot             |                               |
|              | (*Meloidogyne spp.*); | Methyl iodide is considered   |
|              |                       | by most researchers to be     |
|              | sting (*Belonolaimus  | viable potentially            |
|              | spp.*);               | alternative, which is         |
|              |                       | currently proposed for        |
|              | dagger (*Xiphinema    | registration in the US.       |
|              | spp.*);               |                               |
|              |                       |                               |
|              | lesion (*Pratylenchus |                               |
|              | spp.*);               |                               |
|              |                       |                               |
|              | foliar                |                               |
|              | (*Aphelenchoides      |                               |
|              | spp.*);               |                               |
|              |                       |                               |
|              | needle (*Longidorus   |                               |
|              | spp.*);               |                               |
|              |                       |                               |
|              | stem (*Ditylenchus    |                               |
|              | spp.*)                |                               |
|              |                       |                               |
|              | [Weeds]{.underline}:  |                               |
|              | numerous weeds listed |                               |
|              | (e.g., annual         |                               |
|              | bluegrass, bur        |                               |
|              | clover, carpetweed,   |                               |
|              | chickweed, field      |                               |
|              | bindweed, goat grass, |                               |
|              | hairy nightshade,     |                               |
|              | lambsquarter, malva,  |                               |
|              | nutsedge, pig weed,   |                               |
|              | portulaca, prostate   |                               |
|              | spurge, puncture      |                               |
|              | vine, purslane,       |                               |
|              | vetch)                |                               |
+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California -- 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping
  System and Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593305
  .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[California - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593347 .anchor}

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}    | #                           |
|                                        | ## [California]{.smallcaps} |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.    | Strawberry transplants      |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or           |                             |
| cuttings)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                 | Annual crop, only planted   |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years      | in the same location once   |
| between replanting)*                   | every three years           |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop                        | The principal rotational    |
| Rotation]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     | crops are endive, garlic,   |
| **[and use of methyl bromide for other | onion, horseradish, mint,   |
| crops in the rotation:]{.smallcaps}**  | alfalfa, sugarbeets, and    |
| *(if any)*                             | potatoes.                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,  | 80 % light soils, 10%       |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                     | medium soils and 10% heavy  |
|                                        | soils; 70% with 2% or less  |
|                                        | organic matter              |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide         | Every year                  |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.      |                             |
| every two years)*                      |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                      | No                          |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

**[California (low elevation areas; years 3 & 4) -Table 11.2
Characteristics of Climate and Crop
Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593348 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul-1"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-e.g.-temperate-tropical"><span
class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone<br />
</span><em>(e.g. temperate, tropical)</em></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">6a, 6b, 7a, 9a, 9b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>16</td>
<td>72.1</td>
<td>17.3</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>trace</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>trace</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>44.7</td>
<td>56.9</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>30.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C)</em></span></td>
<td>14.4</td>
<td>14.8</td>
<td>20.8</td>
<td>25.7</td>
<td>30.3</td>
<td>27.4</td>
<td>25.1</td>
<td>18.4</td>
<td>13.4</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>10.3</td>
<td>10.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">harvest
schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\*For Fresno, California.

**[California (high elevation areas; year 5) -Table 11.2 Characteristics
of Climate and Crop
Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593349 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul-2"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-e.g.-temperate-tropical-1"><span
class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone<br />
</span><em>(e.g. temperate, tropical)</em></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">6a, 6b, 7a, 9a, 9b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">harvest
schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California --]{.smallcaps} 11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of the above
  characteristics in 11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake of any
  relevant alternatives?]{.smallcaps}**

  None were identified as being limiting factors.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
  Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593306 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[California - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593350 .anchor}

+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[For as     | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| many years as | 1997** | 1998** | 1999** | 2000** | 2001** | 2002** |
| possible as   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| shown         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| specify:]{    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Area       | 1,128  | 1,153  | 1,267  | 1,283  | 1,295  | 1,477  |
| Treated]{     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(hectares)*  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[ratio of   | All    | All    | All    | All    | All    | All    |
| flat          | Flat   | Flat   | Flat   | Flat   | Flat   | Flat   |
| fumigation    | fumi   | fumi   | fumi   | fumi   | fumi   | fumi   |
| methyl        | gation | gation | gation | gation | gation | gation |
| bromide use   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| to strip/bed  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| use if strip  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| treatment is  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| used]{        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Amount of  | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      |
| methyl        | 08,860 | 13,200 | 41,230 | 37,604 | 41,022 | 89,069 |
| bromide       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| active        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ingredient    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| used]{        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|               |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(total kg)*  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **            | 67:33  | 67:33  | 67:33  | 67:33  | 67:33  | 67:33  |
| [formulations |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| of methyl     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide]{     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(e.g. methyl |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide 98:2; |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| methyl        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| /chloropicrin |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| 70:30)*       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Method by  | Flat   | Flat   | Flat   | Flat   | Flat   | Flat   |
| which methyl  | fumi   | fumi   | fumi   | fumi   | fumi   | fumi   |
| bromide       | gation | gation | gation | gation | gation | gation |
| applied]{     | soil   | soil   | soil   | soil   | soil   | soil   |
| .smallcaps}** | inj    | inj    | inj    | inj    | inj    | inj    |
| *(e.g.        | ection | ection | ection | ection | ection | ection |
| injected at   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| 25cm depth,   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| hot gas)*     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| *             | 411    | 408    | 404    | 395    | 395    | 395    |
| *[Application |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| rate of       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| formulations  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| in            |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ]{.smallcaps} |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| kg/ha\***     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| *             | 274    | 272    | 269    | 263    | 263    | 263    |
| *[Application |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| rate of       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| methyl        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| in            |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ]{.smallcaps} |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| kg/ha\***     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Actual     | 41.1   | 40.8   | 40.4   | 39.5   | 39.5   | 39.5   |
| dosage rate   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| of            |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| f             |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ormulations]{ |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(g/          |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| m^2^)***[\*]{ |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Actual     | 27.4   | 27.2   | 26.9   | 26.3   | 26.3   | 26.3   |
| dosage rate   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| of            |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| f             |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ormulations]{ |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(g/          |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| m^2^)***[\*]{ |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

*\* For Flat fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may
be the same.*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [California - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593308 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[California -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593352 .anchor}

Please see the description of the alternatives not being feasible under
the Southeastern U.S. above.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}**
  *(and Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not
  Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593309 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[California -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593353 .anchor}

Please see the description of the technically infeasible alternatives
discussion under the Southeastern U.S. above.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593310 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[]{.mark}

