**[Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
Peppers Grown in Open Fields on Plastic Tarpaulins]{.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 for Peppers Grown in Open     |
| of                 | Fields on Plastic Tarpaulins (Submitted in 2006 |
| Nominati           | for 2008 Use Season)                            |
| 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.          |                                               |
|                      |                                               |
|  Yes  No           |                                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

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

  Signature                     Name                      Date

  Title:                                                  
  -------------------------- -- ---------------------- -- ------------------

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

  Contact/Expert Person:   Richard Keigwin

  Title:                   Acting 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:               \(703\) 308-8200

  Fax:                     \(703\) 308-8090

  E-mail:                  <Richard.kegwin@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} 8](#part-a-summary)

[1. Nominating Party 8](#__RefHeading___Toc125780305)

[2. Descriptive Title of Nomination 8](#__RefHeading___Toc125780306)

[3. Crop and Summary of Crop System 8](#__RefHeading___Toc125780307)

[4. Methyl Bromide Nominated 8](#__RefHeading___Toc125780308)

[5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
8](#__RefHeading___Toc125780309)

[6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible
11](#__RefHeading___Toc125780310)

[7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
12](#__RefHeading___Toc125780311)

[8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
13](#__RefHeading___Toc125780312)

[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated for Each Region 13](#__RefHeading___Toc125780313)

[[Michigan]{.smallcaps} - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl
Bromide Use]{.smallcaps}
14](#michigan---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Michigan - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
14](#__RefHeading___Toc125780315)

[Michigan - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
14](#__RefHeading___Toc125780316)

[Michigan - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
15](#__RefHeading___Toc125780317)

[[Michigan - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
17](#michigan-part-c-technical-validation--peppers)

[Michigan - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
17](#__RefHeading___Toc125780319)

[Michigan - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 20](#__RefHeading___Toc125780320)

[Michigan - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status
of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
21](#__RefHeading___Toc125780321)

[Michigan - 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 21](#__RefHeading___Toc125780322)

[Michigan - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
22](#__RefHeading___Toc125780323)

[Michigan - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
23](#__RefHeading___Toc125780324)

[Michigan - Summary of Technical Feasibility
23](#michigan---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and
Georgia]{.smallcaps} - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}
24](#southeast-u.s.-peppers-consortium-excluding-florida-and-georgia---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use-on-peppers)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - 10.
Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and
Specific Reasons for this Request 24](#__RefHeading___Toc125780327)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - 11.
Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
25](#__RefHeading___Toc125780328)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - 12.
Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or Mixtures Containing
Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
27](#__RefHeading___Toc125780329)

[[Southeast Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - Part C:
Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
28](#southeast-u.s.-peppers-consortium-excluding-florida-and-georgia---part-c-technical-validation-for-peppers)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - 13.
Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
28](#__RefHeading___Toc125780331)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - 14.
List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)* Pesticides and
Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide: 32](#__RefHeading___Toc125780332)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - 15.
List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status of Any Current
and Potential Alternatives 33](#__RefHeading___Toc125780333)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - 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 33](#__RefHeading___Toc125780334)

[[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia --17.
Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development Which Are
Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?]{.smallcaps}
35](#__RefHeading___Toc125780335)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - 18.
Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop which Avoid the
Need for Methyl Bromide? 36](#__RefHeading___Toc125780336)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia --
Summary of Technical Feasibility 36](#__RefHeading___Toc125780337)

[[Georgia]{.smallcaps} - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl
Bromide Use]{.smallcaps}
37](#georgia---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use-on-peppers)

[Georgia - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
37](#__RefHeading___Toc125780339)

[Georgia - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
38](#__RefHeading___Toc125780340)

[Georgia - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
40](#__RefHeading___Toc125780341)

[[Georgia - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
41](#georgia---part-c-technical-validation-for-peppers)

[Georgia - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
41](#__RefHeading___Toc125780343)

[Georgia - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 45](#__RefHeading___Toc125780344)

[Georgia - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status
of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
46](#__RefHeading___Toc125780345)

[Georgia - 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 46](#__RefHeading___Toc125780346)

[Georgia - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
47](#__RefHeading___Toc125780347)

[Georgia - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
48](#__RefHeading___Toc125780348)

[Georgia - Summary of Technical Feasibility
48](#georgia---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[[Florida]{.smallcaps} - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl
Bromide Use]{.smallcaps}
49](#part-b-florida--crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use-on-peppers)

[Florida - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
49](#__RefHeading___Toc125780351)

[Florida - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
50](#__RefHeading___Toc125780352)

[Florida - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
51](#__RefHeading___Toc125780353)

[[Florida - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
52](#florida---part-c-technical-validation)

[Florida - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
52](#__RefHeading___Toc125780355)

[Florida - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 57](#__RefHeading___Toc125780356)

[Florida - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status
of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
58](#__RefHeading___Toc125780357)

[Florida - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
for which It Is Being Requested 58](#__RefHeading___Toc125780358)

[Florida - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
59](#__RefHeading___Toc125780359)

[Florida - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
60](#__RefHeading___Toc125780360)

[Georgia - Summary of Technical Feasibility
60](#florida---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps} 62](#part-d-emission-control)

[19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide
Use and Emissions in the Particular Use
62](#__RefHeading___Toc125780363)

[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used,
or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons 63](#__RefHeading___Toc125780364)

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

[21. Operating Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period 64](#__RefHeading___Toc125780366)

[22. Gross and Net Revenue 65](#__RefHeading___Toc125780367)

[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
65](#__RefHeading___Toc125780368)

[Summary of Economic Feasibility 67](#summary-of-economic-feasibility)

[[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps} 69](#part-f.-future-plans)

[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This Crop? 69](#__RefHeading___Toc125780371)

[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future? 70](#__RefHeading___Toc125780372)

[25. Additional Comments on the Nomination
70](#__RefHeading___Toc125780373)

[26. Citations 72](#__RefHeading___Toc125780374)

***List of Tables***

[*[Part A: Summary]{.smallcaps}* 8](#part-a-summary)

[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated 8](#__RefHeading___Toc125780173)

[Table A.1: Executive Summary 11](#__RefHeading___Toc125780174)

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

[Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
13](#table-8.1-amount-of-methyl-bromide-requested-for-critical-use)

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

[Michigan - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 14](#__RefHeading___Toc125780178)

[Michigan - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
14](#__RefHeading___Toc125780179)

[Michigan - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
14](#__RefHeading___Toc125780180)

[Michigan - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
16](#__RefHeading___Toc125780181)

[*[Michigan - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
17](#michigan-part-c-technical-validation--peppers)

[Michigan -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
17](#__RefHeading___Toc125780183)

[Michigan -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
21](#__RefHeading___Toc125780184)

[Michigan -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
22](#__RefHeading___Toc125780185)

[*[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia -
Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use]{.smallcaps}*
24](#southeast-u.s.-peppers-consortium-excluding-florida-and-georgia---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use-on-peppers)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - Table
10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide Request
24](#__RefHeading___Toc125780187)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - Table
11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
25](#__RefHeading___Toc125780188)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - Table
11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule -- January Fumigation
(Spring, Early Summer Harvest) 25](#__RefHeading___Toc125780189)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - Table
11.3 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule -- Spring Fumigation
(Fall Harvest) 25](#__RefHeading___Toc125780190)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - Table
12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
27](#__RefHeading___Toc125780191)

[*[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia -
Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
28](#southeast-u.s.-peppers-consortium-excluding-florida-and-georgia---part-c-technical-validation-for-peppers)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia --Table
13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
28](#__RefHeading___Toc125780193)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia --
Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion
32](#__RefHeading___Toc125780194)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia --
Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives for Peppers
33](#__RefHeading___Toc125780195)

[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia Table
16.1. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Polyethylene-Mulched
Tomato 33](#__RefHeading___Toc125780196)

[Southeast U.S. Pepper Consortium -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss
Data Summary 34](#__RefHeading___Toc125780197)

[*[Georgia - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}*
37](#georgia---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use-on-peppers)

[Georgia - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 37](#__RefHeading___Toc125780199)

[Georgia - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
38](#__RefHeading___Toc125780200)

[Georgia - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule --
July Fumigation Event, Pepper Crop is Harvested in Fall
38](#__RefHeading___Toc125780201)

[Georgia - Table 11.3 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule --
Spring (Late February -- March) Fumigation Event, Pepper Crop is
Harvested in Early Summer 39](#__RefHeading___Toc125780202)

[Georgia - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
40](#__RefHeading___Toc125780203)

[*[Georgia - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
41](#georgia---part-c-technical-validation-for-peppers)

[Georgia -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
41](#__RefHeading___Toc125780205)

[Georgia -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion
45](#__RefHeading___Toc125780206)

[Georgia -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives for
Peppers 46](#__RefHeading___Toc125780207)

[Georgia Table 16.1. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato 46](#__RefHeading___Toc125780208)

[Georgia -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
47](#__RefHeading___Toc125780209)

[*[Florida - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}*
49](#part-b-florida--crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use-on-peppers)

[Florida - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 49](#__RefHeading___Toc125780211)

[Florida - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
50](#__RefHeading___Toc125780212)

[Florida - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
50](#__RefHeading___Toc125780213)

[Florida - Table 11.3 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule --
Peppers Double Cropped with another Vegetable Crop (usually Cucurbits)
51](#__RefHeading___Toc125780214)

[Florida - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
52](#__RefHeading___Toc125780215)

[*[Florida - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
52](#florida---part-c-technical-validation)

[Florida -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
52](#__RefHeading___Toc125780217)

[Florida -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion
57](#__RefHeading___Toc125780218)

[Florida -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
58](#__RefHeading___Toc125780219)

[Florida - Table 16.1. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato 58](#__RefHeading___Toc125780220)

[Florida -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
59](#__RefHeading___Toc125780221)

[*[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps}* 62](#part-d-emission-control)

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

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

[Table 21.1: Peppers -- Operating Costs of Alternatives Compared to
Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period 64](#__RefHeading___Toc125780225)

[Table 22.1: Peppers - Year 1, 2, and 3 Gross and Net Revenues
65](#__RefHeading___Toc125780226)

[Florida Pepper - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives 65](#__RefHeading___Toc125780227)

[Georgia Pepper -- Table E.2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives 66](#__RefHeading___Toc125780228)

[Michigan Pepper - Table E.3: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives 66](#__RefHeading___Toc125780229)

[Southeastern USA (except Georgia) Pepper - Table E.4: Economic Impacts
of Methyl Bromide Alternatives 67](#__RefHeading___Toc125780230)

[*[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps}* 69](#part-f.-future-plans)

[*APPENDIX A. 2008 Methyl Bromide Usage Newer Numerical Index (BUNNI).*
77](#__RefHeading___Toc125780232)

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[1. Nominating Party]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780305
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[2. Descriptive Title of
  Nomination]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780306 .anchor}

  Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
  Peppers Grown in Open Fields on Plastic Tarpaulins (Submitted in 2006
  for 2008 Use Season)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[3. Crop and Summary of Crop
  System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780307 .anchor}

  Peppers grown in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
  Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
  Virginia. These crops are grown in open fields on plastic tarps, often
  followed by various other crops. Harvest is destined for the fresh
  market**.**
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[4. Methyl Bromide
  Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780308 .anchor}

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

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780173 .anchor}

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

  **2008**                 **919,006**             **7,057**
  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------

-   This amount includes 2,844 kg for research.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **5[. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780309
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

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

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

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

-   Regulatory constraints: e.g., 1,3 D use is limited in Georgia and
    Florida due to the presence of karst geology.

-   Potential delay in planting and harvesting: e.g., the plant-back
    interval for 1,3 D + Chloropicrin may be up to two weeks longer than
    methyl bromide + chloropicrin. In Michigan an additional delay would
    occur because soil temperature must be higher to fumigate with
    alternatives. Delays in planting and harvesting may result in users
    missing key market windows, and adversely affect revenues through
    lower prices.

Michigan, Florida, Georgia, and the Southeastern U.S. (except Georgia
and Florida) are each presented as separate regions in this nomination
to reflect the separate applications from growers in these areas. A
brief description of their need for MB follows, also presented on a
regional basis.

######### 

######### Michigan

The key pest of peppers in Michigan is the soil fungi *Phytophthora
capsici*, which can easily destroy the entire harvest from affected
areas if left uncontrolled. While 1,3-D + chloropicrin provided some
control in small plot trials with peppers and other vegetable crops in
Michigan (Hausbeck and Cortright 2003), the level of control was lower
than that afforded by MB. *P. capsici* has recently been shown to also
occur in irrigation water in Michigan (Gevens and Hausbeck 2003). This
will increase the likelihood of spread of this pathogen. It is also not
yet clear whether these small-scale research results accurately reflect
efficacy of MB alternatives in pepper production. Furthermore,
regulatory restrictions due to concerns over human exposure and ground
water contamination, along with technical limitations, result in
potential economic infeasibility of this formulation as a MB
alternative. Among the more important ones are a potential delay in
planting as long as 28 days, (which could lead to missing a key market
window) due to label restrictions and low soil temperatures, and a
mandatory 30 meter buffer for treated fields near inhabited structures.

Based on the small-plot trial conducted on Michigan peppers (cited
above), the best-case yield loss estimate for Michigan using the best
available MB alternative (1,3-D + chloropicrin) was estimated to be 6 %,
based on plant loss. In a second trial undertaken by Hausbeck and
Cortright (2004), yields from pepper plots treated with metam potassium,
alone or in combination with chloropicrin, and from plots treated with
1,3-D + chloropicrin were comparable to yields from plots treated with
MB + chloropicrin and yields from untreated (control plots). These
results Likely indicate a very low pest pressure in all treated and
control plots. It is also unfortunate that these trials occurred later
in the growing season (June) that is not the early season (April) that
this nomination pertains to.

Michigan pepper farmers requesting MB must plant by the first week of
May to capture an early market window. Soil fumigation must therefore be
completed by mid April to allow 14-21 days for aeration. However, 1,3-D
and metam labels recommend that applications be made when soil
temperatures (at application depth) are above 4.4°C. Furthermore,
optimum soil temperatures for 1,3-D are in the 10°C - 25°C range
(University of California, Davis, undated). Since soil temperatures in
Michigan do not climb over 10°C until after mid to late May (Schaetzl
and Tomczak, 2001), neither 1,3-D nor metam products can be used
effectively for early pepper planting in Michigan. Metam products have
the additional disadvantage that when the soil is wet and cold (below
15°C), the minimum recommended plant back period is 30 days, which would
push the crop beyond the early market window.

######### Southeastern United States (Including Florida and Georgia)

In the Southeastern United States, including Florida and Georgia, MB is
requested primarily for control of moderate to severe infestations of
nutsedge weeds. *P. capsici* is also an important pest targeted
currently with MB in these regions. Many growers also use MB against
root-knot nematodes. Left uncontrolled, any of these pests could
completely destroy the harvests from affected areas.

Of currently available MB alternatives, metam-sodium offers inconsistent
control of nutsedges and nematodes, while 1,3-D + chloropicrin provides
adequate control of nematodes and disease (Locascio et al. 1997, Eger
2000, Noling et al. 2000). However, metam-sodium has yield losses of up
to 44 % compared to MB where weed infestations are moderate to severe
(Locascio et al. 1997). Metam-sodium also creates a planting delay as
long as 30 days to avoid risk of phytotoxic injury to crops compared to
a 14-day delay for MB. Furthermore, due to regulatory restrictions
resulting from groundwater contamination concerns, 1,3-D + chloropicrin
cannot be used in large portions of the southeastern United States due
to the presence of karst geology, and anywhere in Dade County, Florida,
where the majority of that region's peppers are grown. There is also a
28 day planting delay due to regulatory restrictions for 1,3-D +
chloropicrin. In Florida particularly, growers are on a tight production
schedule and must place pepper transplants in fields at a certain time
of the year (see Table 11.2 in the Florida section for details). Relying
only on metam sodium for preplant treatment would force growers to
fumigate earlier in their season, which in turn would extend the
fumigation schedule into rainy periods. Growers would have to fumigate
earlier to avoid rain and lose a portion of the crop (Aerts, 2004).

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

In a recent field study conducted in Tifton, Georgia by Culpepper and
Langston (2004), 1,3-D + chloropicrin, followed by more chloropicrin,
was more effective than MB against yellow nutsedge, but less effective
against purple nutsedge. Although this treatment performed as well as MB
in terms of spring pepper yield, its fall yield performance was inferior
to that of MB.

In a second treatment, 1,3-D by itself, followed by chloropicrin, was
significantly less effective than methyl bromide for the control of both
purple and yellow nutsedge, but as effective as MB for the control soil
nematodes. In terms of spring and fall pepper yield, however, this
treatment performed as well as MB.

In a third treatment, 1,3-D + chloropicrin, followed by metam sodium,
was as effective as MB against yellow nutsedge, 36% less effective than
MB against purple nutsedge, and as effective as MB for the control of
soil nematodes. This treatment also performed as well as MB in terms of
both spring and fall pepper yield.