**[California -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593354 .anchor}

+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| **[Name of | ##### [Present Regi          | **            | **[Date  |
| Altern     | stration Status]{.smallcaps} | [Registration | of       |
| ative]{.sm |                              | being         | possible |
| allcaps}** | *State if registered for     | considered by | future   |
|            | this crop, registered for    | national      | regi     |
|            | crop but use restricted,     | authorities?  | stration |
|            | registered for other crops   | (Y/N)]{       | :]{.smal |
|            | but not target crop, or not  | .smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
|            | registered*                  |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| I          | Not registered for any crop  | Yes           | Unknown  |
| odomethane | uses in the US. Generally    |               |          |
|            | considered an excellent      |               |          |
|            | potential alternative.       |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Not submitted for            | No            | Unknown  |
| Azide      | registration. Comparative    |               |          |
|            | performance data not         |               |          |
|            | presented in any of the      |               |          |
|            | studies submitted.           |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Not submitted for            | No            | Unknown  |
| bromide    | registration.                |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[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]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593311 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Preamble]{.underline} -- Although only several studies are represented
in the Tables below, numerous studies have been conducted and referenced
(see section 26) in the two applications (Southeastern States \[MD, NC,
TN\], and California). Given all the permutations of edaphic and pest
variables that exist in the production areas, it is of limited practical
value to present a limited subset of the total number of studies as
being indicative of the actual performance variability ranges of the
alternatives. Given the time constraints associated with these requests,
it is impossible to accurately present the finding of all relevant
studies. However, after perusing a large number of these studies it is
obvious that none of the alternatives can consistently provide
sufficient control of the target pests (comparable to levels and
frequency attained with methyl bromide (MB). This is especially true for
those pests subject to the rigorous requirements of the State's nursery
certification program (virtually a zero tolerance for symptoms of
soilborne diseases and the presence of plant-parasitic nematodes in the
soil). Even though most studies have shortcomings in terms of the
procedures utilized and/or the information reported, the aggregate
conclusion is that none of the chemical and/or non-chemical alternatives
will consistently achieve levels of pest control comparable to methyl
bromide.

When one takes into account that the five-year production system
involves new planting sites each year, consistency is important in
satisfying the needs of their international, interstate and intrastate
customers. The inconsistency in performance of the alternatives most
likely relates to the application methods, application rates,
alternative(s) evaluates, formulations of alternatives utilized, soil
conditions, and weather conditions which occurred, and pest species and
levels present in tests.

Given the soil types present in production areas the root zone required
to be protected is generally as deep as 3 feet. Although several of the
alternatives provide adequate levels of pest control at shallower
depths, none consistently provide suitable control levels at 3 feet.
Failure to provide levels of pest control at the required depth will
result in inadequate levels of control which will result in rejection of
the plants produced under these conditions (100% loss in affected
fields).

**[California -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives
--]{.smallcaps} Chemical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Fumigation --
How Well Do They Work?**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593355 .anchor}

+------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **T        | **Application | *     |       | **Yi  | **Comments**  |
| reatment** | Method & Rate | *Pest |       | eld** |               |
|            | (kg/ha)**     | Cont  |       |       |               |
|            |               | rol** |       | **(%  |               |
|            |               |       |       | of    |               |
|            |               | **(%  |       | MB)** |               |
|            |               | of    |       |       |               |
|            |               | MB)** |       |       |               |
+------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------+
|            |               | *     | **    |       |               |
|            |               | *[Nem | [Dis. |       |               |
|            |               | ]{.sm | ]{.sm |       |               |
|            |               | allca | allca |       |               |
|            |               | ps}** | ps}** |       |               |
+------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **MB/CP    | MB: 246kg/ha; | \+    | \+    | 100   |               |
| (67:33)**  | CP: 121       |       |       |       |               |
|            | kg/ha; chisel |       |       |       |               |
|            | injection &   |       |       |       |               |
|            | tarped        |       |       |       |               |
+------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **1,3-D/CP | 1,3-D: 361    | \+    | \+    | 96    |               |
| (70:30)**  | kg/ha; CP:    |       |       |       |               |
|            | 155 kg/ha;    |       |       |       |               |
|            | chisel        |       |       |       |               |
|            | injection &   |       |       |       |               |
|            | tarped        |       |       |       |               |
+------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Ch       | 95-189; and   | \+    | \+    | 89    | Evaluated     |
| loropicrin |               |       |       | (\<   | both low and  |
| (CP)**     | 190 and       |       |       | 190kg | high dosage   |
|            | higher;       |       |       | /ha); | rates         |
|            | chisel        |       |       |       |               |
|            | injection &   |       |       | 103   |               |
|            | tarped        |       |       | (     |               |
|            |               |       |       | \>190 |               |
|            |               |       |       | k     |               |
|            |               |       |       | g/ha) |               |
+------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Metam    | 950 kg/ha;    | \+    | \+    | 92    |               |
| Sodium**   | surface       |       |       |       |               |
|            | drench and    |       |       |       |               |
|            | tarped        |       |       |       |               |
+------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *          | 340 kg/ha;    | \+    | \+    | 95    |               |
| *Dazomet** | bdcst, tilled |       |       |       |               |
|            | into soil,    |       |       |       |               |
|            | and tarped    |       |       |       |               |
+------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Enzone** | 2.85 kg/ha    | \+    | \+    | 80    | Not           |
|            |               |       |       |       | registered    |
| **(sodium  | tarped        |       |       |       | for use on    |
| tetra      |               |       |       |       | strawberries  |
| thioca     |               |       |       |       |               |
| rbonate)** |               |       |       |       |               |
+------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **UTC**    |               | \+    | \+    | 70    |               |
+------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------+

**Source**: Gubler, W.D., J.M. Duniway, and N. Welch. 1996. Chemical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Fumigation -- How Well Do They Work?

**Key to Abbreviations:** 1,3-D = 1,3-dichloropropene; MB = methyl
bromide; CP = chloropicrin; MS = metam sodium; UTC = untreated control;
Nem. = nematodes; Dis. = diseases; bdcst = broadcast application.