Although these combinations are showing promise, they will require
further testing and validation.

In sum, although promising, these MB alternatives require further
testing and validation at the commercial level before being available
for adoption by pepper growers. Therefore, MB remains a critical use for
peppers in the United States.

**[Table A.1: Executive
Summary.]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780174 .anchor}

+-------------------+---+-----------+---+-----------+---+-----------+---+-----------+
| ### Region        |   | ***Mi     |   | ***Sou    |   | ***G      |   | ***F      |
|                   |   | chigan*** |   | theastern |   | eorgia*** |   | lorida*** |
|                   |   |           |   | U.S.      |   |           |   |           |
|                   |   |           |   | except    |   |           |   |           |
|                   |   |           |   | Georgia   |   |           |   |           |
|                   |   |           |   | and       |   |           |   |           |
|                   |   |           |   | F         |   |           |   |           |
|                   |   |           |   | lorida*** |   |           |   |           |
+===================+===+===========+===+===========+===+===========+===+===========+
| **Requested       |   |           |   |           |   |           |   |           |
| Amount**          |   |           |   |           |   |           |   |           |
+-------------------+---+-----------+---+-----------+---+-----------+---+-----------+
| ##                | 1 |           | 2 |           | 3 |           | 1 |           |
| ## 2008 Kilograms | 5 |           | 7 |           | 4 |           | , |           |
|                   | , |           | 0 |           | 7 |           | 3 |           |
|                   | 1 |           | , |           | , |           | 7 |           |
|                   | 9 |           | 4 |           | 1 |           | 7 |           |
|                   | 5 |           | 7 |           | 8 |           | , |           |
|                   |   |           | 7 |           | 3 |           | 7 |           |
|                   |   |           |   |           |   |           | 8 |           |
|                   |   |           |   |           |   |           | 6 |           |
+-------------------+---+-----------+---+-----------+---+-----------+---+-----------+
| **Nominated       |   |           |   |           |   |           |   |           |
| Amount**          |   |           |   |           |   |           |   |           |
+-------------------+---+-----------+---+-----------+---+-----------+---+-----------+
| ##                | 1 |           | 9 |           | 1 |           | 6 |           |
| ## 2008 Kilograms | 4 |           | 5 |           | 7 |           | 3 |           |
|                   | , |           | , |           | 4 |           | 2 |           |
|                   | 2 |           | 2 |           | , |           | , |           |
|                   | 0 |           | 3 |           | 1 |           | 5 |           |
|                   | 8 |           | 7 |           | 2 |           | 8 |           |
|                   |   |           |   |           | 8 |           | 7 |           |
+-------------------+---+-----------+---+-----------+---+-----------+---+-----------+

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **6. [Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not                          |
| Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780310 .anchor}:      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For Michigan pests 1,3 D + chloropicrin is the only key alternative   |
| with efficacy comparable to MB. Regulatory restrictions due to human  |
| exposure concerns, combined with technical limitations, reduce its    |
| use. Key among these factors are a potential delay in planting as     |
| long as 28 days, due both to label restrictions and low soil          |
| temperatures, and mandatory 30 to 100 meter buffers for treated       |
| fields near inhabited structures.                                     |
|                                                                       |
| For the Southeastern United States, including Florida and Georgia, an |
| application of 1,3-D + chloropicrin (Telone C35), along with a        |
| herbicide mix (e.g. clomazone + metolachlor) applied at bed           |
| formation, or Telone C35 followed by a chloropicrin or a metam        |
| application, may be the best available BM alternatives outside karst  |
| geology areas. In karst geology areas, including 31 counties in       |
| Florida, where Telone use is highly restricted, metam sodium or metam |
| potassium remain at present the best alternatives. Although           |
| promising, these alternatives will require further testing and        |
| validation on commercial fields.                                      |
|                                                                       |
| There is evidence that the efficacy of metam-sodium declines in areas |
| where it is repeatedly applied due to enhanced degradation of methyl  |
| isothiocyanate, the active ingredient, by soil microbes (Ashley et    |
| al. 1963, Ou et al. 1995, Verhagen et al. 1996, Gamliel et al. 2003). |
|                                                                       |
| All other available MB alternatives are currently technically         |
| infeasible for U.S. peppers.                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*i*) [Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780311 .anchor}

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

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

+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Region where       | **[Total crop area   | **[Proportion of      |
| Methyl Bromide use is | In 2003              | Request For methyl    |
| req                   | (ha)]{.smallcaps}**  | bromide               |
| uested]{.smallcaps}** |                      | (%)]{.smallcaps}**    |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| ##### Michigan        | 816                  | 16                    |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Southeastern U.S.   | 5,806                | 31                    |
| except Georgia and    |                      |                       |
| Florida**             |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Georgia**           | 2,899                | 80                    |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Florida**           | 7,893                | 104                   |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[National           | 17,414               | 71                    |
| T                     |                      |                       |
| otal\*]{.smallcaps}** |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

*\* Includes States not requesting MB.*

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

In Michigan, areas not treated apparently do not have any infestation
(i.e., zero oospores per unit soil) of the key fungal pests. Applicant
states that soil infestation is spreading in the region annually. In
southeastern U.S., Florida, and Georgia, areas not treated do not have
nutsedges or nematodes naturally present in pepper fields. Simple
absence of all pests is the only reason these areas are not presently
treated with MB.

**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}**

No. For further discussion of limitations please see Part 5 (above), and
the region-specific discussions below.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **8. [Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780312 .anchor}

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

#### [Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use]{.smallcaps}

+---------------------------------+--------+---------+-------+-------+
| # [Region:]{.smallcaps}         | ###    | ##      | ###   | ###   |
|                                 | ## Mic | ### Sou | ## Ge | ## Fl |
|                                 | higan  | theaste | orgia | orida |
|                                 |        | rn U.S. |       |       |
|                                 |        |  except |       |       |
|                                 |        |  Georgi |       |       |
|                                 |        | a and F |       |       |
|                                 |        | lorida  |       |       |
+---------------------------------+--------+---------+-------+-------+
| # [Year of                      | **[2   | *       | **    | **    |
|  Exemption Request]{.smallcaps} | 008]{. | *[2008] | [2008 | [2008 |
|                                 | smallc | {.small | ]{.sm | ]{.sm |
|                                 | aps}** | caps}** | allca | allca |
|                                 |        |         | ps}** | ps}** |
+---------------------------------+--------+---------+-------+-------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl            | 15,195 | 270,477 | 34    | 1,37  |
| Bromide]{.smallcaps}            |        |         | 7,183 | 7,786 |
+---------------------------------+--------+---------+-------+-------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or        | Str    | St      | Stri  | Stri  |
| Strip/Bed                       | ip/Bed | rip/Bed | p/Bed | p/Bed |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}          |        |         |       |       |
+---------------------------------+--------+---------+-------+-------+
| [**Formulation** to be used for | 67:33  | 67:33   | 67:33 | M     |
| the CUE (]{.smallcaps}*methyl   |        |         |       | ostly |
| bromide/chloropicrin)*          | or     |         |       | 67:33 |
|                                 | 50:50  |         |       |       |
+---------------------------------+--------+---------+-------+-------+
| [Total Area to be treated with  | 127    | 1,801   | 2,312 | 8,195 |
| the methyl bromide or methyl    |        |         |       |       |
| bromide/Chloropicrin            |        |         |       |       |
| formulation]{.smallcaps} *(ha)* |        |         |       |       |
+---------------------------------+--------+---------+-------+-------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps}     | 12.0   | 15.0    | 15.0  | 16.8  |
| *(g/m^2^)* [of **active         |        |         |       |       |
| ingredient** used to calculate  |        |         |       |       |
| requested kilograms of methyl   |        |         |       |       |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}            |        |         |       |       |
+---------------------------------+--------+---------+-------+-------+

**[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated for Each Region]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780313
.anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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 three applicants that included growth in their
    request had the growth amount removed.

-   Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares is the area in the
    applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. Not applicable in
    this sector.

-   Only the acreage experiencing one or more of the following impacts
    were included in the nominated amount: moderate to heavy key pest
    pressure, regulatory impacts, karst geology, buffer zones,
    unsuitable terrain, and cold soil temperatures.

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780315 .anchor}

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

**[Michigan - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780178 .anchor}

  -------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------
  **[Region where methyl     **[Key disease(s) and    **[Specific reasons why methyl
  bromide use is             weed(s) to genus and, if bromide is needed]{.smallcaps}\
  requested]{.smallcaps}**   known, to species        **
                             level]{.smallcaps}**     

  Michigan                   Crown and root rots      Fumigation operations need to be
                             caused by soil-borne     completed by the first week of
                             fungus *Phytophthora     May to allow growers to plant
                             capsici*.                early and capture the early
                                                      market for premium prices, as
                                                      well as ensuring demand for their
                                                      crop during the entire growing
                                                      season (especially during the mid
                                                      and late season).
  -------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping
  System and Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780316
  .anchor}

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

**[Michigan - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780179 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}     | ### [Michigan]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}**            | Pepper transplants for     |
|                                         | fruit production           |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                  | Annual; generally 1 year   |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}**                    |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop Rotation and use of     | Pepper -- usually followed |
| methyl bromide for other crops in the   | by an eggplant or pepper   |
| rotation:]{.smallcaps}**                | crop                       |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}**           | Sandy loam; clay loam      |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide          | 1 time every 2 years       |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}**              |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                       | Key marketing              |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                 | opportunities have been    |
|                                         | established with           |
|                                         | Michigan's vegetable crop  |
|                                         | diversification and aims   |
|                                         | toward stable demands in   |
|                                         | the late spring and        |
|                                         | through the summer for     |
|                                         | Midwestern markets.        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

**[Michigan - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
for Peppers]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780180 .anchor}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</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 colspan="3"><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><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 colspan="2"><strong><span
class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><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"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4></td>
<td colspan="20">USDA Plant Hardiness zone 5b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Soil Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C)</em></span></td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
<td colspan="2">10 - 15</td>
<td>15-20</td>
<td colspan="2">20-25</td>
<td colspan="2">20-25</td>
<td colspan="2">20-25</td>
<td>20</td>
<td colspan="2">10-15</td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
<td colspan="2">&lt;10</td>
<td colspan="2">&lt;10</td>
<td colspan="2">&lt;10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>40</td>
<td colspan="2">72</td>
<td>101</td>
<td colspan="2">48</td>
<td colspan="2">47</td>
<td colspan="2">32</td>
<td>17</td>
<td colspan="2">31</td>
<td>36</td>
<td colspan="2">20</td>
<td colspan="2">6</td>
<td colspan="2">8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C)</em></span></td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td colspan="2">7.4</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td colspan="2">17.5</td>
<td colspan="2">20.6</td>
<td colspan="2">20.9</td>
<td>18.1</td>
<td colspan="2">8</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td colspan="2">-2.9</td>
<td colspan="2">-8</td>
<td colspan="2">-7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<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 colspan="3">X</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key Market
Window</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td colspan="2">X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

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

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

Michigan experiences heavy rainfall events across the entire state at
any given moment of the growing season. Heavy rain events (over 25 mm)
can trigger rapid root and crown rot development, and promote
dissemination of *P. capsici* via irrigation sources (Gevens and
Hausbeck 2003). Generally, there is no difference in the amount of
infection depending on soil type. The pathogen is widespread and
indigenous on almost all soil types in Michigan (Cortright 2003, Gevens
and Hausbeck 2003).

Significant rainfall events (\>25 mm) or cold soil temperatures (\<4.4
°C) delay fumigation and planting with the MB alternatives 1, 3 D +
chloropicrin and metam-sodium. Also, all fumigation practices need to be
completed by the first week of May to allow growers to plant early and
capture the early market (July-September).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
  Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780317 .anchor}

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

Growers are using anti-drip valves to eliminate loss of MB at the end of
rows when the machinery is removed from the ground. Michigan's use of MB
for vegetable production has declined steadily since the mid-1990s, when
growers switched to different application methods (i.e. from Flat
Fumigation to tarped beds) and formulations (from 98 % MB to 67 % MB).
Currently, all MB is applied to tarped beds, with 100% of low-density
polyethylene sheeting and 95% of the acreage was treated with the 67:33
formulation. Since 2000, about 5% of the acreage has been treated with
the 50:50 formulation of methyl bromide and chloropicrin.

Please see Table 12.1 for further information.

**[Michigan - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide on
Peppers]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780181 .anchor}

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as         | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| possible as      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| :]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area          | 98    | 117   | 130   | 135   | 128   | 139   |
| Treate           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of Flat | No    |       |       |       |       |       |
| Fumigation       | p     |       |       |       |       |       |
| methyl bromide   | epper |       |       |       |       |       |
| use to strip/bed | area  |       |       |       |       |       |
| use if strip     | in    |       |       |       |       |       |
| treatment is     | Mic   |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              | higan |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** | uses  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | flat  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | fumig |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | ation |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | ap    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | plica |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | tion. |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of     | 1     | 1     | 1     | 1     | 1     | 1     |
| methyl bromide   | 1,747 | 4,001 | 5,618 | 6,230 | 5,391 | 6,715 |
| active           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kilograms)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations  | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 |
| of methyl        |       |       | or    | or    | or    | or    |
| bromid           |       |       | 50:50 | 50:50 | 50:50 | 50:50 |
| e]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /chloropicrin)*  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ^A^              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Methods by    | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| which methyl     | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected |
| bromide          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| applie           | 20-25 | 20-25 | 20-25 | 20-25 | 20-25 | 20-25 |
| d]{.smallcaps}** | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Dosage rate\* | 12.0  | 12.0  | 12.0  | 12.0  | 12.0  | 12.0  |
| (]{.sm           |       |       | or    | or    | or    | or    |
| allcaps}g/m[^2^) |       |       |       | 8.9   | 8.9   | 8.9   |
| for the active   |       |       | 8.9   |       |       |       |
| ingredien        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| t]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

^A^ Growers have just started switching to the 50/50 formulation of
MB/Chloropicrin since 2000 (about 5% of production acreage) to reduce
cost per acre.

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780319 .anchor}

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

**[Michigan -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780183 .anchor}

+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| **[Name of  | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons for  | **[Is the |
| Alte        | the alternative not being feasible or      | al        |
| rnative]{.s | available]{.smallcaps}**                   | ternative |
| mallcaps}** |                                            | c         |
|             |                                            | onsidered |
|             |                                            | cost      |
|             |                                            | effect    |
|             |                                            | ive]{.sma |
|             |                                            | llcaps}** |
+=============+============================================+===========+
| # [Ch       |                                            |           |
| emical Alte |                                            |           |
| rnatives]{. |                                            |           |
| smallcaps}  |                                            |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| M           | Pepper farmers requesting MB must plant by | No        |
| etam-sodium | the first week of May to capture an early  |           |
| or          | market window. Soil fumigation must        |           |
| Meta        | therefore be completed by mid April to     |           |
| m-potassium | allow 14-21 days for aeration. However,    |           |
|             | metam labels recommend that applications   |           |
|             | be made when soil temperatures (at         |           |
|             | application depth) are above 4.4°C. Since  |           |
|             | soil temperatures in Michigan do not climb |           |
|             | over 10°C until after mid to late May      |           |
|             | (Schaetzl and Tomczak, 2001), metam        |           |
|             | products cannot be used effectively for    |           |
|             | early pepper planting in Michigan. Metam   |           |
|             | products have the additional disadvantage  |           |
|             | that when the soil is wet and cold (below  |           |
|             | 15°C), the minimum recommended plant back  |           |
|             | period is 30 days, which would further     |           |
|             | move the crop beyond the early market      |           |
|             | window.                                    |           |
|             |                                            |           |
|             | In addition, control of the key pest is    |           |
|             | inconsistent (Locascio et al. 1997, Martin |           |
|             | 2003). Gilreath et al. (1994) found that   |           |
|             | metam-sodium treatments did not match MB   |           |
|             | in terms of plant vigor at the end of the  |           |
|             | season; *P. capsici* was, however, not     |           |
|             | present. In the cool conditions of         |           |
|             | Michigan, metam-sodium is likely to be     |           |
|             | slow to transform into the active          |           |
|             | ingredient (methyl isothiocyanate), which  |           |
|             | also suggests that pest control will not   |           |
|             | be as effective as with MB (Ashley et al.  |           |
|             | 1963). In a recent study conducted in      |           |
|             | Oceana County, Michigan by Hausbeck and    |           |
|             | Cortright (2004), yields from pepper plots |           |
|             | treated with metam potassium (K-Pam) were  |           |
|             | comparable to yields from control plots    |           |
|             | and plots treated with MB + chloropicrin,  |           |
|             | indicating e a very low pest (P. capsici)  |           |
|             | pressure at the test site.                 |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| # [Non C    |                                            |           |
| hemical Alt |                                            |           |
| ernatives]{ |                                            |           |
| .smallcaps} |                                            |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Soil        | Michigan's climate is typically cool       | No        |
| s           | (often less than 11 ^o^C through May) and  |           |
| olarization | cloudy, particularly early in the growing  |           |
|             | season when control of the key pests is    |           |
|             | especially important. In Michigan, the     |           |
|             | growing season is short (May to            |           |
|             | September), and the time needed to utilize |           |
|             | solarization is likely to render the       |           |
|             | subsequent growing of crops impossible,    |           |
|             | even if it did somehow eliminate all       |           |
|             | fungal pathogens. Since solarization has   |           |
|             | shown promise in other crops and regions   |           |
|             | (e.g., tomatoes in Florida), the potential |           |
|             | for adoption exists (Schneider et al.      |           |
|             | 2003). However, because of climate,        |           |
|             | solarization is not feasible in Michigan.  |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Steam       | While steam has been used effectively      | No        |
|             | against fungal pests in protected          |           |
|             | production systems, such as greenhouses,   |           |
|             | there is no evidence that it would be      |           |
|             | effective in open field pepper crops in    |           |
|             | Michigan. Any such system would also       |           |
|             | require large amounts of energy and water  |           |
|             | to provide sufficient steam necessary to   |           |
|             | sterilize soil down to the rooting depth   |           |
|             | of field crops (at least 20-50 cm).        |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Biological  | Biological control agents are not          | No        |
| Control     | technically feasible alternatives to MB    |           |
|             | because they alone cannot control the soil |           |
|             | pathogens that afflict peppers in          |           |
|             | Michigan. The bacterium *Burkholderiaia    |           |
|             | cepacia* and the fungus *Gliocladium       |           |
|             | virens* have shown some potential in       |           |
|             | controlling some fungal plant pathogens    |           |
|             | (Larkin and Fravel 1998). However, in a    |           |
|             | test conducted by the Michigan applicants, |           |
|             | *P. capsici* was not controlled adequately |           |
|             | in summer squash by either of these        |           |
|             | beneficial microorganisms.                 |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Cover crops | There is no evidence these practices       | No        |
| and         | effectively substitute for the control MB  |           |
| mulching    | provides against *P. capsici.* Control of  |           |
|             | *P.capsici* is imperative for pepper       |           |
|             | production in Michigan. Plastic mulch is   |           |
|             | already in widespread use in Michigan      |           |
|             | vegetables, and regional crop experts      |           |
|             | state that it is not an adequate           |           |
|             | protectant when used without MB. The       |           |
|             | longevity and resistance of *P. capsici*   |           |
|             | oospores renders cover crops ineffective   |           |
|             | as a management alternative to MB.         |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Crop        | The crop rotations available to growers in | No        |
| rotation    | Michigan region are also susceptible to    |           |
| and fallow  | these fungi, particularly to *P. capsici*. |           |
| land        | Fallow land can still harbor P. capsici    |           |
|             | oospores (Lamour and Hausbeck 2003). Thus  |           |
|             | fungi would persist and attack peppers if  |           |
|             | crop rotation/fallow land was the main     |           |
|             | management regime.                         |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Endophytes  | Though these organisms (bacteria and fungi | No        |
|             | that grow symbiotically or as parasites    |           |
|             | within plants) have been shown to suppress |           |
|             | some plant pathogens in cucumber, there is |           |
|             | no such information for the other pepper   |           |
|             | crops grown in Michigan. Furthermore, the  |           |
|             | pathogens involved did not include         |           |
|             | *Phytophthora* species, which are arguably |           |
|             | the greatest single threat to Michigan     |           |
|             | peppers.                                   |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Flo         | Flooding is not technically feasible as an | No        |
| oding/Water | alternative because it does not have any   |           |
| management  | suppressive effect on *P. capsici* (Allen  |           |
|             | et al. 1999), and is likely to be          |           |
|             | impractical for Michigan pepper growers.   |           |
|             | It is unclear whether irrigation methods   |           |
|             | in this region could be adapted to         |           |
|             | incorporate flooding or alter water        |           |
|             | management for pepper fields. In any case, |           |
|             | there appears to be no supporting evidence |           |
|             | for its use against the hardy oospores of  |           |
|             | *P. capsici*.                              |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Graftin     | Due to the paucity of scientific           | No        |
| g/resistant | information on the utility of these        |           |
| root        | alternatives as MB replacements in         |           |
| stock/plant | peppers, they have been grouped together   |           |
| breedi      | for discussion in this document. There are |           |
| ng/soilless | no studies documenting the commercial      |           |
| cult        | availability of resistant rootstock immune |           |
| ure/organic | to the fungal pathogens listed as major    |           |
| prod        | pepper pests. Grafting and plant breeding  |           |
| uction/subs | are thus also rendered technically         |           |
| trates/plug | infeasible as MB alternatives for control  |           |
| plants.     | of *Phytophthora* fungi. Soilless culture, |           |
|             | organic production, and substrates/plug    |           |
|             | plants are also not technically viable     |           |
|             | alternatives to MB for fungi. One of the   |           |
|             | fungal pests listed by Michigan can spread |           |
|             | through water (Gevens and Hausbeck 2003),  |           |
|             | making it difficult to keep any sort of    |           |
|             | area (with or without soil) disease free.  |           |
|             | Various aspects of organic production -    |           |
|             | e.g., cover crops, fallow land, and steam  |           |
|             | sterilization - have already been          |           |
|             | addressed in this document and assessed to |           |
|             | be technically infeasible methyl bromide   |           |
|             | alternatives.                              |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| ###         |                                            |           |
| # [Combinat |                                            |           |
| ions of Alt |                                            |           |
| ernatives]{ |                                            |           |
| .smallcaps} |                                            |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Metam       | Pepper farmers requesting MB must plant by | No        |
| sodium or   | the first week of May to capture an early  |           |
| metam       | market window. Soil fumigation must        |           |
| potassium + | therefore be completed by mid April to     |           |
| C           | allow 14-21 days for aeration. However,    |           |
| hloropicrin | metam labels recommend that applications   |           |
|             | be made when soil temperatures (at         |           |
|             | application depth) are above 4.4°C. Since  |           |
|             | soil temperatures in Michigan do not climb |           |
|             | over 10°C until after mid to late May      |           |
|             | (Schaetzl and Tomczak, 2001), metam        |           |
|             | products cannot be used effectively for    |           |
|             | early pepper planting in Michigan. Metam   |           |
|             | products have the additional disadvantage  |           |
|             | that when the soil is wet and cold (below  |           |
|             | 15°C), the minimum recommended plant back  |           |
|             | period is 30 days, which would further     |           |
|             | move the crop beyond the early market      |           |
|             | window.                                    |           |
|             |                                            |           |
|             | In addition, trials in tomato have shown   |           |
|             | inconsistent efficacy of this formulation  |           |
|             | against fungal pests, though it is         |           |
|             | generally better than metam-sodium alone   |           |
|             | (Locascio and Dickson 1998, Csinos et al.  |           |
|             | 1999). These studies apparently did not    |           |
|             | measure yield impacts, and did not involve |           |
|             | peppers. Hausbeck and Cortright (2004)     |           |
|             | evaluated several soil fumigants for       |           |
|             | control of P. capsici on several vegetable |           |
|             | crops, including peppers, in Michigan.     |           |
|             | Results show that yields from pepper plots |           |
|             | treated with metam potassium +             |           |
|             | chloropicrin were comparable to yields     |           |
|             | from control plots and from plots treated  |           |
|             | with MB + chloropicrin. These results      |           |
|             | point to a very low pest pressure in the   |           |
|             | study area. Further studies are necessary  |           |
|             | to clearly identify MB alternatives.       |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 1,3         | Regulatory restrictions and Michigan's     | No        |
| dichlo      | cool and wet soils may result in a delay   |           |
| ropropene + | of up to 28 days in planting after         |           |
| c           | treatment with this combination. This      |           |
| hloropicrin | delay could result in growers missing key  |           |
|             | market windows, with consequent negative   |           |
|             | economic impacts (detailed in other        |           |
|             | sections below). In a small plot study     |           |
|             | conducted in Michigan by Hausbeck and      |           |
|             | Cortright (2004) pepper yields from plots  |           |
|             | treated with 1,3-D + chloropicrin were     |           |
|             | comparable to yields from control plots    |           |
|             | and plots treated with MB + chloropicrin.  |           |
|             | These results seem to indicate a very low  |           |
|             | pest (P. capsici) pressure at the test     |           |
|             | site. Further studies are necessary to     |           |
|             | clearly identify MB alternatives.          |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 1,3         | Trials in tomato have shown inconsistent   | No        |
| dichlo      | efficacy of this combination against       |           |
| ropropene + | fungal pests, though it is generally       |           |
| M           | better than metam-sodium alone (Csinos et  |           |
| etam-sodium | al. 1999). Low efficacy in even small-plot |           |
|             | trials indicates that this is not a        |           |
|             | technically feasible alternative for       |           |
|             | commercially produced peppers in Michigan  |           |
|             | at this time. These studies apparently did |           |
|             | not measure yield impacts, and did not     |           |
|             | involve peppers.                           |           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and
  Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective
  as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780320 .anchor}

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

Table 14.1 Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion.

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of    | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                       |
| Alternative]{ |                                                      |
| .smallcaps}** |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| None          | Other than those options discussed elsewhere, no     |
|               | alternatives exist for the control of the key pests  |
|               | when they are present in the soil and/or afflict the |
|               | belowground portions of pepper plants. A number of   |
|               | effective fungicides are available for treatment of  |
|               | these fungi when they infect aerial portions of      |
|               | crops. However, these infections are not the focus   |
|               | of MB use, which is meant to keep newly planted      |
|               | transplants free of these fungi.                     |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Michigan 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and Possible Future)*
  **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780321
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Michigan -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780184 .anchor}

+----------+--------------------------------+--------------+----------+
| **[Name  | ##### [Present Re              | **[          | **[Date  |
| of       | gistration Status]{.smallcaps} | Registration | of       |
| Al       |                                | being        | possible |
| ternativ |                                | considered   | future   |
| e]{.smal |                                | by national  | regi     |
| lcaps}** |                                | authorities? | stration |
|          |                                | (Y/N)]{.     | :]{.smal |
|          |                                | smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+----------+--------------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Methyl   | Not registered in the U.S. for | Yes          | Unknown  |
| iodide   | peppers, although registration |              |          |
|          | is being pursued for tomatoes, |              |          |
|          | strawberries, peppers, and     |              |          |
|          | ornamental crops.              |              |          |
+----------+--------------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Furfural | Not registered in the U.S. for | No (for      | Unknown  |
|          | peppers. Registration is       | peppers)     |          |
|          | currently being pursued only   |              |          |
|          | for non-food greenhouse uses.  |              |          |
+----------+--------------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Sodium   | Not registered. No             | No (for any  | Unknown  |
| azide    | registration requests          | cro          |          |
|          | submitted to U.S.              | p/commodity) |          |
+----------+--------------------------------+--------------+----------+
| P        | Not registered. No             | No (for any  | Unknown  |
| ropargyl | registration requests          | cro          |          |
| bromide  | submitted to U.S.              | p/commodity) |          |
+----------+--------------------------------+--------------+----------+
| >        | > Registration package has     | > Yes        | Re       |
| Muscador | > been received.               |              | gistered |
| > albus  |                                |              | but not  |
| > Strain |                                |              | yet for  |
| > QST    |                                |              | sale in  |
| > 20799  |                                |              | the U.S. |
+----------+--------------------------------+--------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 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___Toc125780322
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

Michigan pepper farmers requesting MB must plant by the first week of
May to capture an early market window. Soil fumigation must therefore be
completed by mid April to allow 14-21 days for aeration. However, 1,3-D
and metam labels recommend that applications be made when soil
temperatures (at application depth) are above 4.4°C. Furthermore,
optimum soil temperatures for 1,3-D are in the 10°C - 25°C range
(University of California, Davis, undated). Since soil temperatures in
Michigan do not climb over 10°C until after mid to late May (Schaetzl
and Tomczak, 2001), neither 1,3-D nor metam products can be used
effectively for early pepper planting in Michigan. Metam products have
the additional disadvantage that when the soil is wet and cold (below
15°C), the minimum recommended plant back period is 30 days, which would
push the crop beyond the early market window.

Few studies have focused on peppers in Michigan's growing conditions. A
recent study, conducted in Oceana County, Michigan by Hausbeck and
Cortright (2004), was undertaken to evaluate soil fumigants for managing
*P. capsici* on several solanaceous and cruciferous crops. Results,
however, show that yields from pepper plots treated with metam potassium
(K-Pam), alone or in combination with chloropicrin, and from plots
treated with 1,3-D + chloropicrin (Telone C35) were comparable to yields
from plots treated with MB + chloropicrin and to yields from control
plots. These results seem to indicate a very low pest pressure in
treated and control plots. However, with the best available MB
alternative, revenue losses would be possible from planting delays and
missing of key market windows.

In studies with other vegetable crops, 1,3 D + chloropicrin has
generally shown better control of fungi than metam-sodium formulations,
although still not as good as control with MB. For example, in a study
using a bell pepper/squash rotation in small plots - conducted in the
much warmer conditions of Georgia and without *P. capsici* as a
component of the pest complex - Webster et al. (2001) found
significantly lower fungal populations with 1,3 D + 35 % chloropicrin
(drip irrigated or chisel injected, 146 kg/ha of 1,3 D), as compared to
the untreated control. However, MB (440 kg/ha, shank-injected) lowered
fungal populations even more. Methyl iodide had no significant
suppressive effect, as compared to the untreated control. In another
study, conducted on tomatoes in Florida, Gilreath et al. (1994) found
that metam-sodium treatments did not match MB in terms of plant vigor at
the end of the season. *P. capsici* was not present.

**[Michigan -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780185 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | ##### [List   | ##### [Rang    | **[Best         |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |  Type of Pest | e of Yield Los | Estimate of     |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} | s]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                  |               |                | Loss            |
|                  |               |                | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 1,3              | *P. capsici*  | 0 -- 6 % PLUS  | 6 % loss of     |
| d                |               | loss of        | revenue due to  |
| ichloropropene + |               | revenue due to | planting delays |
| Chloropicrin     |               | planting       |                 |
|                  |               | delays         |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [          |               |                | **6 % likely    |
| Overall Loss Est |               |                | with the best   |
| imate for All Al |               |                | alternative     |
| ternatives to Pe |               |                | (1,3 D +        |
| sts]{.smallcaps} |               |                | chloropicrin)** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

**[Michigan - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780323 .anchor}

The critical use exemption applicant states that 1,3 D + chloropicrin,
metam-sodium, methyl iodide, chloropicrin, and chloropicrin/metam sodium
will continue to be subjects of field studies of utilization and
efficacy enhancement where *P. capsici* fungi are the target pests. Most
of these alternatives are not currently registered for peppers, and
there are presently no commercial entities pursuing registration in the
United States. The regulatory restrictions on 1,3-D discussed elsewhere
will adversely influences the economics of this MB alternative. The
timeline for developing the above-mentioned MB alternatives in Michigan
is as follows:

2003 -- 2005: Test for efficacy of identified alternatives.

2005 -- 2007: Establish on-farm demonstration plots for effective MB
alternatives.

2008 -- 2010: Work with growers to implement widespread commercial use
of effective alternatives.

Research is also under way to optimize the use of a 50 % MB: 50 %
chloropicrin formulation to replace the currently used 67:33
formulation. In addition, field research is being conducted to optimize
a combination of crop rotation, raised crop beds, black plastic, and
foliar fungicides. Use of virtually impermeable film (VIF) will also be
investigated as a replacement for the currently used low-density
polyethylene (LDPE).

**[Michigan - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl
Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780324 .anchor}

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

# [Michigan - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.smallcaps}

Based on the new trials conducted in vegetable crops in Michigan in 2003
(described above in Section 16), EPA has determined that only 1,3 D +
chloropicrin has some technical feasibility against the key pest of
peppers in this region.

Available studies in vegetable crops in the U.S. indicate that 1,3 D +
chloropicrin has some technical feasibility against the key pest of
peppers in this region. However, no large-plot studies have yet been
performed to show commercial feasibility. Demonstration studies are
planned (see Section 17 above). Important regulatory constraints on 1,3
D must also be kept in mind: a 7- 28 day planting delay, mandatory 30 m
buffers near inhabited structures -- both of which will cause negative
economic impacts that make the use of these MB alternatives infeasible.
There is also potentially lower dissipation (and thus efficacy) of these
compounds in the cool, wet soils of this region. These planting
restrictions may thus be important factors inhibiting widespread grower
adoption of this MB alternative. Potential yield losses associated with
plant restrictions could be exacerbated because fumigation practices
need to be completed by the first week of May to allow growers to plant
early and capture the early market (July -- September) and have their
product available for premium prices, as well as ensuring demand for
their crop during the entire growing season (especially during the mid
and late season). Key marketing opportunities have been established with
Michigan's vegetable crop diversification and aims toward stable demands
in the late spring and through the summer for Midwestern markets.