Watsonville, CA 1993 study using large-scale plots; low levels of
Phytophthora crown and root rot, Verticillium wilt, and nematodes;
one-year evaluation only

**[California -- Table 16.2: Effectiveness of Alternatives]{.smallcaps}
Chloropicrin Effect on Weed Seed
Viability.**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593356 .anchor}

+------------+---------------+----------+-----------------------------+
| **Control  | **Application | **Weed   | **Comments**                |
| Measures   | Method & Rate | C        |                             |
| E          | (kg/ha)**     | ontrol** |                             |
| valuated** |               |          |                             |
|            |               | **(% of  |                             |
|            |               | MB)**    |                             |
+============+===============+==========+=============================+
| **MB/CP**  | MB: 225 kg/ha | 100      | Very good control of 3      |
|            |               |          | weeds; no control of 2      |
| *          | CP: 111       |          | weeds (mallow & filaree)    |
| *(67:33)** | kg/ha; soil   |          |                             |
|            | injection     |          |                             |
+------------+---------------+----------+-----------------------------+
| **Metam    | MS: 197       | Comp.    | Very good control of 3      |
| Sodium     | kg/ha; drip   |          | weeds; no control of 2      |
| (MS)**     | irrigation    |          | weeds (mallow & filaree)    |
+------------+---------------+----------+-----------------------------+
| **MS plus  | MS: 197kg /ha | Very     | produced a slight increase  |
| CP**       | drip          | Comp.    | in weed control over MS     |
|            | irrigation;   |          | alone = best available      |
|            | CP: 83 -- 220 |          | treatment for the weed      |
|            | kg/ha soil    |          | species present             |
|            | injection     |          |                             |
+------------+---------------+----------+-----------------------------+
| **Ch       | CP: 83 -- 220 | Comp.    | good control of 3 weeds at  |
| loropicrin | kg/ha soil    |          | the higher rates; no        |
| (CP)**     | injection     |          | control of 2 weeds (mallow  |
|            |               |          | & filaree)                  |
+------------+---------------+----------+-----------------------------+
| **UTC**    |               | none     |                             |
+------------+---------------+----------+-----------------------------+

**Source:** Haar, M.J., S.A. Fennimore, H.A. Ajwa, C.Q. Winterbottom.
2003. Chloropicrin Effect on Weed Seed Viability.

**Key to Abbreviations:** CP = chloropicrin; MS = metam sodium; 1,3-D =
1,3-dichloropropene; UTC = untreated controls; Comp = comparable.

Study conducted over two years near Santa Maria, CA. Primary weed pests:
Polygonum aviculare (knot-grass), Portulaca oleracea (common purslane)
and Malva parviflora (little mallow) were introduced in both years,
whereas, Stellaria media (chickweed) and Erodium cicutarium (red-stem
filaree) were introduced in the second year; similar weed seed
sensitivity for CP and MS; no yield data obtained.

**[California -- Table 16.3: Effectiveness of Alternatives
-]{.smallcaps} Soil Fumigation and Runner Plant
Production.**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593357 .anchor}

  ---------------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------------
  **Treatment**          **Application   **Yield (% of      **Comments**
                         Method & Rate   MB)**              
                         (kg/ha)**                          

  **Methyl bromide**     Chisel          100 (4 trials)     

  **Chloropicrin**       140-191 kg/ha , 73-92 (3 trials)   
                         chisel                             

  **Chloropicrin**       ≥300 kg/ha,     86 -- 100 (4       Appeared to be the
                         Chisel;         trials)            best of the
                                                            alternatives
                                                            evaluated

  **1,3-D/Chloropicrin   Chisel;         84 (1 trial)       Did not rank very
  (70:30)**                                                 high as an
                                                            alternative due to
                                                            reduced plant growth
                                                            and runner production

  **1,3-D/Chloropicrin   Chisel          91 (1 trial)       Appeared to perform
  (30:70)**                                                 similar to the high
                                                            rate of chloropicrin

  **UTC**                Not Applicable  38-55 (4 trials)   
  ---------------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------------

**Source:** Larson, K.D. and D.V. Shaw, 2000, Soil Fumigation and Runner
Plant Production: A Synthesis of Four Years of Strawberry Nursery Field
Trials, Hort Sci. 35 (4):642-646.

**Key to Abbreviations:** 1,3-D = 1,3-dichloropropene; UTC = untreated
controls.

This study was conducted over four on former strawberry nursery soils,
however, other crops planted in these soils prior to initiating this
study; fumigants chiseled into soil at a 36 cm depth and covered with a
tarp for 7 days; pest types and pressures uncertain, however,
verticillium wilt (V. albo-atrum) was detected in some locations and
roots were examined for decay and discoloration, with the untreated
plants (UTC) exhibiting most of the disease symptoms; nematodes were not
considered to be a problem in any of the test locations. It should be
noted that the main focus of this study was to evaluate yield responses
and that quantification of the various pest organisms was beyond the
scope of this study.

**[California -- Table 16.4: Effectiveness of Alternatives
-]{.smallcaps} Evaluation of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Soil
Fumigation at Commercial Fruit and Nut Tree
Nurseries**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593358 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Treatment**         | **Application Method  | **Nematode Control**  |
|                       | & Rate (kg/ha)**      |                       |
|                       |                       | **(% of MB)**         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Methyl bromide      | MB: 448 kg/ha;        | 100                   |
| /chloropicrin         |                       |                       |
| (75:25)**             | CP: 151 kg/ha         |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **1,3-D/CP**          | 1,3-D: 518 kg/ha;     | 83-100                |
|                       |                       |                       |
| **???plus m-s???**    | CP: 283 kg/ha         |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **1,3-D + Metam       | Sequential            | 16-100                |
| Sodium**              | application; 1,3-D:   |                       |
|                       | 518 kg/ha;            |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | MS: ?? kg/ha.         |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **1,3-D/dazomet**     | Sequential            | 28-100                |
|                       | application; 396      |                       |
|                       | kg/ha; 224 kg/ha DZ   |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**Source:** McKenry, M.V., 2001. Evaluation of Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide for Soil Fumigation at Commercial Fruit and Nut Tree Nurseries,
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (Contract \# 99-0218).

**Key to Abbreviations:** 1,3-D = ; CP = ; MB = ;DZ = dazomet; Prominent
nematode pests present: lesion ([Pratylenchus]{.underline}
[spp]{.underline}.), spiral ([Helicotylenchus]{.underline}
[dihystera]{.underline}), dagger ([Xiphinema]{.underline}
[americanum]{.underline}) and some root-knot ([Meloidogyne]{.underline}
[spp]{.underline}.)