Currently unregistered alternatives, such as furfural and sodium azide,
have shown good efficacy against the key pests involved (Cortright,
personal communication). However, even if registration is pursued soon,
these options would require additional research focusing on their
adaptation to commercial pepper production in Michigan.

There are also no non-chemical alternatives that are currently viable
for MB replacement for commercial pepper growers. In sum, while the
potential exists for a combination of chemical and non-chemical
alternatives to replace MB use in Michigan pepper, this goal appears be
at least a few years away.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Sout                                                               |
| heast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia - Part B: |
|  Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use On Peppers]{.smallcaps}  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia
  **]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780327 .anchor} **\[U.S. States
  of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky\*, Louisiana\*, North Carolina, South
  Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia; \*States added in 2005 for use in
  2008\]** - **[10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request]{.smallcaps}**

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

[**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia -
Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide Request
for Peppers**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780187 .anchor}

+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **[Region  | **[Target             | **[Specific reasons why methyl |
| where      | pests]{.smallcaps}**  | bromide is                     |
| methyl     |                       | needed]{.smallcaps}\           |
| bromide    | **[(Weed &            | **                             |
| use is     | plant-parasitic       |                                |
| requ       | Nematodes) pathogens, |                                |
| ested]{.sm | and \[% degree of     |                                |
| allcaps}** | infestation, if       |                                |
|            | reported              |                                |
|            | \]]{.smallcaps}**     |                                |
+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Southeast  | Yellow and purple     | Only MB can effectively        |
| U.S.       | nutsedge (*Cyperus    | control the target pests found |
| Peppers    | esculentus, C.        | in the southeastern United     |
| Consortium | rotundus*), \[30%\];  | States where pest pressures    |
| excluding  | plant-parasitic       | commonly exist at moderate to  |
| Florida    | nematodes             | severe levels. Most, if not    |
| and        | (*Meloidogyne         | all of these states, are       |
| Georgia    | incognita;            | limited in the use of the      |
|            | Pratylenchus sp.);    | alternative 1,3-D because of   |
|            | p*ythium root and     | underlying karst topography    |
|            | collar rots           | throughout the region.         |
|            | (*P.irregulare, P.    | Halosulfuron, while effective  |
|            | myriotylum, P.        | against nutsedge, is only      |
|            | ultimum, P.           | registered for use on row      |
|            | aphanidermatum*);     | middles in peppers.            |
|            | crown and root rot    | Metam-sodium has limited pest  |
|            | (*Phytophthora        | control capabilities and       |
|            | capsici*)             | should never be used as a      |
|            |                       | stand-alone fumigant (Noling,  |
|            |                       | 2003).                         |
+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and**
  **Georgia - 11. (**]{.smallcaps}***i*[) Characteristics of Cropping
  System and Climate for
  Peppers]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780328 .anchor}

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

[**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia -
Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780188 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}     | ###                        |
|                                         |  [Southeast U.S. Peppers C |
|                                         | onsortium excluding Florid |
|                                         | a and Georgia]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}**            | Pepper transplants for     |
|                                         | fruit production           |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                  | Annual; generally 1 year   |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}**                    |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop Rotation and use of     | Pepper -- usually          |
| methyl bromide for other crops in the   | double-cropped with a      |
| rotation:]{.smallcaps}**                | high-value cucurbit crop   |
|                                         | (muskmelon, cucumber, or   |
|                                         | squash).                   |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}**           | Sandy loam; clay loam      |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide          | 1 time per year; (either   |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}**              | in spring or fall)         |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                       | There are two distinct     |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                 | pepper-growing systems: 1) |
|                                         | a spring crop (fumigation  |
|                                         | cycle begins in January)   |
|                                         | and a fall crop            |
|                                         | (fumigation cycle begins   |
|                                         | in May). Methyl bromide is |
|                                         | applied 1 time per year on |
|                                         | an individual field.       |
|                                         | Pepper does not follow     |
|                                         | pepper in this rotation;   |
|                                         | peppers are rotated with   |
|                                         | another crop, often a      |
|                                         | high-value cucurbit, which |
|                                         | also depends on MB         |
|                                         | fumigation.                |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

[**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia -
Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule -- January
Fumigation (spring, Early Summer
Harvest)**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780189 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></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>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="12">U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 6b, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td><h4 id="x">X</h4></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="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>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">Key harvest
Window</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

[**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia -
Table 11.3 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule -- Spring
Fumigation (Fall Harvest)**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780190
.anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></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>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="12">U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 6b, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></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>
<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></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key harvest
Window</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

# 

[**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia
--**]{.smallcaps} **11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of the above
characteristics in 11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake of any
relevant alternatives?]{.smallcaps}**

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

Alternatives like 1,3-dichloropropene and metam sodium require,
respectively, a 7-28 day interval and a 14-30 day interval before
planting, compared to 14 days for MB. This interval may cause delays and
adjustments in production schedules that could lead to missing specific
market windows, thus reducing profits for pepper growers (Kelley, 2003).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and**
  **Georgia - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide on Peppers,
  and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780329 .anchor}

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

####### 

[**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia -
Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide on
Peppers**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780191 .anchor}

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as         | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| possible as      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| :]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area          | 880   | 809   | 809   | 991   | 1,153 | 1,329 |
| Treate           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*^A^  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of Flat | ~     |       |       |       |       |       |
| Fumigation       | Not\  |       |       |       |       |       |
| methyl bromide   | avail |       |       |       |       |       |
| use to           | able~ |       |       |       |       |       |
| strip/be         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| [**Amount of     | 13    | 12    | 12    | 14    | 17    | 19    |
| methyl bromide   | 2,199 | 1,563 | 1,563 | 8,914 | 3,227 | 9,667 |
| active           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| used**           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ^A^]{.smallcaps} |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kilograms)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations  | No    |       |       | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 |
| of methyl        | defi  |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromid           | nitiv |       |       |       |       |       |
| e]{.smallcaps}** | e/sub |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | stant |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(methyl bromide | iated |       |       |       |       |       |
| /chloropicrin)*  | i     |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | nform |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | ation |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | avai  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | lable |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Methods by    | No    |       |       | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| which methyl     | i     |       |       | ected | ected | ected |
| bromide          | nform |       |       | 15 to | 15 to | 15 to |
| applie           | ation |       |       | 25 cm | 25 cm | 25 cm |
| d]{.smallcaps}** | avai  |       |       | deep  | deep  | deep  |
|                  | lable |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Dosage rate\* | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  |
| (g/ha) for the   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| active           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredien        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| t]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

^A^ An increase in the acreage of peppers produced in the Southeastern
U.S. (relative to the initial nomination) is due to the addition of two
new states (added since 2001): Kentucky and Louisiana.

^B^ Based on estimated area: 2,023 to 2,415 m^2^ (Lewis, 2003, personal
communication).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florid                 |
| a and Georgia - Part C: Technical Validation for Peppers]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and**
  **Georgia - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780331 .anchor}

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

**[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia --
Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780193 .anchor}

+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| **[Name of | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons    |   | **[Is the  |
| Altern     | for the alternative not being feasible   |   | a          |
| ative]{.sm | or available]{.smallcaps}**              |   | lternative |
| allcaps}** |                                          |   | considered |
|            |                                          |   | cost       |
|            |                                          |   | effec      |
|            |                                          |   | tive?]{.sm |
|            |                                          |   | allcaps}** |
+============+==========================================+===+============+
| # [Chem    |                                          |   |            |
| ical Alter |                                          |   |            |
| natives]{. |                                          |   |            |
| smallcaps} |                                          |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| Metam      | Metam sodium provides limited and        |   | No         |
| Sodium     | erratic performance at suppressing all   |   |            |
|            | major pepper pathogens and pests. In     |   |            |
|            | addition, there is a 14-30 day waiting   |   |            |
|            | period at the time of application until  |   |            |
|            | planting, compared to 14 days for MB.    |   |            |
|            | Such a delay could cause the higher-end  |   |            |
|            | market windows to be missed,             |   |            |
|            | particularly for the spring plantings    |   |            |
|            | (i.e., fall harvests). Beginning the     |   |            |
|            | application cycle earlier is not an      |   |            |
|            | option since crops from the previous     |   |            |
|            | fumigation cycle must be cleaned up      |   |            |
|            | prior to metam application. (Georgia CUE |   |            |
|            | \# 03-0049; Kelley, 2003). Repeated      |   |            |
|            | applications of MITC (the breakdown      |   |            |
|            | product of metam sodium) are known to    |   |            |
|            | enhance its biodegradation and reduce    |   |            |
|            | efficacy as a result of increased        |   |            |
|            | populations of adapted microorganisms    |   |            |
|            | (Dungan and Yates, 2003).                |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| ####       |                                          |   |            |
|  [Non Chem |                                          |   |            |
| ical Alter |                                          |   |            |
| natives]{. |                                          |   |            |
| smallcaps} |                                          |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| Soil       | For nutsedge control in the southeastern |   | No         |
| so         | United States, solarization is not       |   |            |
| larization | technically feasible as a methyl bromide |   |            |
|            | alternative. Response of *Cyperus*       |   |            |
|            | species to solarization is sporadic and  |   |            |
|            | not well understood; data show           |   |            |
|            | solarization to provide, at best,        |   |            |
|            | suppression of nutsedge populations      |   |            |
|            | (Chase et al. 1999). Research indicates  |   |            |
|            | that the lethal temperature for nutsedge |   |            |
|            | tubers is 50^o^C or higher. Trials       |   |            |
|            | conducted in mid-summer in Georgia       |   |            |
|            | resulted in maximum soil temperatures of |   |            |
|            | 43 ^o^C at 5 cm depth (Chase et al.      |   |            |
|            | 1999). Thus, solarization, even in the   |   |            |
|            | warmer months in southern states, did    |   |            |
|            | not result in temperatures high enough   |   |            |
|            | to destroy nutsedge tubers. Also, tubers |   |            |
|            | lodged deeper in the soil would be       |   |            |
|            | completely unaffected. In addition,      |   |            |
|            | solarization would take fields out of    |   |            |
|            | production since it would be needed      |   |            |
|            | during the spring and into the summer    |   |            |
|            | months, which are optimal for pepper     |   |            |
|            | production.                              |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| Steam      | Steam is not a technically feasible      |   | No         |
|            | alternative for open field pepper        |   |            |
|            | production because it requires sustained |   |            |
|            | heat over a required period of time      |   |            |
|            | (UNEP 1998). While steam has been used   |   |            |
|            | effectively against fungal pests in      |   |            |
|            | protected production systems, such as    |   |            |
|            | greenhouses, there is no evidence that   |   |            |
|            | it would be effective in open field      |   |            |
|            | pepper crops. Any such system would also |   |            |
|            | require large amounts of energy and      |   |            |
|            | water to provide sufficient steam        |   |            |
|            | necessary to sterilize soil down to the  |   |            |
|            | rooting depth of field crops (at least   |   |            |
|            | 20-50 cm).                               |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| Biological | Biological control agents alone cannot   |   | No         |
| Control    | control nutsedge and/or the soil         |   |            |
|            | pathogens that afflict peppers. The      |   |            |
|            | bacterium *Burkholderia cepacia* and the |   |            |
|            | fungus *Gliocladium virens* have shown   |   |            |
|            | some potential in controlling some       |   |            |
|            | fungal plant pathogens (Larkin and       |   |            |
|            | Fravel 1998). However, no biological     |   |            |
|            | control agent has been identified to     |   |            |
|            | effectively control nutsedge or          |   |            |
|            | *Phytophthora.* Therefore, biological    |   |            |
|            | control is not a stand-along replacement |   |            |
|            | for methyl bromide in pepper crops. Only |   |            |
|            | a limited number of biological organisms |   |            |
|            | are effectively used to manage soil      |   |            |
|            | borne diseases and pests. Biocontrol     |   |            |
|            | agents are usually very specific         |   |            |
|            | regarding the organisms they control and |   |            |
|            | their successful establishment is highly |   |            |
|            | dependent on environmental conditions.   |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| Cover      | Cover crops and mulches have been        |   | No         |
| crops and  | integrated into solanaceous crop         |   |            |
| mulching   | production systems. However there is no  |   |            |
|            | evidence these practices effectively     |   |            |
|            | substitute for the control methyl        |   |            |
|            | bromide provides against nutsedges       |   |            |
|            | (Burgos and Talbert 1996). Some cover    |   |            |
|            | crops that have been shown to reduce     |   |            |
|            | weed populations also reduced or delayed |   |            |
|            | crop maturity and/or emergence, as well  |   |            |
|            | as yields (Burgos and Talbert 1996,      |   |            |
|            | Galloway and Weston 1996). Mulching has  |   |            |
|            | also been shown to be ineffective in     |   |            |
|            | controlling nutsedges, which are able to |   |            |
|            | penetrate through both organic and       |   |            |
|            | plastic mulches (Munn 1992, Patterson    |   |            |
|            | 1998).                                   |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| Crop       | Crop rotation/fallow is not a            |   | No         |
| rotation   | technically feasible alternative to      |   |            |
| and fallow | methyl bromide because it does not       |   |            |
| land       | provide adequate control of nutsedges or |   |            |
|            | fungal pathogens. The crop rotations     |   |            |
|            | available to growers are also            |   |            |
|            | susceptible to fungi; fallow land can    |   |            |
|            | still harbor fungal oospores (Lamour and |   |            |
|            | Hausbeck 2003). Tubers of the perennial  |   |            |
|            | nutsedges provide new plants with larger |   |            |
|            | energy reserves than annual weeds that   |   |            |
|            | can be more easily controlled by crop    |   |            |
|            | rotations and fallow. (Thullen and       |   |            |
|            | Keeley 1975). Furthermore, nutsedge      |   |            |
|            | plants can produce tubers within 2 weeks |   |            |
|            | after emergence (Wilen et al. 2003).     |   |            |
|            | This enhances their survival across      |   |            |
|            | different cropping regimes that can      |   |            |
|            | disrupt other plants that rely on a      |   |            |
|            | longer undisturbed growing period to     |   |            |
|            | produce seeds to propagate the next      |   |            |
|            | generation.                              |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| Floo       | Flooding has been used effectively to    |   | No         |
| ding/Water | manage various soil borne pest and       |   |            |
| management | diseases, especially nematodes and some  |   |            |
|            | weeds. However, nutsedges have shown     |   |            |
|            | tolerance to this treatment. Submerging  |   |            |
|            | nutsedge tubers for 8 days to 4 weeks    |   |            |
|            | showed no effect on the sprouting        |   |            |
|            | capabilities of the tubers (Horowitz,    |   |            |
|            | 1972). Studies in Florida showed         |   |            |
|            | ineffective nematode, disease, and       |   |            |
|            | nutsedge control after flooding (Allen,  |   |            |
|            | 1999). Regulatory issues concerning      |   |            |
|            | water management, as well as economic    |   |            |
|            | feasibility, also preclude its viability |   |            |
|            | as an alternative to methyl bromide.     |   |            |
|            | Land structure, frequent and severe      |   |            |
|            | droughts, and the economics of           |   |            |
|            | developing and managing flood            |   |            |
|            | capabilities prevent flooding from being |   |            |
|            | a viable, cost effective alternative in  |   |            |
|            | the Southeastern United States.          |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| Grafting   | Due to the paucity of scientific         |   | No         |
| /resistant | information on the utility of these      |   |            |
| roots      | alternatives as methyl bromide           |   |            |
| tock/plant | replacements in peppers, they have been  |   |            |
| breedin    | grouped together for discussion in this  |   |            |
| g/soilless | document. The U.S. EPA was unable to     |   |            |
| cultu      | locate any studies showing any potential |   |            |
| re/organic | for grafting, resistant rootstock or     |   |            |
| produc     | plant breeding as technically feasible   |   |            |
| tion/subst | alternatives to methyl bromide control   |   |            |
| rates/plug | of nutsedges. Plug plants are            |   |            |
| plants.    | extensively used on high value vegetable |   |            |
|            | crops like pepper but they do not        |   |            |
|            | control competition from nutsedges.      |   |            |
|            | There are no studies documenting the     |   |            |
|            | commercial availability of resistant     |   |            |
|            | rootstock immune to the fungal pathogens |   |            |
|            | listed as major pepper pests. Grafting   |   |            |
|            | and plant breeding are thus also         |   |            |
|            | rendered technically infeasible as       |   |            |
|            | methyl bromide alternatives for control  |   |            |
|            | of *Phytophthora* and *Fusarium* fungi.  |   |            |
|            | Soilless culture, organic production,    |   |            |
|            | and substrates/plug plants are also not  |   |            |
|            | technically viable alternatives to       |   |            |
|            | methyl bromide for fungi. Various        |   |            |
|            | aspects of organic production -- e.g.,   |   |            |
|            | cover crops, fallow land, and steam      |   |            |
|            | sterilization - have already been        |   |            |
|            | addressed in this document and assessed  |   |            |
|            | to be technically infeasible methyl      |   |            |
|            | bromide alternatives.                    |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| #### [C    |                                          |   |            |
| ombination |                                          |   |            |
| s of Alter |                                          |   |            |
| natives]{. |                                          |   |            |
| smallcaps} |                                          |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| Metam      | Although this combination would likely   | N |            |
| sodium +   | be more effective than metam-sodium      | o |            |
| Ch         | alone where fungal pests are the only    |   |            |
| loropicrin | concern, it may not prevent yield losses |   |            |
|            | due to nutsedges, particularly where     |   |            |
|            | weed pressure is high. In a study with   |   |            |
|            | vegetables it provided control of yellow |   |            |
|            | nutsedge, but weed pressure in that      |   |            |
|            | small plot test was low, according to    |   |            |
|            | the authors (Csinos et al. 1999).        |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| 1,3        | This combination controls nematodes but  | N |            |
| dichl      | not nutsedges. In a study with           | o |            |
| oropropene | vegetables, it provided control of       |   |            |
| (Telone    | yellow nutsedge, but weed pressure in    |   |            |
| II) +      | that small plot test was low, according  |   |            |
| me         | to the authors (Csinos et al. 1999). It  |   |            |
| tam-sodium | is inconsistently effective against      |   |            |
|            | fungal pests (see Michigan sections for  |   |            |
|            | more discussion). 1,3-D is also subject  |   |            |
|            | to regulatory prohibition of use on      |   |            |
|            | Karst geology.                           |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| 1,3        | Culpepper and Langston (2004) tested the | N |            |
| dichl      | effectiveness of several soil fumigant   | o |            |
| oropropene | combinations for the management of       | , |            |
| (Telone    | nutsedges and nematodes affecting        | b |            |
| II)        | peppers in Tifton, Georgia. Results show | u |            |
| followed   | that 1,3-D, followed by chloropicrin,    | t |            |
| by         | was significantly less effective than MB | s |            |
| ch         | for the control of both purple and       | h |            |
| loropicrin | yellow nutsedge, but as effective as MB  | o |            |
|            | for the control soil nematodes. In terms | w |            |
|            | of spring and fall crop yield, however,  | s |            |
|            | this combination performed as well as    | p |            |
|            | MB. This treatment is promising and will | r |            |
|            | require further testing and validation   | o |            |
|            | in commercial fields.                    | m |            |
|            |                                          | i |            |
|            |                                          | s |            |
|            |                                          | e |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| 1,3        | This combination does not adequately     | N |            |
| dichlor    | control nutsedge. Because of ground      | o |            |
| opropene + | water contamination concerns, 1,3-D      |   |            |
| ch         | cannot be used in pepper growing areas   |   |            |
| loropicrin | of the U.S. where karst topography       |   |            |
|            | exists. Where 1,3-D use is allowed, set  |   |            |
|            | back restrictions (\~ 100 meters from    |   |            |
|            | occupied structures; \~ 30 meters for    |   |            |
|            | emulsified formulations applied via      |   |            |
|            | chemigation) may limit the portion of a  |   |            |
|            | field that can be treated. In addition,  |   |            |
|            | because of a 28-day waiting period       |   |            |
|            | between application and planting         |   |            |
|            | (compared to 14 days for MB), growers    |   |            |
|            | could lose half of the harvest season    |   |            |
|            | and miss higher-end market windows,      |   |            |
|            | mainly for spring fumigations (i.e.,     |   |            |
|            | fall harvests).                          |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| 1,3        | Culpepper and Langston (2004) have       | N |            |
| dichlor    | tested the effectiveness of several soil | o |            |
| opropene + | fumigant combinations for the management |   |            |
| ch         | of nutsedges and nematodes affecting     |   |            |
| loropicrin | peppers in Tifton, Georgia. In this      |   |            |
| (Telone    | study, 1,3-D + chloropicrin, followed by |   |            |
| C35)       | more chloropicrin, was more effective    |   |            |
| followed   | than MB for the control of yellow        |   |            |
| by         | nutsedge, but less effective against     |   |            |
| ch         | purple nutsedge. This treatment          |   |            |
| loropicrin | performed as well as MB in terms of      |   |            |
|            | spring crop yield, but poorly in terms   |   |            |
|            | of fall yield. This combination does not |   |            |
|            | appear to show promise as a MB           |   |            |
|            | alternative.                             |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| 1,3        | Culpepper and Langston (2004) have       | N |            |
| dichlor    | tested the effectiveness of several soil | o |            |
| opropene + | fumigant combinations for the management | , |            |
| ch         | of nutsedges and nematodes affecting     | b |            |
| loropicrin | peppers in Tifton, Georgia. In this      | u |            |
| (Telone    | study, 1,3-D + chloropicrin, followed by | t |            |
| C35)       | metam sodium was 36% less effective than | s |            |
| followed   | MB for the control of purple nutsedge,   | h |            |
| by metam   | but as effective as MB for the control   | o |            |
| sodium     | of yellow nutsedge and soil nematodes.   | w |            |
|            | In terms of spring and fall crop yield,  | s |            |
|            | this treatment performed as well as MB.  | p |            |
|            | This combination is promising and will   | r |            |
|            | require further testing and validation   | o |            |
|            | in commercial fields.                    | m |            |
|            |                                          | i |            |
|            |                                          | s |            |
|            |                                          | e |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+
| Fumigant   | Current research suggests that in areas  | Y |            |
| com        | of low pest pressure this combination    | e |            |
| bination + | may be suitable for some growers as an   | s |            |
| herbicide  | alternative for methyl bromide. In these |   |            |
| partners   | situations growers may employ a marginal |   |            |
|            | strategy without major economic          |   |            |
|            | dislocation if given a reasonable time   |   |            |
|            | frame for the transition.                |   |            |
+------------+------------------------------------------+---+------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia-
  14. List and Discuss Why Registered **]{.smallcaps}*(and Potential)*
  **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
  Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780332 .anchor}

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

# 

**[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia --
Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780194 .anchor}

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of        | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                   |
| Alternati         |                                                  |
| ve]{.smallcaps}** |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| #### Hal          | Is a non-selective herbicide. Causes potential   |
| osulfuron-methyl  | crop injury; has plant back restrictions.        |
|                   | Efficacy is lowered in rainy conditions (common  |
|                   | during the period of initial planting of these   |
|                   | crops). Also, a 24-month plant back restriction  |
|                   | may cause significant economic disruption if     |
|                   | growers must rely on this option. Since          |
|                   | halosulfuron can only be applied to the row      |
|                   | middles, nutsedges would survive on the pepper   |
|                   | beds, close to crop plants. Thus this herbicide  |
|                   | is not technically feasible as a stand-alone     |
|                   | replacement for MB, and its use in conjunction   |
|                   | with other pest management methods has not yet   |
|                   | been investigated.                               |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Glyphosate        | Is a non-selective herbicide. As halosulfuron,   |
|                   | it will not control nutsedge within the plant    |
|                   | rows and does not provide residual control. Thus |
|                   | this herbicide is not technically feasible as a  |
|                   | stand-alone replacement for MB, and its use in   |
|                   | conjunction with other pest management methods   |
|                   | has not yet been studied.                        |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Paraquat          | Is a non-selective herbicide that will not       |
|                   | control nutsedge in the plant rows. It does not  |
|                   | provide residual control. Thus this herbicide is |
|                   | not technically feasible as a stand-alone        |
|                   | replacement for MB, and its use in conjunction   |
|                   | with other pest management methods has not yet   |
|                   | been investigated.                               |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

# Other than those options discussed elsewhere, no alternative exists for the control of the key weeds, nematodes, and pathogens affecting pepper production. Non-chemical alternatives and chemical alternatives to methyl bromide have been or are being investigated and when suitable, are incorporated into current pepper production practices. 

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

# Since methyl bromide has been used effectively to manage minor crop production, there are limited pesticide alternatives due primarily to the small market share and the high cost associated with pesticide registration. Labeling of these products in minor crops could be more expensive than returns from potential sales, and therefore pesticide manufacturers have been reluctant to register pesticides for minor crop uses. Methyl bromide will be needed until a cost-effective alternative regimen is in place. 

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and**
  **Georgia**]{.smallcaps} **15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780333
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

[**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia
-- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives for
Peppers**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780195 .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}** |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Methyl     | Not registered               | Yes           | Unknown  |
| iodide     |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Furfural   | Not registered.              | No            | Unknown  |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Not registered. No           | No            | Unknown  |
| azide      | registration application     |               |          |
|            | received.                    |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Not registered. No           | No            | Unknown  |
| bromide    | registration application     |               |          |
|            | received.                    |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| > Muscador | > Registration package has   | > Yes         | Re       |
| > albus    | > been received.             |               | gistered |
| > Strain   |                              |               | but not  |
| > QST      |                              |               | yet for  |
| > 20799    |                              |               | sale in  |
|            |                              |               | the U.S. |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia
  -- 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___Toc125780334
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia -
Table 16.1. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato (Locascio et al.
1997)]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780196 .anchor}

+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Chemicals**  | **Rate     | **Average  | **Average  | **% Yield  |
|                | (kg/ha)**  | Nutsedge   | Marketable | Loss       |
|                |            | Density**  | Yield**    | (compared  |
|                |            |            |            | to MB)**   |
|                |            | **         | **         |            |
|                |            | (#/m^2^)** | (ton/ha)** |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ## Untre       | \-         | 300 ^ab^   | 20.1 ^a^   | 59.1       |
| ated (control) |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **MB + Pic     | 390 kg     | 90 ^c^     | 49.1 ^b^   | \-\--      |
| (67-33),       |            |            |            |            |
| chi            |            |            |            |            |
| sel-injected** |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **1,3 D + Pic  | 327 l      | 340 ^a^    | 34.6 ^c^   | 29.5       |
| (83-17),       |            |            |            |            |
| chi            |            |            |            |            |
| sel-injected** |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Metam Na,    | 300 l      | 320 ^a^    | 22.6 ^a^   | 54.0       |
| Flat           |            |            |            |            |
| Fumigation**   |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Metam Na,    | 300 l      | 220 ^b^    | 32.3 ^c^   | 34.2       |
| drip           |            |            |            |            |
| irrigated**    |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

***Notes*:** (1) Numbers followed by the same letter (within a column)
are not significantly different at the 0.05

level of probability, using Duncan's multiple range test.

\(2\) Data shown are from the Gainesville/Horticultural Unit site, 1994
season (this was one of three

sites included in this study). This site had relatively high nutsedge
pressure, and data for both

pest pressure and marketable yields for all treatments shown.

Locascio et al. (1997) studied MB alternatives on tomatoes grown in
small plots at two Florida locations with high nutsedge infestation. The
data from this tomato study are being cited because comparable pepper
data are not available. Various treatments were tested on plots that had
multiple pests. At the Bradenton site there was moderate to heavy
*Fusarium* infestation; heavy purple nutsedge infestation and light
root-knot nematode pressure. At Gainesville there was heavy infestation
of yellow and purple nutsedge and moderate infestation of root-knot
nematode. The treatments at both locations included MB (67%) +
chloropicrin (33%) chisel-injected at 390 kg/ha; metam-sodium
(chisel-injected) at 300L/ha; metam-sodium drip-irrigated at 300L/ha;
and 1,3-D + 17% chloropicrin chisel-injected at 327L/ha. In pairwise
statistical comparisons, the yield was significantly lower in
metam-sodium treatments compared to MB at both sites. At Bradenton, the
average yield from both metam-sodium treatments was 33% of the MB
yields, suggesting a 67% yield loss from not using MB. At Gainesville
the average yield of the two metam-sodium treatments was 56% of the MB
yield, suggesting a 44% yield loss from not using MB. The yield of the
1,3-D treatment at Gainesville was 71% of the MB standard suggesting a
29% loss by not using MB (yield data for 1,3-D were not reported for
Bradenton). In considering1,3 D results, one must keep in mind that this
MB alternative cannot be used in areas where karst geology exists which
is approximately 40% of the Florida pepper production area.

For **root knot** **nematodes**, both metam-sodium and 1,3 D + 35 %
chloropicrin have shown good efficacy in trials with tomato and pepper.
For example, Locascio and Dickson (1998) reported that metam-sodium + 35
% chloropicrin (295 l/ha of metam-sodium, shank-injected) reduced
nematode galls significantly over untreated control plots, though not as
much as did MB + 35 % chloropicrin treatments (500kg MB/ha,
shank-injected), in Florida tomatoes. Analysis of 35 tomato and 5 pepper
trials conducted from 1993 -- 1995 indicated that 1,3 D (with either 17
% or 35 % chloropicrin) provided control of nematodes that was equal or
superior to that seen with MB, in 95 % of the tomato and 100 % of pepper
trials (Eger 2000). However, it is not clear whether yields were also
comparable to those obtained with MB. Noling et al (2000) also studied
the effects of metam-sodium (115 l/ha, syringe-injected), 1,3 D + 17 %
chloropicrin (53.6 l/ha, soil-injected), and 1,3 D + 35 % chloropicrin
(39.8 l/ha), among other treatments, in tomato plots. Galls inflicted by
root knot nematodes were reduced significantly by all these MB
alternatives, as compared to untreated control plots. Yields were also
significantly higher as compared to the control plots; all MB
alternatives resulted in similar high yields. However, the effects of MB
formulations were not reported in this study. Further, it is the opinion
of some U.S. crop experts that metam sodium, in particular, is
inconsistent as a nematode control agent (Dr. S. Culpeper, University of
Georgia, personal communication).

**[Southeast U.S. Pepper Consortium - Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss
Data Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780197 .anchor}

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| #               | ##### [         | ##### [Ra       | **[Best         |
| #### [Alternati | List Type of Pe | nge of Yield Lo | Estimate of     |
| ve]{.smallcaps} | st]{.smallcaps} | ss]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                 |                 |                 | Loss            |
|                 |                 |                 | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1,3             | Nutsedges,      | 20 - 100        | 29%             |
| di              | fungal          |                 |                 |
| chloropropene + | pathogens       |                 |                 |
| chloropicrin    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Metam-sodium    | Nutsedges,      | 30 - 55         | 44%             |
| (with or        | fungal          |                 |                 |
| without         | pathogens       |                 |                 |
| chloropicrin)   |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Over     |                 |                 | **29 % if 1,3   |
| all Loss Estima |                 |                 | D + pic is      |
| te for All Alte |                 |                 | used; 44 % if   |
| rnatives to Pes |                 |                 | metam-sodium is |
| ts]{.smallcaps} |                 |                 | used**          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and Georgia
  --17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development
  Which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780335 .anchor}

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

Future plans to minimize MB use include:

1)  Optimizing use of plastic (VIF) tarps and drip irrigation equipment
    for applying at-plant herbicides.

2)  Conducting studies on tomato, pepper, and cucurbit crops with
    combinations of fumigants and herbicides including halosulfuron,
    metolachlor, rimsulfuron, and dimethenamid. Telone C-35 will be used
    as a fumigant because of nematode and disease problems.

3)  Changing MB:chloropicrin formulations from 98:2 to 67:33

Trials using the alternative fumigants Telone C-35, iodomethane, metam
sodium, chloropicrin, and at least two reduced-risk products (Propozone,
PlantPro45, DiTera, Deny) are also planned. These trials will
incorporate screening of pepper varieties for tolerance/resistance to
*Phytophthora capsici*. The applicant noted that a program to evaluate
host resistance to Phytophthora root and crown rot has been implemented.
Growers are starting to deploy lines identified with genetic resistance
and acceptable horticultural qualities.

In addition, the following new long-term studies have been initiated at
the Coastal Plain Experiment Station in Tifton, Georgia, with funding
provided by USDA-CSREES, Methyl Bromide Transitions Grant:

\- Evaluation of the effects of soil conditions, particularly soil
temperature and moisture, on nutsedge species efficacy from several
fumigants.

\- Investigation of the impact of multiple-season adoption of methyl
bromide alternatives in terms of pest species composition, including
weeds, diseases, and nematodes.

\- Integration of multiple tactics as alternatives to methyl bromide for
management of weeds, diseases, and nematodes in pepper and eggplant.