**[California -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593359 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | ##### [List   | ##### [Rang    | **[Best         |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |  Type of Pest | e of Yield Los | Estimate of     |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} | s]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                  |               |                | Loss            |
|                  |               |                | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| **1,3-           | Certain weeds | 0-27%          | 10%             |
| D/Chloropicrin** |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| **1,3-D + Metam  | Certain weeds | \-\--          | 13%             |
| Sodium**         |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [          |               |                | **10-13%**      |
| Overall Loss Est |               |                |                 |
| imate for All Al |               |                |                 |
| ternatives to Pe |               |                |                 |
| sts]{.smallcaps} |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[California - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under  |
| Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl              |
| Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593312 .anchor}        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| California-Table 15.1 for status of iodomethane. This fumigant is     |
| unregistered, but is reported to be a potential suitable alternative  |
| for all key pests.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Dazomet is also in a pending registration status as a nematicide on   |
| strawberries. Based on previous studies on other crops, it is         |
| reportedly not likely to be a suitable methyl bromide alternative for |
| strawberry nurseries[.]{.smallcaps}                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the
  Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593313 .anchor}

  We are not aware of any current or near future technologies that are
  technically and/ or economically feasible. Some people consider
  soilless hydroponic culture as a possible long-term option. Although
  this technique could eliminate all or most of the typical soilborne
  pests currently controlled by methyl bromide. However, new pests may
  become problematic, which may/may not be controllable with available
  pesticides[.]{.smallcaps}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [California - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.smallcaps}         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| None are considered technically feasible at the present time due to   |
| the high levels of disease and nematode control required by the       |
| current state certification standards, which equate to virtually      |
| complete control of all damaging disease and nematode pests. Buffer   |
| zones and regulatory constraints are only secondary concerns, since   |
| none of the available alternatives can provide suitable pest control  |
| at root zone depths to 1 meter.                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps}                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **19. [Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide
  Use and Emissions in the Particular
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593316 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

#### [Table 19.1: Techniques to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions]{.smallcaps}

  ------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
  **[Technique or Step      **[VIF or High Barrier **[methyl bromide dosage   **[Increased % chloropicrin  **[Less frequent
  Taken]{.smallcaps}**      Films]{.smallcaps}**   reduction]{.smallcaps}**   in methyl bromide            application]{.smallcaps}**
                                                                              formulation]{.smallcaps}**   

  **[What use/emission      Currently some growers Between 1997 and 2002 the  All use 67:33                Unidentified
  reduction methods are     use HDPE tarps.        dosage rate of methyl                                   
  presently                                        bromide has dropped by one                              
  adopted?]{.smallcaps}**                          eighth.                                                 

  **[What further           Research is underway   Possible changeover from   Unidentified                 The U.S. anticipates that
  use/emission reduction    to develop use in      broadcast to raised bed                                 the decreasing supply of
  steps will be taken for   commercial production  band treatments,                                        methyl bromide will motivate
  the methyl bromide used   systems                                                                        growers to try less frequent
  for critical                                                                                             applications.
  uses?]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                     

  **[Other                  Examination of         Unidentified               Unidentified                 Unidentified
  measures]{.smallcaps}**   promising but                                                                  
  *(please describe)*       presently unregistered                                                         
                            alternative fumigants                                                          
                            with non-chemical                                                              
                            methods.                                                                       
  ------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being
  Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
  Reasons]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593317 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Number range CHAPTERIn accordance with the criteria of the critical use
exemption, each party is required to describe ways in which it strives
to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. The use of methyl
bromide in the growing of strawberry nurseries in the United States is
minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl
bromide has, for the last 40 years, been regulated as a restricted use
pesticide in the United States. As a consequence, methyl bromide can
only be used by certified applicators who are trained at handling these
hazardous pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl bromide is
applied by a limited number of very experienced applicators with the
knowledge and expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level possible
to achieve the needed results. In keeping with both local requirements
to avoid "drift" of methyl bromide into inhabited areas, as well as to
preserve methyl bromide and keep related emissions to the lowest level
possible, methyl bromide application for strawberry nurseries is most
often machine injected into soil to specific depths.

As methyl bromide use has become scarcer, users in the United States
have, where possible, experimented with different mixes of methyl
bromide and chloropicrin. Specifically, in the early 1990s, methyl
bromide was typically sold and used in methyl bromide mixtures made up
of 95% methyl bromide and 5% chloropicrin, with the chloropicrin being
included solely to give the chemical a smell enabling those in the area
to be alerted if there was a risk. However, with the outset of very
significant controls on methyl bromide, users have been experimenting
with significant increases in the level of chloropicrin and reductions
in the level of methyl bromide. While these new mixtures have generally
been effective at controlling target pests, at low to moderate levels of
infestation, it must be stressed that the long-term efficacy of these
mixtures is unknown.

Tarpaulin (high density polyethylene) is also used to minimize use and
emissions of methyl bromide. In addition, cultural practices are
utilized by strawberry nursery growers.

Reduced methyl bromide concentrations in mixtures, cultural practices,
and the extensive use of tarpaulins to cover land treated with methyl
bromide has resulted in reduced emissions and an application rate that
we believe is among the lowest in the world for the uses described in
this nomination.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Part E: Economic Assessment]{.smallcaps}                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **21. [Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
  Period]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593319
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593363 .anchor}

  ------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
  **[Alternative]{.smallcaps}**   **[Yield\*]{.smallcaps}**   **[Cost in year    **[Cost in year    **[Cost in year
                                                              1]{.smallcaps}**   2]{.smallcaps}**   3]{.smallcaps}**
                                                              *(US\$/ha)*        *(US\$/ha)*        *(US\$/ha)*

  Methyl Bromide                  100                         1,806              1,806              1,806

  Metam Sodium                    50                          3,187              3,187              3,187

  1,3-d+pic                       90                          4,774              4,774              4,774

  Chloropicrin                    95                          5,419              5,419              5,419

  1,3-d+Metam Sodium              86                          5,317              5,317              5,317
  ------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