\- Evaluation of vegetable crop response to herbicides applied under
plastic prior to crop transplants and characterize herbicide fate when
applied in a plasticulture system between summer and fall crops.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and**
  **Georgia - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
  which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide?**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780336 .anchor}

  No. soilless systems and greenhouse production are not in use for
  peppers and quick adoption is probably economically infeasible.
  Grafting has not been evaluated for vegetable production due to the
  high cost and the large number of plants that would be needed. In
  addition this alternative is primarily used for nematode and disease
  management, but there is no evidence that it applies to competition
  from weeds. Plug plants are extensively used on high value vegetable
  crops like pepper but they do not control competition from nutsedges.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [**Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium excluding Florida and** **Georgia
  -- Summary of Technical
  Feasibility**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780337 .anchor}

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

There has been extensive research on alternatives for solanaceous crops,
and methyl bromide minimizing practices have been incorporated into
pepper production systems where possible. However, the effectiveness of
chemical and non-chemical alternatives designed to fully replace methyl
bromide must still be characterized as preliminary. These alternatives
have not been shown to be stand-alone replacements for methyl bromide,
and no combination has been shown to provide effective, economical pest
control. Methyl bromide is believed to be the only treatment currently
available that consistently provides reliable control of nutsedge
species and the disease complex affecting pepper production. (Locascio
et al., 1997) Nutsedges resist traditional and modern methods of weed
control and are endemic to large tracts of pepper producing area in the
Southeastern United States. Herbicides are applied to the row middles
between raised production beds to manage grass and broadleaf weeds, but
there are no currently registered herbicides to address sedge weed
pests. Nematodes, especially root knot nematodes (*Meloidogyne* spp.),
and fungal diseases (such as *Phytophthora* blight) are also of concern.
Fungal pests are expected to become serious problems for pepper
production if MB were not available for pre-plant fumigation.

The 1,3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin combination does not
effectively control nutsedges. Lack of an effective registered herbicide
for control of nutsedge impairs adoption of methyl bromide alternatives
in pepper (Banks, 2002). In addition, labeling of 1,3-dichloropropene
products restricts its use in key pepper growing areas of the United
States where karst topography exists due to ground-water contamination
concerns. In areas where 1,3-dichloropropene use is allowed, set back
restrictions and 7-28 day waiting periods between application and
planting cause delays/adjustments in production schedules that could
lead to missing specific market windows, thus reducing profits on pepper
crops. For example, peppers produced during the winter return a higher
price than peppers produced during warmer months, and many growers rely
on this price premium to maintain profitability.

Metam sodium provides limited and erratic performance at suppressing all
major solanaceous pathogens and pests. Data indicate that metam sodium
is not an effective alternative to methyl bromide for nutsedge control
in bell pepper fields Webster et al., (2002). A 14-30 day planting delay
is also recommended for this chemical. In addition there is evidence
that both 1,3-dichloropropene and methyl isothiocyanate (the breakdown
product of metam sodium) levels decline more rapidly, thus further
compromising efficacy, in areas where these are repeatedly applied
(Smelt et al. 1989, Ou et al. 1995, Gamliel et al. 2003). This is due to
enhanced degradation of these chemicals by soil microbes (Dungan and
Yates 2003).

Culpepper and Langston (2004) recently compared the effectiveness of
several soil fumigants in managing soil pests affecting peppers in
Tifton, Georgia. Results show that 1,3-D followed by chloropicrin was
significantly less effective than methyl bromide for the control of both
purple and yellow nutsedge, but as effective as MB for the control soil
nematodes. In terms of spring and fall crop yield, this treatment
performed as well as MB. 1,3-D + chloropicrin, followed by more
chloropicrin was more effective than MB for the control of yellow
nutsedge, but less effective against purple nutsedge. This treatment
performed as well as MB in terms of spring crop yield, but poorly in
terms of fall yield. 1,3-D + chloropicrin, followed by metam sodium was
36% less effective than methyl bromide for the control of purple
nutsedge, but as effective as MB for the control of yellow nutsedge.
This combination was as effective as MB against soil nematodes. In terms
of spring and fall crop yield, this treatment performed as well as MB.
These treatments are showing promise and will require further testing
and validation in commercial fields.

Research on the effectiveness of non-chemical alternatives to methyl
bromide is still in a preliminary stage, particularly for high value,
minor-use crops such as peppers.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Georgia - Part B:                                                  |
|  Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use On Peppers]{.smallcaps}  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780339 .anchor}

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

**[Georgia - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request for
Peppers]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780199 .anchor}

+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **[Region  | **[Target             | **[Specific reasons why methyl |
| where      | pests]{.smallcaps}**  | bromide is                     |
| methyl     |                       | needed]{.smallcaps}\           |
| bromide    | **[(Weed &            | **                             |
| use is     | plant-parasitic       |                                |
| requ       | Nematodes) pathogens, |                                |
| ested]{.sm | and \[% degree of     |                                |
| allcaps}** | infestation, if       |                                |
|            | reported              |                                |
|            | \]]{.smallcaps}**     |                                |
+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Georgia    | Yellow and purple     | Only MB can effectively        |
|            | nutsedge (*Cyperus    | control the target pests found |
|            | esculentus, C.        | in the southeast U.S. where    |
|            | rotundus*) *\[100%\]; | pest pressures commonly exist  |
|            | c*rown and Root rot   | at moderate to severe levels.  |
|            | (*Phytophthora        | Most, if not all of these      |
|            | capsici*) *\[40%\];*  | states are limited in the use  |
|            | plant-parasitic       | of the alternative 1,3-D       |
|            | nematodes             | because of underlying karst    |
|            | (*Meloidogyne         | geology throughout the region. |
|            | incognita;            | Halosulfuron, which is         |
|            | Pratylenchus sp)      | registered only for            |
|            | \[70%\]; s*outhern    | middle-of-row use, does not    |
|            | blight (*Sclerotium   | control nutsedge near pepper   |
|            | rolfsii*) *\[70%\];*  | plants where most competition  |
|            |                       | occurs. Metam-sodium has       |
|            | Pythium root and      | limited pest control           |
|            | collar rots           | capabilities and should never  |
|            | (*P.irregulare, P.    | be used as a stand-alone       |
|            | myriotylum, P.        | fumigant (Noling, 2003). Refer |
|            | ultimum, P.           | to Item 13 for additional      |
|            | aphanidermatum*)      | detail.                        |
|            | *\[100%\]*            |                                |
+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [**Georgia** **- 11. (**]{.smallcaps}***i*[) Characteristics of
  Cropping System and Climate for
  Peppers]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780340 .anchor}

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

**[Georgia - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780200 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}     | ### [Georgia]{.smallcaps}  |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}**            | Pepper transplants for     |
|                                         | fruit production           |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                  | Annual; generally 1 year   |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}**                    |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop Rotation and use of     | Pepper -- usually followed |
| methyl bromide for other crops in the   | by a cucurbit crop         |
| rotation:]{.smallcaps}**                | (cucumbers or squash).     |
|                                         | Occasionally eggplants     |
|                                         | follow pepper crops.       |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}**           | Sandy loam; clay loam      |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide          | 1 time per year; (either   |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}**              | in spring or fall)         |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                       | Actual frequency may be    |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                 | between 12 and 15 months   |
|                                         | depending on the number of |
|                                         | crops grown per fumigation |
|                                         | cycle.                     |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

**[Georgia - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule --
July Fumigation Event, Pepper Crop is Harvested in
FAll.]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780201 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</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 colspan="2"><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul-3"><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 colspan="2"><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-1"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4>
<h4 id="section-4"></h4></td>
<td colspan="14">U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Soil Temp.</strong> <em>(° F)
</em></span></td>
<td>64.1</td>
<td>72.5</td>
<td>80.8</td>
<td colspan="2">85.9</td>
<td>87.8</td>
<td>86.8</td>
<td>82.2</td>
<td>73.9</td>
<td>34.0</td>
<td colspan="2">54.0</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>55.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>inches<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td colspan="2">4.5</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td colspan="2">4.5</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>4.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Average Air</span></strong></p>
<p><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Temp.</strong> <em>(°C )
</em></span></p></td>
<td>69.8</td>
<td>77.7</td>
<td>84.7</td>
<td colspan="2">89.4</td>
<td>90.7</td>
<td>90.5</td>
<td>87.3</td>
<td>79.3</td>
<td>69.8</td>
<td colspan="2">63.1</td>
<td>61.5</td>
<td>64.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td><h2 id="c">2C</h2></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td><h2 id="p">P</h2></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key Harvest
Windows</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Methyl bromide applied in July allows the grower to economically produce
at least two crops from one annual fumigation event. **P** = planting or
harvest of pepper crop; **2C** = planting and/or harvest of 2^nd^ crop.

**[Georgia - Table 11.3. Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule --
Spring (Late February -March) Fumigation Event, Pepper Crop is Harvested
in Early Summer]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc125780202 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<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: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></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-4"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><h5 id="sept"><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></h5></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>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-2"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Soil Temp.</strong> <em>(°C)
</em></span></td>
<td colspan="12">Same as above- Table 11.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td colspan="12">Same as above- Table 11.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Air Temp.</strong> <em>(°C)
</em></span></td>
<td colspan="12">Same as above- Table 11.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule<sup>A</sup></span></strong></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></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><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span
class="smallcaps">Schedule<sup>A,</sup></span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key harvest</span></strong></p>
<p><span
class="smallcaps"><strong>Window</strong><sup>A,</sup></span></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

^A^Fumigation is an early spring event. Two crops are shown as being
produced from one fumigation event.

**P** = planting and/or harvest of pepper crop; **2C** = planting and/or
harvest of second crop.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Georgia --]{.smallcaps} 11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of the above   |
| characteristics in 11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake of any  |
| relevant alternatives?]{.smallcaps}**                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Peppers are generally produced using mechanized practices that        |
| involve deep injection of methyl bromide. Methyl bromide is being     |
| requested only for moderate to severe pest infestations.              |
| Approximately 81% of the Georgia pepper area is considered to have    |
| moderate to severe infestations of nutsedge (Culpepper, 2004).        |
|                                                                       |
| Weeds, especially nutsedge, are the most serious concern              |
| precipitating methyl bromide use in both transplant beds and in the   |
| field. Nutsedge species grow even under adverse conditions, resist    |
| traditional and modern methods of weed control, and are endemic to    |
| large tracts of pepper producing area in the Southeastern United      |
| States. Herbicides are applied to the row middles between raised      |
| production beds to manage grass and broadleaf weeds - but there are   |
| no currently registered herbicides that control nutsedges near pepper |
| plants. Weeds, when present in crops such as pepper, tomato, and      |
| cucurbits for 40 to 60 days may reduce yields by 10 to 50%. In        |
| addition to weeds, soil-borne fungal pathogens and plant-parasitic    |
| nematodes are endemic to the region and nearly all production areas   |
| have severe infestations, thus necessitating annual treatment with a  |
| broad-spectrum soil fumigant.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Alternatives like 1,3-dichloropropene and metam sodium require,       |
| respectively, a 14-28 day interval and a 14-30 day interval before    |
| planting, compared to 14 days for MB. This interval can cause         |
| delays/adjustments in production schedules that could lead to missing |
| specific market windows, thus reducing profits on pepper crops        |
| (Kelley, 2003).                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide on Peppers,
  and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780341 .anchor}

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

#######  {#section-5}

**[Georgia - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide on
Peppers]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780203 .anchor}

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as         | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| possible as      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| :]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area          | 1,767 | 2,263 | 2,252 | 2,312 | 2,117 | 2,432 |
| Treate           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of Flat | All   |       |       |       |       |       |
| Fumigation       | produ |       |       |       |       |       |
| methyl bromide   | ction |       |       |       |       |       |
| use to strip/bed | ac    |       |       |       |       |       |
| use if strip     | reage |       |       |       |       |       |
| treatment is     | is    |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              | stri  |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** | p/bed |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | fumig |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | ation |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | and   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | t     |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | arped |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | with  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | LDPE  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | f     |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | ilms. |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | App   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | roxim |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | ately |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | 58%   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | of    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | the   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | field |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | is    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | tr    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | eated |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | with  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | MB    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | and   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | co    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | vered |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | with  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | pl    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | astic |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | m     |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | ulch. |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of     | 33    | 34    | 33    | 34    | 31    | 36    |
| methyl bromide   | 7,163 | 7,944 | 8,248 | 7,183 | 7,886 | 5,235 |
| active           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kilograms)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 |
| of methyl        |       | (15%  |       |       |       |       |
| bromid           |       | acr   |       |       |       |       |
| e]{.smallcaps}** |       | eage) |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(methyl bromide |       | 67:33 |       |       |       |       |
| /chloropicrin)*  |       | (85%  |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       | Of    |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       | acr   |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       | eage) |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Methods by    | Inje  | Inje  | Inje  | Inje  | Inje  | Inje  |
| which methyl     | cted, | cted, | cted, | cted, | cted, | cted, |
| bromide          | 20.3  | 20.3  | 20.3  | 20.3  | 20.3  | 20.3  |
| applie           | to    | to    | to    | to    | to    | to    |
| d]{.smallcaps}** | 30.5  | 30.5  | 30.5  | 30.5  | 30.5  | 30.5  |
|                  | cm,   | cm,   | cm,   | cm,   | cm,   | cm,   |
|                  | under | under | under | under | under | under |
|                  | tarp  | tarp  | tarp  | tarp  | tarp  | tarp  |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| [**Dosage        | 19.1  | 15.4  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  |
| ra               |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| te\*(g/m**^2^**) |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| of Active        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| **]{.smallcaps}  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Georgia - Part C: Technical Validation for Peppers]{.smallcaps}    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780343 .anchor}

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

**[Georgia -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780205 .anchor}

+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| **[Name of  | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons    | **[Is the  |
| Alte        | for the alternative not being feasible   | a          |
| rnative]{.s | or available]{.smallcaps}**              | lternative |
| mallcaps}** |                                          | considered |
|             |                                          | cost       |
|             |                                          | effec      |
|             |                                          | tive?]{.sm |
|             |                                          | allcaps}** |
+=============+==========================================+============+
| # [C        |                                          |            |
| hemical Alt |                                          |            |
| ernatives]{ |                                          |            |
| .smallcaps} |                                          |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| Metam       | Metam sodium provides limited and        | No         |
| Sodium      | erratic performance at suppressing all   |            |
|             | nutsedge weed species and pepper         |            |
|             | pathogens. Also, there is a 14-30 day    |            |
|             | waiting period at the time of            |            |
|             | application until planting compared to   |            |
|             | 14 days for MB. Such a delay may cause   |            |
|             | the higher-end market windows to be      |            |
|             | missed---particularly for the spring     |            |
|             | plantings (i.e., fall harvests).         |            |
|             | Beginning the application cycle earlier  |            |
|             | is not an option since crops from the    |            |
|             | previous fumigation cycle must be        |            |
|             | cleaned up prior to metam application.   |            |
|             | (Georgia CUE \# 03-0049; Kelley, 2003).  |            |
|             | Repeated applications of MITC (the       |            |
|             | breakdown product of metam sodium) are   |            |
|             | known to enhance its biodegradation (and |            |
|             | reduce efficacy) as a result of          |            |
|             | increased populations of adapted         |            |
|             | microorganisms (Dungan and Yates, 2003). |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| #### [Non C |                                          |            |
| hemical Alt |                                          |            |
| ernatives]{ |                                          |            |
| .smallcaps} |                                          |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| Soil        | For nutsedge control in the southeastern | No         |
| s           | United States, solarization is not       |            |
| olarization | technically feasible as a methyl bromide |            |
|             | alternative. Response of *Cyperus*       |            |
|             | species to solarization is sporadic and  |            |
|             | not well understood; data show           |            |
|             | solarization to provide, at best,        |            |
|             | suppression of nutsedge populations      |            |
|             | (Chase et al. 1999). Research indicates  |            |
|             | that the lethal temperature for nutsedge |            |
|             | tubers is 50 ^o^C or higher (Chase et    |            |
|             | al. 1999). Trials conducted in           |            |
|             | mid-summer in Georgia resulted in        |            |
|             | maximum soil temperatures of 43 ^o^C at  |            |
|             | 5 cm depth. Thus, solarization, even in  |            |
|             | the warmer months in southern states,    |            |
|             | did not result in temperatures high      |            |
|             | enough to destroy nutsedge tubers. Also, |            |
|             | tubers lodged deeper in the soil would   |            |
|             | be completely unaffected. In addition,   |            |
|             | solarization would take fields out of    |            |
|             | production since it would be needed      |            |
|             | during the spring and into the summer    |            |
|             | months, which are optimal for pepper     |            |
|             | production.                              |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| Steam       | Steam is not a technically feasible      | No         |
|             | alternative for open field pepper        |            |
|             | production because it requires sustained |            |
|             | heat over a required period of time      |            |
|             | (UNEP 1998). While steam has been used   |            |
|             | effectively against fungal pests in      |            |
|             | protected production systems, such as    |            |
|             | greenhouses, there is no evidence that   |            |
|             | it would be effective in open field      |            |
|             | pepper crops. Any such system would also |            |
|             | require large amounts of energy and      |            |
|             | water to provide sufficient steam        |            |
|             | necessary to sterilize soil down to the  |            |
|             | rooting depth of field crops (at least   |            |
|             | 20-50 cm).                               |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| Biological  | Biological control agents alone cannot   | No         |
| Control     | control nutsedge and/or the soil         |            |
|             | pathogens that afflict peppers. The      |            |
|             | bacterium *Burkholderia cepacia* and the |            |
|             | fungus *Gliocladium virens* have shown   |            |
|             | some potential in controlling some       |            |
|             | fungal plant pathogens (Larkin and       |            |
|             | Fravel 1998). However, no biological     |            |
|             | control agent has been identified to     |            |
|             | effectively control nutsedge or          |            |
|             | *Phytophthora.* Therefore, biological    |            |
|             | control is not a stand-along replacement |            |
|             | for methyl bromide in pepper crops. Only |            |
|             | a limited number of biological organisms |            |
|             | are effectively used to manage soil      |            |
|             | borne plant pathogens and pests.         |            |
|             | Biocontrol agents are usually very       |            |
|             | specific regarding the organisms they    |            |
|             | control and their successful             |            |
|             | establishment is highly dependent on     |            |
|             | environmental conditions.                |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| Cover crops | Cover crops and mulches have been        | No         |
| and         | integrated into solanaceous crop         |            |
| mulching    | production systems. However there is no  |            |
|             | evidence these practices effectively     |            |
|             | substitute for the control methyl        |            |
|             | bromide provides against nutsedges       |            |
|             | (Burgos and Talbert 1996). Some cover    |            |
|             | crops that have been shown to reduce     |            |
|             | weed populations also reduced or delayed |            |
|             | crop maturity and/or emergence, as well  |            |
|             | as yields (Burgos and Talbert 1996,      |            |
|             | Galloway and Weston 1996). Mulching has  |            |
|             | also been shown to be ineffective in     |            |
|             | controlling nutsedges, which are able to |            |
|             | penetrate through both organic and       |            |
|             | plastic mulches (Munn 1992, Patterson    |            |
|             | 1998).                                   |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| Crop        | Crop rotation/fallow is not a            | No         |
| rotation    | technically feasible alternative to      |            |
| and fallow  | methyl bromide because it does not       |            |
| land        | provide adequate control of nutsedges or |            |
|             | fungal pathogens. The crop rotations     |            |
|             | available to growers are also            |            |
|             | susceptible to fungi; fallow land can    |            |
|             | still harbor fungal oospores (Lamour and |            |
|             | Hausbeck 2003). Tubers of the perennial  |            |
|             | nutsedges provide new plants with larger |            |
|             | energy reserves than annual weeds that   |            |
|             | can be more easily controlled by crop    |            |
|             | rotations and fallow. (Thullen and       |            |
|             | Keeley 1975). Furthermore, nutsedge      |            |
|             | plants can produce tubers within 2 weeks |            |
|             | after emergence (Wilen et al. 2003).     |            |
|             | This enhances their survival across      |            |
|             | different cropping regimes that can      |            |
|             | disrupt other plants that rely on a      |            |
|             | longer undisturbed growing period to     |            |
|             | produce seeds to propagate the next      |            |
|             | generation.                              |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| Flo         | Flooding has been used effectively to    | No         |
| oding/Water | manage various soil borne pest and plant |            |
| management  | pathogens, especially nematodes and some |            |
|             | weeds. However, nutsedges have shown     |            |
|             | tolerance to this treatment. Submerging  |            |
|             | nutsedge tubers for 8 days to 4 weeks    |            |
|             | showed no effect on the sprouting        |            |
|             | capabilities of the tubers (Horowitz,    |            |
|             | 1972). Studies in Florida showed         |            |
|             | ineffective nematode, plant pathogen,    |            |
|             | and nutsedge control after flooding      |            |
|             | (Allen, 1999). Regulatory issues         |            |
|             | concerning water management, as well as  |            |
|             | economic feasibility, also preclude its  |            |
|             | viability as an alternative to methyl    |            |
|             | bromide. Land structure, frequent and    |            |
|             | severe droughts, and the economics of    |            |
|             | developing and managing flood            |            |
|             | capabilities prevent flooding from being |            |
|             | a viable, cost effective alternative in  |            |
|             | the Southeastern United States.          |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| Graftin     | Due to the paucity of scientific         | No         |
| g/resistant | information on the utility of these      |            |
| root        | alternatives as methyl bromide           |            |
| stock/plant | replacements in peppers, they have been  |            |
| breedi      | grouped together for discussion in this  |            |
| ng/soilless | document. The United States was unable   |            |
| cult        | to locate any studies showing any        |            |
| ure/organic | potential for grafting, resistant        |            |
| prod        | rootstock or plant breeding as           |            |
| uction/subs | technically feasible alternatives to     |            |
| trates/plug | methyl bromide control of nutsedges.     |            |
| plants.     | Plug plants are extensively used on high |            |
|             | value vegetable crops like pepper but    |            |
|             | they do not control competition from     |            |
|             | nutsedges. There are no studies          |            |
|             | documenting the commercial availability  |            |
|             | of resistant rootstock immune to the     |            |
|             | fungal pathogens listed as major pepper  |            |
|             | pests. Grafting and plant breeding are   |            |
|             | thus also rendered technically           |            |
|             | infeasible as methyl bromide             |            |
|             | alternatives for control of              |            |
|             | *Phytophthora* and *Fusarium* fungi.     |            |
|             | Soilless culture, organic production,    |            |
|             | and substrates/plug plants are also not  |            |
|             | technically viable alternatives to       |            |
|             | methyl bromide for fungi. Various        |            |
|             | aspects of organic production -- e.g.,   |            |
|             | cover crops, fallow land, and steam      |            |
|             | sterilization - have already been        |            |
|             | addressed in this document and assessed  |            |
|             | to be technically infeasible methyl      |            |
|             | bromide alternatives.                    |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| ###         |                                          |            |
| # [Combinat |                                          |            |
| ions of Alt |                                          |            |
| ernatives]{ |                                          |            |
| .smallcaps} |                                          |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| Metam       | Would possibly be more effective than    | No         |
| sodium +    | metam-sodium alone where fungal pests    |            |
| C           | are the only concern (see Michigan       |            |
| hloropicrin | sections for more discussion), but this  |            |
|             | combination may not prevent yield losses |            |
|             | due to nutsedges, particularly where the |            |
|             | weed pressure is high. U.S. EPA is aware |            |
|             | of one vegetable study that showed       |            |
|             | control of yellow nutsedge with this     |            |
|             | chemical combination, but weed pressure  |            |
|             | in that small plot test was low,         |            |
|             | according to the authors (Csinos et al.  |            |
|             | 1999).                                   |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| 1,3         | Controls nematodes but not nutsedges.    | No         |
| dichlo      | U.S. EPA is aware of one vegetable study |            |
| ropropene + | that showed control of yellow nutsedge   |            |
| M           | with this chemical combination, but weed |            |
| etam-sodium | pressure in that small plot test was     |            |
|             | low, according to the authors (Csinos et |            |
|             | al. 1999). Inconsistently effective      |            |
|             | against fungal pests (see Michigan       |            |
|             | sections for more discussion). 1,3-D     |            |
|             | also subject to regulatory prohibition   |            |
|             | of use on Karst geology.                 |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| 1,3         | Culpepper and Langston (2004) have       | No, but    |
| dich        | tested the effectiveness of several soil | shows some |
| loropropene | fumigant combinations for the management | promise    |
| (Telone II) | of nutsedges and nematodes affecting     |            |
| followed by | peppers in Tifton, Georgia. Results show |            |
| c           | that 1,3-D followed by chloropicrin was  |            |
| hloropicrin | significantly less effective than MB for |            |
|             | the control of both purple and yellow    |            |
|             | nutsedge, but as effective as MB for the |            |
|             | control soil nematodes. In terms of      |            |
|             | spring and fall crop yield, however,     |            |
|             | this combination performed as well as    |            |
|             | MB. This treatment is promising and will |            |
|             | require further testing and validation   |            |
|             | in commercial fields.                    |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| 1,3         | This combination does not adequately     | No         |
| dichlo      | control nutsedge. Due to ground-water    |            |
| ropropene + | contamination concerns, 1,3-D cannot be  |            |
| c           | used in pepper growing areas of the U.S. |            |
| hloropicrin | where karst topography exists. Where     |            |
|             | 1,3-dichloropropene use is allowed, set  |            |
|             | back restrictions (\~ 100 meters from    |            |
|             | occupied structures; \~ 30 meters for    |            |
|             | emulsified formulations applied via      |            |
|             | chemigation) may limit the proportion of |            |
|             | the field that can be treated. In        |            |
|             | addition, because of a 28-day waiting    |            |
|             | period between application and planting  |            |
|             | (compared to 14 days for MB), growers    |            |
|             | could lose half of the harvest season    |            |
|             | and miss higher-end market windows,      |            |
|             | mainly for spring fumigations (i.e.,     |            |
|             | fall harvests). (SE Pepper Consortium,   |            |
|             | CUE \# 03-0041).                         |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| 1,3         | Culpepper and Langston (2004) have       | No         |
| dichlo      | tested the effectiveness of several soil |            |
| ropropene + | fumigant combinations for the management |            |
| c           | of nutsedges and nematodes affecting     |            |
| hloropicrin | peppers in Tifton, Georgia. In this      |            |
| (Telone     | study, 1,3-D + chloropicrin, followed by |            |
| C35)        | more chloropicrin was more effective     |            |
| followed by | than MB for the control of yellow        |            |
| c           | nutsedge, but less effective against     |            |
| hloropicrin | purple nutsedge. This treatment          |            |
|             | performed as well as MB in terms of      |            |
|             | spring crop yield, but poorly in terms   |            |
|             | of fall yield. This combination does not |            |
|             | appear to show promise as a MB           |            |
|             | alternative.                             |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| 1,3         | Culpepper and Langston (2004) have       | No, but    |
| dichlo      | tested the effectiveness of several soil | shows      |
| ropropene + | fumigant combinations for the management | promise    |
| c           | of nutsedges and nematodes affecting     |            |
| hloropicrin | peppers in Tifton, Georgia. In this      |            |
| (Telone     | study, 1,3-D + chloropicrin, followed by |            |
| C35)        | metam sodium was 36% less effective than |            |
| followed by | MB for the control of purple nutsedge,   |            |
| metam       | but as effective as MB for the control   |            |
| sodium      | of yellow nutsedge and soil nematodes.   |            |
|             | In terms of spring and fall crop yield,  |            |
|             | this treatment performed as well as MB.  |            |
|             | This combination is promising and will   |            |
|             | require further testing and validation   |            |
|             | in commercial fields.                    |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+
| Fumigant    | Current research suggests that in areas  | Yes        |
| co          | of low pest pressure this combination    |            |
| mbination + | may be suitable for some growers as an   |            |
| herbicide   | alternative for methyl bromide. In these |            |
| partners    | situations growers may employ a marginal |            |
|             | strategy without major economic          |            |
|             | dislocation if given a reasonable time   |            |
|             | frame for the transition.                |            |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia- 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and
  Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective
  as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780344 .anchor}

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

#  {#section-6}

**[Georgia -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780206 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| #### H             | For nutsedges: potential crop injury; plant     |
| alosulfuron-methyl | back restrictions. Efficacy is lowered in rainy |
|                    | conditions (which are common in this region).   |
|                    | Also, a 24 month plant back restriction may     |
|                    | cause significant economic disruption if        |
|                    | growers must rely on this control option.       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Glyphosate         | For nutsedges: Non-selective; will not control  |
|                    | nutsedge in the plant rows; does not provide    |
|                    | residual control. Repeated applications are     |
|                    | required for control even in row middles.       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Paraquat           | For nutsedges: Non-selective; will not control  |
|                    | nutsedge in the plant rows; does not provide    |
|                    | residual control                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

#  {#section-7}

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

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

# Since methyl bromide has been used effectively to manage minor crop production, there are limited pesticide alternatives due primarily to the small market share and the high cost associated with pesticide registration. Labeling of these products in minor crops could be more expensive than returns from potential sales, and therefore pesticide manufacturers have been reluctant to register pesticides for minor crop uses. Methyl bromide will be needed until a cost-effective alternative regimen is in place. 

The applicant supplied information indicating pepper yield in fields
treated with 1,3-D was 43% below MB-treated fields, though these results
are as yet unpublished.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and Possible
  Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780345
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Georgia -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
for Peppers]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780207 .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               | Yes           | Unknown  |
| odomethane |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Furfural   | Not registered               | No            | Unknown  |
| (M         |                              |               |          |
| ultigard) |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Not registered. No           | No            | Unknown  |
| azide      | registration application     |               |          |
|            | received.                    |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Not registered. No           | No            | Unknown  |
| bromide    | registration application     |               |          |
|            | received.                    |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| > Muscador | > Registration package has   | > Yes         | Re       |
| > albus    | > been received.             |               | gistered |
| > Strain   |                              |               | but not  |
| > QST      |                              |               | yet for  |
| > 20799    |                              |               | sale in  |
|            |                              |               | the U.S. |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 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___Toc125780346
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Georgia - Table 16.1. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato (Locascio et al.
1997)]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780208 .anchor}

+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Chemicals**  | **Rate     | **Average  | **Average  | **% Yield  |
|                | (kg/ha)**  | Nutsedge   | Marketable | Loss       |
|                |            | Density**  | Yield**    | (compared  |
|                |            |            |            | to MB)**   |
|                |            | **         | **         |            |
|                |            | (#/m^2^)** | (ton/ha)** |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ## [Untr       | \-         | 300 ^ab^   | 20.1 ^a^   | 59.1       |
| eated (control |            |            |            |            |
| )]{.smallcaps} |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **MB + Pic     | 390 kg     | 90 ^c^     | 49.1 ^b^   | \-\--      |
| (67-33),       |            |            |            |            |
| chi            |            |            |            |            |
| sel-injected** |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **1,3 D + Pic  | 327 l      | 340 ^a^    | 34.6 ^c^   | 29.5       |
| (83-17),       |            |            |            |            |
| chi            |            |            |            |            |
| sel-injected** |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Metam Na,    | 300 l      | 320 ^a^    | 22.6 ^a^   | 54.0       |
| Flat           |            |            |            |            |
| Fumigation**   |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Metam Na,    | 300 l      | 220 ^b^    | 32.3 ^c^   | 34.2       |
| drip           |            |            |            |            |
| irrigated**    |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

***Notes*:** (1) Numbers followed by the same letter (within a column)
are not significantly different at the 0.05

level of probability, using Duncan's multiple range test.

\(2\) Data shown are from the Gainesville/Horticultural Unit site, 1994
season (this was one of three

sites included in this study). This site had relatively high nutsedge
pressure, and data for both

pest pressure and marketable yields for all treatments shown.

Locascio et al. (1997) studied MB alternatives on tomatoes grown in
small plots at two Florida locations with high nutsedge infestation. The
data from the tomato study are being cited because pepper data are not
available.

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

**[Georgia -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780209 .anchor}

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| #               | ##### [         | ##### [Ra       | **[Best         |
| #### [Alternati | List Type of Pe | nge of Yield Lo | Estimate of     |
| ve]{.smallcaps} | st]{.smallcaps} | ss]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                 |                 |                 | Loss            |
|                 |                 |                 | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1,3 D +         | Nutsedges,      | 20 -- 100       | 29              |
| chloropicrin    | fungal          |                 |                 |
|                 | pathogens       |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Metam-sodium    | Nutsedges,      | 30 -- 55        | 44              |
| (with or        | fungal          |                 |                 |
| without         | pathogens       |                 |                 |
| chloropicrin)   |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Over     |                 |                 | **29 % if 1,3   |
| all Loss Estima |                 |                 | D + pic is      |
| te for All Alte |                 |                 | used; 44 % if   |
| rnatives to Pes |                 |                 | metam-sodium is |
| ts]{.smallcaps} |                 |                 | used**          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
  Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780347 .anchor}

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

There are plans to conduct studies on tomato, pepper, and cucurbit crops
with combinations of fumigants and herbicides including halosulfuron,
metolachlor, rimsulfuron, and dimethenamid. Telone C-35 will be used as
a fumigant because of nematode and plant pathogen problems.

Trials using the alternative fumigants Telone C-35, iodomethane, metam
sodium, chloropicrin, and at least two low risk products (Propozone,
PlantPro45, DiTera, Deny) are also planned. These trials will
incorporate screening of pepper varieties for tolerance/resistance to
*P. capsici*. The applicant noted that a program to evaluate host
resistance to *Phytophthora* root and crown rot has been implemented.
Growers are starting to deploy lines identified with genetic resistance
and acceptable horticultural qualities.

In addition, the following new long-term studies have been initiated at
the Coastal Plain Experiment Station in Tifton, Georgia, with funding
provided by USDA-CSREES, Methyl Bromide Transitions Grant:

\- Evaluation of the effects of soil conditions, particularly soil
temperature and moisture, on nutsedge species efficacy from several
fumigants.

\- Investigation of the impact of multiple-season adoption of methyl
bromide alternatives in terms of pest species composition, including
weeds, diseases, and nematodes.

\- Integration of multiple tactics as alternatives to methyl bromide for
management of weeds, diseases, and nematodes in pepper and eggplant.