*\* As percentage of typical or 3-year average yield, compared to methyl
bromide*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California-22. Gross and Net
  Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593320 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[California-Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593364 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| ####                  |                       |                      |
|  [Year 1]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 41,019                | 11,879               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | \-                    | \-                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+pic             | 36,918                | 4,670                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Chloropicrin          | 38,968                | 8,112                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+Metam Sodium    | 35,892                | 5,137                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[[California-Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593365
.anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 2]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 41,019                | 11,879               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | \-                    | \-                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+pic             | 36,918                | 4,670                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Chloropicrin          | 38,968                | 8,112                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+Metam Sodium    | 35,892                | 5,137                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[[California-Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593366
.anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 3]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 41,019                | 11,879               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | \-                    | \-                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+pic             | 36,918                | 4,670                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Chloropicrin          | 38,968                | 8,112                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+Metam Sodium    | 35,892                | 5,137                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeastern States-22. Gross and Net
  Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593321 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[Southeastern States-Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593367 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| ####                  |                       |                      |
|  [Year 1]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 42,008                | 11,763               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | 21,004                | -8,923               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+pic             | 37,807                | 6,294                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Chloropicrin          | 39,907                | 7,749                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+Metam Sodium    | \-                    | \-                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[[Southeastern States-Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593368
.anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 2]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 42,008                | 11,763               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | 21,004                | -8,923               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+pic             | 37,807                | 6,294                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Chloropicrin          | 39,907                | 7,749                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+Metam Sodium    | \-                    | \-                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[[Southeastern States-Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593369
.anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 3]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 42,008                | 11,763               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | 21,004                | -8,923               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+pic             | 37,807                | 6,294                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Chloropicrin          | 39,907                | 7,749                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d+Metam Sodium    | \-                    | \-                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[Southeastern States - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593370 .anchor}

  --------------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- --------------------------
  **[Southeastern                   **[Methyl                **[Alternative         **[Alternative
  States]{.smallcaps}**             Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   Metam]{.smallcaps}**   1,3-d+pic]{.smallcaps}**

  **[Yield Loss (%)]{.smallcaps}**  0                        50                     10

  **[Yield per Hectare              211,715                  105,857                190,543
  (plants)]{.smallcaps}**                                                           

  **[\* Price per Unit              .20                      .20                    .20
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                             

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare    42,008                   21,004                 37,807
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                             

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare  30,245                   29,927                 31,513
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                             

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare      11,763                   -8,923                 6,294
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                             

  **[Loss Measure]{.smallcaps}**                                                    

  **[1. Loss per Hectare            \$0                      \$20,686               \$5,469
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                             

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl \$0                      50.15                  13.26
  Bromide (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                     

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of     0%                       49%                    13%
  Gross Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                  

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of Net 0%                       176%                   46%
  Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                        
  --------------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- --------------------------

**[California - Table E.2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593371 .anchor}

  ------------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- --------------------------
  **[California]{.smallcaps}**    **[Methyl                **[Alternative 1,3-d   **[Alternative
                                  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   Metam]{.smallcaps}**   1,3-d+pic]{.smallcaps}**

  **[Yield Loss                   0                        13%                    10%
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                              

  **[Yield per Hectare            332                      291                    299
  (boxes)]{.smallcaps}**                                                          

  **[\* Price per Unit            50                       50                     50
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                           

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare  41,019                   35,892                 36,918
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                           

  **[- Operating Costs per        29,141                   30,755                 32,247
  Hectare (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                   

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare    11,879                   5,137                  4,670
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                           

  **[Loss Measures]{.smallcaps}**                                                 

  **[1. Loss per Hectare          \$0                      6,741                  7,208
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                           

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of      \$0                      25.59                  27.37
  Methyl Bromide                                                                  
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                           

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of   0%                       16%                    18%
  Gross Revenue                                                                   
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                              

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of   0%                       57%                    61%
  Net Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                  
  ------------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- --------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ######### Summary of Economic Feasibility                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The economic analysis compared the costs of methyl bromide            |
| alternative control scenarios for the Southeastern Strawberry         |
| Consortium and the California Strawberry Growers Association to the   |
| baseline costs for methyl bromide. The economic estimates were first  |
| calculated in pounds and acres and then converted to kilograms and    |
| hectares. The costs for the alternatives are based on market price    |
| for the control products multiplied by the number of pounds of active |
| ingredient that would be applied. The baseline costs were based on    |
| the average number of applications to treat strawberry plants (boxes) |
| with methyl bromide per year. The loss per hectare measures the value |
| of methyl bromide based on changes in operating costs and/or changes  |
| in yield. The loss expressed as a percentage of the gross revenue is  |
| based on the ratio of the revenue loss to the gross revenue. Likewise |
| for the loss as a percentage of net revenue. The profit margin        |
| percentage is the ratio of net revenue to gross revenue per hectare.  |
|                                                                       |
| The values to derive gross revenue and the operating costs for each   |
| alternative were derived from the baseline methyl bromide costs       |
| compared to the costs of changes under three fumigation scenarios in  |
| the Southeastern States: 1) metam sodium; 2) 1,3-d + chloropicrin;    |
| and 3) chloropicrin.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| For California, the baseline methyl bromide costs were compared to    |
| three scenarios: 1) 1,3-d + metam sodium; 2) 1,3-d + chloropicrin;    |
| and 3) chloropicrin. The differences in the cost of production were   |
| primarily attributable to changes in fumigation costs.                |
|                                                                       |
| One of the issues facing nursery growers is that pest infestation can |
| wipe out production for the season. If there are quality concerns     |
| such as disease, weeds, or insect infestation growers will not be     |
| able to market their seedlings. Fruit producers are not willing to    |
| purchase plants that have any visual symptoms of disease and may hold |
| the nursery responsible for any disease that shows up during fruiting |
| in the field in the first weeks after planting. Nearly a billion      |
| plants are produced by the California strawberry nursery system alone |
| each year and this production is distributed world-wide. There are    |
| approximately 13 seedling/runner producers in California that must    |
| manage disease incidence over the 4 year production cycle of the      |
| strawberry stock. Without data to illustrate the impacts of a growers |
| stock being wiped out, we assumed that if an estimated 10% of the     |
| root-stock is contaminated this would directly reduce the yield by    |
| that amount. Clearly this would have a detrimental impact on the      |
| entire industry as the yield losses would be in addition to the yield |
| losses generated by the change to alternative chemical controls.      |
| Yield losses on a hectare basis could range from 15-60% reflecting    |
| lower yields from alternative control and loss of the nursery supply. |
| However, a more likely scenario is that several growers in a region   |
| would suffer pathogen or insect infestation and that the entire stock |
| for those growers cannot be marketed, yield losses would be much      |
| higher.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Southeastern States:                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| Under Alternative 1 (Metam sodium), yield loss was estimated to be    |
| 50%, which translates into a 49% loss in gross revenues. With         |
| operating costs in U.S. dollars per hectare of \$29,927, the          |
| estimated net revenue was -\$8,923 per hectare, or a loss of 176%.    |
| The loss per hectare is estimated to be \$20,686. The loss per        |
| kilogram of methyl bromide in U.S. dollars is estimated to be \$50.15 |
| per kilogram.                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Under alternative 2 (1,3-d + chloropicrin), the yield loss was        |
| estimated to be 10% and the loss a percent of gross revenue was 13%.  |
| Operating costs in U.S. dollars per hectare are \$31,513. The         |
| estimated net revenue was \$6,294 per hectare, or a loss of 46%. The  |
| loss per hectare is estimated to be \$5,469. The loss per kilogram of |
| methyl bromide in U.S. dollars is estimated to be \$13.26 per         |
| kilogram.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Under alternative 3 (chloropicrin alone), the yield loss was          |
| estimated to be 5%. Operating costs in U.S. dollars per hectare are   |
| \$32,158. The estimated net revenue was \$7,749 per hectare. The loss |
| per hectare is estimated to be \$4,014. The loss per kilogram of      |
| methyl bromide in U.S. dollars is estimated to be \$9.73 per          |
| kilogram.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| California:                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Alternative 1 (Metam sodium), yield was assumed to be 13% with        |
| operating costs in U.S. dollars per hectare of \$30,755. The          |
| estimated net revenue was \$5,137 per hectare. The loss per hectare   |
| is estimated to be \$6,741. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide   |
| in U.S. dollars is estimated to be \$25.59 per kilogram.              |
|                                                                       |
| Under alternative 2 (1,3-d +chloropicrin), the yield loss was         |
| estimated to be 10%. Operating costs in U.S. dollars per hectare are  |
| \$32,247. The estimated net revenue was \$4,670 per hectare. The loss |
| per hectare is estimated to be \$7,208. The loss per kilogram of      |
| methyl bromide in U.S. dollars is estimated to be \$27.37 per         |
| kilogram.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Under alternative 3 (chloropicrin), the yield loss was estimated to   |
| be 5%. Operating costs in U.S. dollars per hectare are \$30,856. The  |
| estimated net revenue was \$8,112 per hectare. The loss per hectare   |
| is estimated to be \$3,766. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide   |
| in U.S. dollars is estimated to be \$14.30 per kilogram.              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps}                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy       |
| Alternatives for This Crop?]{.smallcaps}**                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The available alternatives are currently all considered unsuitable.   |
| Continued testing for 5 to 10 years may be required to explore new or |
| improved application techniques that may be considered suitable.      |
| Combinations of several chemical and non-chemical controls may        |
| ultimately be needed along with application technique changes.        |
|                                                                       |
| 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 USDA/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         |
| strawberry nurseries research will require 454 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 three year study testing the comparative performance of |
| methyl bromide, alternative fumigants, preplant fungicide dips, post  |
| plant fungicides, germplasm, microbial inoculants, and cultural       |
| practices. 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         |
| strawberry nurseries research will require 454 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 three year study testing the comparative performance of |
| methyl bromide, alternative fumigants, preplant fungicide dips, post  |
| plant fungicides, germplasm, microbial inoculants, and cultural       |
| practices                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
  Critical Use in the
  Future?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593324 .anchor}

  The U.S. wants to note that our usage rate is among the lowest in the
  world in requested sectors and represents efforts of both the
  government and the user community over many years to reduce use rates
  and emissions. We will continue to work with the user community in each
  sector to identify further opportunities to reduce methyl bromide use
  and emissions. .
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[25. Additional Comments on the
  Nomination?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593325 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[26. Citations referenced in this
  report]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593326 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ajwa, H.A., T. Trout, J. Mueller, S. Wilhelm, S. Nelson, R. Soppe, D.
Shatley. 2002. Application of Alternative Fumigants Through Drip
Irrigation Systems. Phytopath 92(12):1349-1355.

Ajwa, H., T. Trout. 2000. Distribution of Drip Applied Fumigants Under
Various Conditions. 2000 Annual International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Ajwa, H., T. Trout. 2000. Strawberry Growth and Yield with Three Years
of Drip Fumigation. 2000 Annual International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Braun, A. L., D. M. Supkoff. 1994. Options to Methyl Bromide for the
Control of Soil Borne Diseases and pests in California. Pest Management
Analysis and Planning Program.

Browne, G. T., H.E. Becherer, M. R. Vazuesq, S. A. McGlaughlin, R.J.
Wakeman, C. Q. Winterbottom, J.M. Duniway, S. A. Fennimore. 2001.
Outlook for Managing Phytophthora Diseases on California Strawberries
without Methyl Bromide. Report to DPR.

Browne, G.T., H.E. Becherer, S.T. McLaughlin, R.J. Wakeman. 2002.
Strategies for Management of Phytophthora on California Strawberries.
Report to California Strawberry commission, March 2002. 2 pgs.

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

Burgos, N.R., and R.E. Talberty. 1996b. Weed Control by spring cover
crops and imazethapyr in no-till southern pea (Vigna unguiculata). Weed
Technol. 10; 893-899.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2003. Summary of
California Laws and Regulations Pertaining to Nursery Stock.

Carpenter, J., L. Lynch. 1999. Impact of 1,3-D Restrictions in
California after a Ban on Methyl Bromide. From EPA Website.

Carpenter, J. L. Lynch, T. Trout. 2001. Township limits on 1,3-D will
impact adjustment to methyl bromide phase-out. California Agricultural.
55(3):12-18.

Culpepper, A. S. 2002. Commercial Vegetables - Weed Control. 2002
Georgia Pest Control Handbook. Cooperative Ext. Ser. University of
Georgia, Athens, GA. Pp. 247-256.

Duniway, J. M., D. M. Dopkins, J. J. Hao. 2002. Chemical and Cultural
alternatives to Methyl Bromide Fumigation of Soil for Strawberry:
Research Progress Report. California Strawberry Commission Pink Sheet.

Duniway, J.M. 2002. Status of Chemical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide
for Pre- Plant Fumigation of Soil. Phytopath 92(12):1337-1343.

Duniway, J.M., J.J. Hao, D.M. Dopkins, H. Ajwa, G.T. Browne. 2000. Some
chemical, cultural, and Biological alternatives to Methyl Bromide
Fumigation of soil for Strawberry. 2000 Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

EPA. 2002. Replacing Methyl Bromide for Preplant Soil fumigation with
Telone, Chloropicrin and Tillam Combination Treatments. EPA Website. 6
pgs.

Fennimore, S.A. J. M. Duniway. Alternative fumigants for control of soil
pests: strawberry as a Model System. Report to California Department of
Pesticide Regulations.

Fennimore, S.A., M.J. Haar. 2003. Weed Control in Strawberry Provided by
Shank and Drip applied Methyl Bromide Alternative Fumigants. HortSci.
38(l):55-61

Fennimore, S.A., M.J. Haar, H. Ajwa. 1999. Weed Control Options in
California Strawberry without Methyl Bromide. 1999 Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide alternatives and Emissions
Reductions.

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 pimpkin (Cucurbita maxima Dutch). Weed Technol. 7:
425-430

Gilreath, J.P., E.B. Poling, J.W. Noling. 2001. unpublished study.

Goodhue, R.E., S.A. Fennimore, H. Ajwa. 2003. Economic Feasibility of
Methyl Bromide Alternatives: Field-Level Cost Analysis. California
Strawberry Commission, Pink Sheet 03-07. 2 pgs.

Gordon, R.R. S. Kirkpatrick, D. Shaw, K.D. Larson. 2002. Differential
Infection of Mother and Runner Plant Generation-s by Verticillium
dahliae in a High Elevation Strawberry Nursery. HortScience
37(6):927-931.

Gordon, T.R., K.D. Larson, D.V. Shaw. 2002. Management of Verticillium
Wilt in High elevation Strawberry Nurseries. Report to California
Strawberry Commission. Monterey Bay Academy field Day.

Gordon, T.R., K.D. Larson, D.V. Shaw. 1999. Summary of Recent Research
on Verticillium wilt in High elevation Strawberry Nurseries. Report to
California Strawberry Commission. 2 pgs.

Gubler, W.D., J.M. Duniway, N. Welch. 1996. Chemical Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide fumigation - How Well Do They Work?

Haglund, W. 1999. Metam Sodium and Metam Combinations a Viable
Replacement for Methyl Bromide. 1999 Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Haar, M.J., S.A. Fennimore, H.A. Ajwa, C.Q. Winterbottom. 2003.
Chloropicrin effect on Weed Seed Viability. CropProtection 22:109-115.

Hochmuch, R.D., T. Crocker, L.L. Davis. 1999. Comparison of Bare-Root
and Plug Strawberry Transplants in Soilless Culture in North Florida,
98-04. University of Florida. 5 pgs.

Johnson, G. A., M. S, Defelice, and A. R. Heisel. 1993k Cover crop
management and weed control in corn *(Zea mays).* Weed Technol. 7:
425-430.

Keddy, C.O., I. Klaus, N. Jensen, S.M. Harris. 1997. Results of
alternative Applications on Weed Control in a Strawberry Nursery. 1997
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions.

Lamberti, F. 2000. 1,3-D, A Valid Alternative to Methyl Bromide for the
control of Plant Parasitic Nematodes. 2000 Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Larson, K. 1997. Nursery Soil Fumigation Regime Affects Strawberry
Transplant Production, Transplant Size, and Subsequent Fruit Yield. 1997
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions.

Larsen, K. D., D.V. Shaw. 2000. Soil Fumigation and Runner Plant
Production: A Synthesis of 4 Yrs of Strawberry Nursery Field Trials.
HortSci 35(4):642-646.

Locascio, S.J., J.P. Gilreath, D.W.Dickson, T.A. Kucharek, J.P. Jones,
and J.W. Noling. 1997. Strawberry production with alternatives to methyl
bromide fumigation. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Locascio, S.J., S.M. Olson, C.A. Chase, T.R. Sinclair, D.W.Dickson, D.J.
Mitchell, and D.O. Chellemi. 1999. Strawberry production with
alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation. 1999 Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions.

Martin, F., C.T. Bull, 2002. Biological Approaches for Control of Root
Pathogens of Strawberry. Phytopath 92(12):1356-1362.

Martin, F. 2000. Management of Root Diseases in Strawberry. 2000 Annual
,International Research Conference on methyl Bromide alternatives and
Emissions Reductions.

Martinez, C., S. Fennimore, H. Ajwa. 2000. Strawberry Production with
Methyl Bromide alternatives: A Farmers Perspective. 2000 Annual
International Research Conference on methyl Bromide alternatives and
Emissions Reductions.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. 2002. Summary of Plant Protection
Regulations.

McKenry, M. 2001. Evaluation of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for soil
Fumigation at Commercial Fruit and Nut Tree Nurseries. California
Department of Pesticide Regulation. Contract #99-0218. 29 pgs.

McKenry, M. 1999. The Replant Problem and Its Management. Catalina
Publishing. 124 pgs.

Miles, J. E., 0. Kawabata and Nishimot. Rk. 2002. Modeling purple
nutsedge sprouting under soil solarization. Weed Sci. 50: 64-71.

Minuto, A., G. Gilardi, L. Bacci, P. Titone, M.L. Gullino. 1999.
Application of Chloropicrin and 1,3 dichloropropene Through soil
Injection In Northern Italy. 1999 Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Motis, T.N. and J.P. Gilreath. 2002Stimulation of nutsedge emergence
with chloropicrin. 2002 Annual International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Noling, J.W. 2002. The Practical Realities of Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide: Concluding Remarks. Phytopath 92(12) 1373-1375.

Noling, J.W. Reducing Methyl Bromide Field Application Rates with
Plastic Mulch Technology. University of Florida. 6 pgs.

Norsworthy, J. 2002. Allelopathic affects of wild radish on cotton.
Clemson University. Unpublished data.

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

Paulus, A., M. Vilchez, M. Coffey. 1998. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide
for Soil fumigation. California Strawberry Commission Pink Sheet 98-1. 1
pg.

Sances, F. 2000. Plug Plant and Soil Amendment Technology as
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Fumigation on California Strawberries.
Report for California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Contract no.
98-0283. 14pgs.

Shaw, D.V., K.D. Larson. 1999. A Meta-analysis of Strawberry Yield
Response to Preplant Soil Fumigation with Combinations of Methyl
Bromide-chloropicrin and Four Alternative Systems. HortSci 34(5):
839-845.

Shaw, D.V., T.R. Gordon, K.D. Larson. 2002. Runner Plant Cold Storage
Reduces Verticillium dahliae Infection of Nursery Origin in Strawberry.
HortScience 37(6):932-935.

Stapleton, S., C.Q. Chandler, D.E. Legard, J.F. Price, J.C. Sumier.
Transplant Source Affects Fruiting Performance and Pests of \'Sweet
Charlie\' Strawberry in Florida. University of Florida. 5 pgs.

Subbarao, K. 2002. Methyl Bromide Alternatives - Meeting the Deadlines.
Phytopathology 92(12):1334-1336.

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

Trout, T. 2001. Impact of Townships Caps on Telone Use in California.
California Strawberry Commission Pinksheet 01-09. 4pgs.

Trout, T. H. Ajwa. 1999. Strawberry Response to Fumigants Applied by
Drip Irrigation Systems. 1999 Annual International Research Conference
on methyl Bromide alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego,
California, November 1-4, 1999.

Welch, N. 1991 \'Soil Fumigation using Telone. California Strawberry
Commission Pink Sheet. 2 pgs.

Westerdahl, B., B. Haglund, M. McKenry. 2002. Unpublished data from on
going research trial with Shasta Nursery.

**APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index
(BUNI**).[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65593373 .anchor}

![](media/image1.wmf)

**Footnotes for Appendix A:**

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

1.  **[Average Hectares in the US]{.underline}** -- 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]{.underline}** - 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.  **[2006 Amount of Request]{.underline}** -- The 2006 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]{.underline}** -- 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]{.underline}** -- 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]{.underline}** --
    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 %**]{.underline} - 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.  **[2006 Nomination Options]{.underline}** -- 2006 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]{.underline}** --
    Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were
    subtracted from the initial request amount.

10. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request]{.underline}**
    -- Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 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]{.underline}** - 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]{.underline}** - 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 2006 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE
    application compared with the 2006 request from the applicant's 2003
    CUE application.

13. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS]{.underline}** -
    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 2006 Request minus Double Counting,
    minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then multiplied by the
    percentage subject to QPS treatments. *Subtraction from Requested
    Amounts, QPS = (2006 Request -- Double Counting -- Growth)\*(QPS %)*

14. **[Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate
    Difference]{.underline}** -- 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 2006 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]{.underline}** -- 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]{.underline}** -- 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]{.underline}** -- 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]{.underline}** - 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 (%)]{.underline}** - 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 (%)]{.underline}** -- 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]{.underline}** -- 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 (%)]{.underline}** - 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. **[Qualifying Area]{.underline}** - Qualifying area (ha) is
    calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined
    impacts.

24. **[Use Rate]{.underline}** - Use rate is the lower of requested use
    rate for 2006 or the historic average use rate.

25. **[CUE Nominated amount]{.underline}** - CUE nominated amount is
    calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate.

26. **[Percent Reduction]{.underline}** - Percent reduction from initial
    request is the percentage of the initial request that did not
    qualify for the CUE nomination.

27. **[Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector]{.underline}** -
    Self-explanatory.

28. **[Total US Sector Nomination]{.underline}** - Total U.S. sector
    nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that
    sector.

29. **[Dichotomous Variables]{.underline}** -- 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.

30. **[Strip Bed Treatment]{.underline}** -- Strip bed treatment is
    'yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise.

31. **[Currently Use Alternatives]{.underline}** -- 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.

32. **[Research/ Transition Plans]{.underline}** -- 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.

33. **[Tarps/ Deep Injection Used]{.underline}** -- 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.

34. **[Pest-free cert. Required]{.underline}** - This variable is a
    'yes' when the product must be certified as 'pest-free' in order to
    be sold

35. **[Other Issues]{.underline}**.- Other issues is a short reminder of
    other elements of an application that were checked

36. **[Change from Prior CUE Request]{.underline}**- 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.

37. **[Verified Historic Use/ State]{.underline}**- This item indicates
    whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been
    compared to records of historic use in that area.

38. **[Frequency of Treatment]{.underline}** -- This indicates how often
    methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from
    multiple times per year to once in several decades.

39. **[Economic Analysis]{.underline}** -- provides summary economic
    information for the applications.

40. **[Loss per Hectare]{.underline}** -- 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.

41. **[Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide]{.underline}** -- 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.

42. **[Loss as a % of Gross revenue]{.underline}** -- 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.

43. **[Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue]{.underline}** -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.

44. **[Quality/ Time/ Market Window/Yield Loss (%)]{.underline}** --
    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.

45. **[Marginal Strategy]{.underline}** -This is the strategy that a
    particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use
    methyl bromide.

**[APPENDIX B. Summary of New Applicants]{.smallcaps}**

A number of new groups applied for methyl bromide for 2005 during this
application cycle, as shown in the table below. Although in most cases
they represent additional amounts for sectors that were already
well-characterized sectors, in a few cases they comprised new sectors.
Examples of the former include significant additional country (cured,
uncooked) ham production; some additional request for tobacco transplant
trays, and very minor amounts for pepper and eggplant production in lieu
of tomato production in Michigan.

For the latter, there are two large requests: cut flower and foliage
production in Florida and California ('Ornamentals') and a group of
structures and process foods that we have termed 'Post-Harvest NPMA'
which includes processed (generally wheat-based foods), spices and
herbs, cocoa, dried milk, cheeses and small amounts of other
commodities. There was also a small amount requested for field-grown
tobacco.

The details of the case that there are no alternatives which are both
technically and economically feasible are presented in the appropriate
sector chapters, as are the requested amounts, suitably adjusted to
ensure that no double-counting, growth, etc. were included and that the
amount was only sufficient to cover situations (key pests, regulatory
requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used.

The amount requested by new applicants is approximately 2.5% of the 1991
U.S. baseline, or about 1,400,000 pounds of methyl bromide, divided 40%
for pre-plant uses and 60% for post-harvest needs.

The methodology for deriving the nominated amount used estimates that
would result in the lowest amount of methyl bromide requested from the
range produced by the analysis to ensure that adequate amounts of methyl
bromide were available for critical needs. We are requesting additional
methyl bromide in the amount of about 500,000 Kg, or 2% or the 1991 U.S.
baseline, to provide for the additional critical needs in the pre-plant
and post-harvest sector.

  -------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------
  **Applicant Name**                        **2005 U.S. CUE Nomination
                                            (lbs)**

  California Cut Flower Commission          400,000

  National Country Ham Association          1,172

  Wayco Ham Company                         39

  California Date Commission                5,319

  National Pest Management Association      319,369

  Michigan Pepper Growers                   20,904

  Michigan Eggplant Growers                 6,968

  Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA -       2,254
  Transplant Trays                          

  Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA -       28,980
  Field Grown                               

  Virginia Tobacco Growers - Transplant     941
  Trays                                     

  Michigan Herbaceous Perennials            4,200

  Ozark Country Hams                        240

  Nahunta Pork Center                       248

  American Association of Meat              296,800
  Processors                                

  Total lbs                                 **1,087,434**

  Total kgs                                 **493,252**
  -------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------