Evaluation of vegetable crop response to herbicides applied under
plastic prior to crop transplants and characterize herbicide fate when
applied in a plasticulture system between summer and fall crops.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
  **[Georgia - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop 
  which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**                
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc125780348 .anchor}                               

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

+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+---+
| # |                                                                  |   |
|   |                                                                  |   |
| [ |                                                                  |   |
| G |                                                                  |   |
| e |                                                                  |   |
| o |                                                                  |   |
| r |                                                                  |   |
| g |                                                                  |   |
| i |                                                                  |   |
| a |                                                                  |   |
|   |                                                                  |   |
| - |                                                                  |   |
|   |                                                                  |   |
| S |                                                                  |   |
| u |                                                                  |   |
| m |                                                                  |   |
| m |                                                                  |   |
| a |                                                                  |   |
| r |                                                                  |   |
| y |                                                                  |   |
|   |                                                                  |   |
| o |                                                                  |   |
| f |                                                                  |   |
|   |                                                                  |   |
| T |                                                                  |   |
| e |                                                                  |   |
| c |                                                                  |   |
| h |                                                                  |   |
| n |                                                                  |   |
| i |                                                                  |   |
| c |                                                                  |   |
| a |                                                                  |   |
| l |                                                                  |   |
|   |                                                                  |   |
| F |                                                                  |   |
| e |                                                                  |   |
| a |                                                                  |   |
| s |                                                                  |   |
| i |                                                                  |   |
| b |                                                                  |   |
| i |                                                                  |   |
| l |                                                                  |   |
| i |                                                                  |   |
| t |                                                                  |   |
| y |                                                                  |   |
| ] |                                                                  |   |
| { |                                                                  |   |
| . |                                                                  |   |
| s |                                                                  |   |
| m |                                                                  |   |
| a |                                                                  |   |
| l |                                                                  |   |
| l |                                                                  |   |
| c |                                                                  |   |
| a |                                                                  |   |
| p |                                                                  |   |
| s |                                                                  |   |
| } |                                                                  |   |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   | There has been extensive research on alternatives for            |   |
|   | solanaceous crops, and methyl bromide minimizing practices have  |   |
|   | been incorporated into pepper production systems where possible. |   |
|   | However, the effectiveness of chemical and non-chemical          |   |
|   | alternatives designed to fully replace methyl bromide must still |   |
|   | be characterized as preliminary. These alternatives have not     |   |
|   | been shown to be stand-alone replacements for methyl bromide,    |   |
|   | and no combination has been shown to provide effective,          |   |
|   | economical pest control. Methyl bromide is believed to be the    |   |
|   | only treatment currently available that consistently provides    |   |
|   | reliable control of nutsedge species and the plant pathogen      |   |
|   | complex affecting pepper production. Nutsedges resist            |   |
|   | traditional and modern methods of weed control and are endemic   |   |
|   | to large tracts of pepper producing area in the Southeastern     |   |
|   | United States. Herbicides are applied to the row middles between |   |
|   | raised production beds to manage grass and broadleaf weeds, but  |   |
|   | there are no currently registered herbicides to address          |   |
|   | nutsedges in the row. Nematodes, especially root knot nematodes  |   |
|   | (*Meloidogyne* spp.), and fungal diseases (such as Phytophthora  |   |
|   | blight) are also of concern. These pests are expected to become  |   |
|   | serious problems for pepper production if methyl bromide were    |   |
|   | not available for pre-plant fumigation.                          |   |
|   |                                                                  |   |
|   | The 1,3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin combination does not    |   |
|   | effectively control nutsedges. Lack of an effective registered   |   |
|   | herbicide for control of nutsedge impairs adoption of methyl     |   |
|   | bromide alternatives in pepper (Banks, 2002). In addition,       |   |
|   | labeling of 1,3-dichloropropene products restricts its use in    |   |
|   | key pepper growing areas of the U.S. where karst topography      |   |
|   | exists, due to ground-water contamination concerns. In areas     |   |
|   | where 1,3-dichloropropene use is allowed, set back restrictions, |   |
|   | and 7-28 day waiting periods between application and planting    |   |
|   | cause delays/adjustments in production schedules that could lead |   |
|   | to missing specific market windows, thus reducing profits on     |   |
|   | pepper crops. For example, peppers produced during the winter    |   |
|   | fetch a higher price than peppers produced during warmer months, |   |
|   | and many growers rely on this price premium to maintain          |   |
|   | profitability.                                                   |   |
|   |                                                                  |   |
|   | #  {#section-8}                                                  |   |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+---+
|   | Metam sodium provides limited and erratic performance at         |   |
|   | suppressing all major solanaceous pathogens and pests. Data      |   |
|   | indicate that metam sodium is not an effective alternative to    |   |
|   | methyl bromide for nutsedge control in bell pepper fields        |   |
|   | Webster et al., (2002 a). A 14-30 day planting delay is also     |   |
|   | recommended for this chemical. In addition there is evidence     |   |
|   | that both 1,3-dichloropropene and methyl isothiocyanate (the     |   |
|   | breakdown product of metam sodium) levels decline more rapidly,  |   |
|   | thus further compromising efficacy, in areas where these are     |   |
|   | repeatedly applied (Smelt et al. 1989, Ou et al. 1995, Gamliel   |   |
|   | et al. 2003). This is due to enhanced degradation of these       |   |
|   | chemicals by soil microbes (Dungan and Yates 2003).              |   |
|   |                                                                  |   |
|   | Culpepper and Langston (2004) recently compared the              |   |
|   | effectiveness of several soil fumigants in managing soil pests   |   |
|   | affecting peppers in Tifton, Georgia. Results show that 1,3-D    |   |
|   | followed by chloropicrin was significantly less effective than   |   |
|   | methyl bromide for the control of both purple and yellow         |   |
|   | nutsedge, but as effective as MB for the control soil nematodes. |   |
|   | In terms of spring and fall crop yield, this treatment performed |   |
|   | as well as MB. 1,3-D + chloropicrin, followed by more            |   |
|   | chloropicrin was more effective than MB for the control of       |   |
|   | yellow nutsedge, but less effective against purple nutsedge.     |   |
|   | This treatment performed as well as MB in terms of spring crop   |   |
|   | yield, but poorly in terms of fall yield. 1,3-D + chloropicrin,  |   |
|   | followed by metam sodium was 36% less effective than methyl      |   |
|   | bromide for the control of purple nutsedge, but as effective as  |   |
|   | MB for the control of yellow nutsedge. This combination was as   |   |
|   | effective as MB against soil nematodes. In terms of spring and   |   |
|   | fall crop yield, this treatment performed as well as MB. These   |   |
|   | treatments are showing promise and will require further testing  |   |
|   | and validation in commercial fields.                             |   |
|   |                                                                  |   |
|   | Research on the effectiveness of non-chemical alternatives to    |   |
|   | methyl bromide is still in a preliminary stage, particularly for |   |
|   | high value, minor-use crops.                                     |   |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+---+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Part B: Florida                                                    |
| -Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use on Peppers]{.smallcaps}  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780351 .anchor}

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

**[Florida- Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780211 .anchor}

+------------+------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **[Region  | **[Target Pathogens,   | **[Specific reasons why       |
| where      | nematodes and/or       | methyl bromide is             |
| methyl     | weed(s) to genus and,  | needed]{.smallcaps}**         |
| bromide    | if known, to species   |                               |
| use is     | level]{.smallcaps}**   |                               |
| requ       |                        |                               |
| ested]{.sm |                        |                               |
| allcaps}** |                        |                               |
+------------+------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Florida    | Weeds: yellow & purple | Only MB can effectively       |
|            | nutsedges              | control the target pests      |
|            |                        | found in Florida, where pest  |
|            | (*Cyperus rotundus* *& | pressures commonly exist at   |
|            | C. esculentus*),       | moderate to severe levels.    |
|            | nightshade (*Solanum*  | Use of 1,3-D is restricted in |
|            | spp.), white clover    | key pepper growing areas of   |
|            | (*Trifollium repens*), | Florida underlain by karst    |
|            | ragweed (*Ambrosia     | geology and sandy (porous)    |
|            | artemisifolia*)        | sub-soils, geological         |
|            |                        | features that could lead to   |
|            | Plant diseases:        | ground-water contamination.   |
|            | phytophthora blight    | Approximately 40% of          |
|            | (*Phytophthora* spp.), | Florida's pepper production   |
|            | damping-off            | land has these soil           |
|            | (*Rhizoctonia solani*, | constraints. For instance,    |
|            | *Pythium* spp.), white | 1,3-D is prohibited in Dade   |
|            | mold (*Sclerotinia     | County, where 100% of the     |
|            | sclerotiorum*)         | pepper growing area is        |
|            |                        | affected (U.S. EPA, 2002,     |
|            | Nematodes: root-knot   | Noling, 2003). Metam-sodium   |
|            | nematodes              | has limited pest control      |
|            | (*Meloidogyne* spp.),  | capabilities and is not       |
|            |                        | useful as a stand-alone       |
|            |                        | fumigant (Noling, 2003).      |
|            |                        | Halosulfuron, which is        |
|            |                        | effective against nutsedge,   |
|            |                        | is only registered for use in |
|            |                        | row middles in peppers.       |
+------------+------------------------+-------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping System
  and Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780352 .anchor}

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

**[Florida - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780212 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}     | ### [Florida]{.smallcaps}  |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}**            | Pepper transplants for     |
|                                         | fruit production           |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                  | Annual (usually 1 yr)      |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}**                    |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop                         | Eggplants or cucurbits     |
| Rotation]{.smallcaps}***)* **[and use   |                            |
| of methyl bromide for other crops in    |                            |
| the rotation:]{.smallcaps}**            |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}**           | Sandy and sandy-loam soils |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide          | 1 time per year            |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}**              |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                       | Double-cropped with        |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                 | cucurbits                  |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

**[Florida - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop
Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780213 .anchor}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 22%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</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-5"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><h1 id="sept-1">Sept</h1></td>
<td><h1 id="oct">Oct</h1></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><strong><span class="smallcaps">Climatic Zones</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="12">Plant Hardiness Zones 9a; 9b; 10a, 10.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">),</span></em></p>
<p><span class="smallcaps">Tampa, FL</span></p></td>
<td>65.5</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>72.5</td>
<td>134.1</td>
<td>175.8</td>
<td>193.3</td>
<td>152.7</td>
<td>65.0</td>
<td>42.7</td>
<td>158.8</td>
<td>62.0</td>
<td>66.8,</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C);</em> Tampa, FL</span></td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>22.1</td>
<td>25.3</td>
<td>27.6</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>27.3</td>
<td>24.1</td>
<td>19.2</td>
<td>17.3</td>
<td>16.0</td>
<td>16.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong><sup>A</sup></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h2 id="transplanting">Transplanting </h2>
<p><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Schedule; <sup>,</sup></strong> non
double-cropped</span><sup>B</sup></p></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Key harvest Window</strong>; non
double-cropped<sup>C</sup></span></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

^A^ Non-double cropped: earliest start date: August 15; cells marked
with an "x" represent variation in fumigation initiation amongst pepper
growers.

^B^ For Non-Double cropped pepper production, transplanting peppers is
usually initiated around September 1; cells marked with an "x" represent
variation in transplanting dates amongst pepper growers.

.^C^ For Non-Double Cropped Peppers: Harvest Period usually begins as
early as Nov. 15, and may continue until June 15, depending on when
planted and weather conditions.

**[Florida - Table 11.3 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule --
Peppers Double Cropped with another Vegetable (usually
Cucurbits)]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780214 .anchor}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 25%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</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-6"><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><h1 id="oct-1">Oct</h1></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><strong><span class="smallcaps">Climatic Zones</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="12">Plant Hardiness Zones 9a; 9b; 10a, 10.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">),</span></em></p>
<p><span class="smallcaps">Tampa, FL</span></p></td>
<td>65.5</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>72.5</td>
<td>134.1</td>
<td>175.8</td>
<td>193.3</td>
<td>152.7</td>
<td>65.0</td>
<td>42.7</td>
<td>158.8</td>
<td>62.0</td>
<td>66.8,</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C);</em> Tampa, FL</span></td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>22.1</td>
<td>25.3</td>
<td>27.6</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>27.3</td>
<td>24.1</td>
<td>19.2</td>
<td>17.3</td>
<td>16.0</td>
<td>16.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Fumigation
Schedule<sup>,</sup></strong>; double-cropped<sup>A</sup></span></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><h2 id="transplanting-1">Transplanting </h2>
<h2 id="schedule-double-croppedb">Schedule;
double-cropped<sup>B</sup></h2></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><h3 id="p-1">P</h3></td>
<td><h3 id="p-2">P</h3></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><h3 id="c-1">2C</h3></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Key harvest Window</strong>;
double-cropped<sup>C</sup></span></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

^A^Double-cropped; assumed to be with cucurbits; earliest start date is
August 15; shaded cells represent variation in fumigation initiation
among pepper growers who double-crop.

^B^For Double-Cropped pepper production, transplanting (**P**) is
typically initiated on September 1; variance can be until October 31.
The second crop of cucurbits (usually) transplants (indicated by
"**2C**") would typically be initiated around Feb 15, and may vary until
April 30

^C^ For Double Cropped peppers, Harvest Period usually begins as early
as Nov. 15, (**P**), may continue until April 15, depending on when
planted and weather conditions; Harvesting of second crop (**2C**) may
start around May and continue until mid-July.

Climate Zone designation (<http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone>)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Florida --]{.smallcaps} 11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of the above   |
| characteristics in 11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake of any  |
| relevant alternatives?]{.smallcaps}**                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The sandy soils of Florida are a contributing factor to the erratic   |
| performance suppressing weeds, nematodes, and plant pathogens of the  |
| metam sodium + chloropicrin combination, the most promising           |
| alternative to methyl bromide currently available for use in Dade     |
| County (because of label restrictions for 1,3-D). Methyl bromide has  |
| higher vapor pressure than metam sodium, therefore can penetrate and  |
| diffuse throughout the soil more effectively than metam sodium.       |
|                                                                       |
| Several climatic factors appeared to contribute to increases in plant |
| pathogens, e.g., Southern stem blight, caused by the soil-borne       |
| fungus (*Sclerotium rolfsii*) across the production area, even with   |
| methyl bromide. Variations in rainfall and soil and air temperatures  |
| may predispose developing plants to diseases caused by                |
| plant-pathogenic fungi. Furthermore, in the fall, temperature and     |
| rainfall patterns favor high levels of nematode infestation.          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
  Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780353 .anchor}

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

**[Florida - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780215 .anchor}

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as         | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| possible as      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| :]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area          | 8,903 | 8,741 | 8,741 | 8,195 | 8,417 | 8,701 |
| Treate           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of Flat | 100%  |       |       |       |       |       |
| Fumigation       | strip |       |       |       |       |       |
| methyl bromide   | treat |       |       |       |       |       |
| use to strip/bed | ments |       |       |       |       |       |
| us               | are   |       |       |       |       |       |
| e]{.smallcaps}** | used  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | in    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | this  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | r     |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | egion |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of     | 1,64  | 1,43  | 1,40  | 1,28  | 1,32  | 1,33  |
| methyl bromide   | 4,501 | 1,639 | 6,135 | 5,199 | 0,860 | 8,006 |
| 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}** | 67:33 | 67:33 |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /c               |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| hloropicrin)*^A^ |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by     | Swep  | Swep  | Swep  | Swep  | Swep  | Swep  |
| which methyl     | tback | tback | tback | tback | tback | tback |
| bromide          | chi   | chi   | chi   | chi   | chi   | chi   |
| applie           | sel-s | sel-s | sel-s | sel-s | sel-s | sel-s |
| d]{.smallcaps}** | hank, | hank, | hank, | hank, | hank, | hank, |
| ^A^              | 25    | 25    | 25    | 25    | 25    | 25    |
|                  | -30.5 | -30.5 | -30.5 | -30.5 | -30.5 | -30.5 |
|                  | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
|                  | .deep | .deep | .deep | .deep | .deep | .deep |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| [**Dosage rate   | 18.5  | 16.4  | 16.1  | 15.7  | 15.7  | 15.4  |
| of Strip/ bed,** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| g                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| MB/m             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ^2^]{.smallcaps} |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

^A^ Sources: personal communication, Professor J.W. Noling, November 25,
2003; M. Aerts, December 2, 2003.

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780355 .anchor}

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

**[Florida -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780217 .anchor}

+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| **[Name of   | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons   | **[Is the  |
| Al           | for the alternative not being feasible  | a          |
| ternative]{. | or available]{.smallcaps}**             | lternative |
| smallcaps}** |                                         | considered |
|              |                                         | cost       |
|              |                                         | effec      |
|              |                                         | tive?]{.sm |
|              |                                         | allcaps}** |
+==============+=========================================+============+
| #            |                                         |            |
|  [Chemical A |                                         |            |
| lternatives] |                                         |            |
| {.smallcaps} |                                         |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| 1,3          | 1,3-D provides control of nematode      | No         |
| dic          | populations, but poor control of plant  |            |
| hloropropene | pathogens and weeds. Control of         |            |
|              | nematodes is erratic, due to poor       |            |
|              | distribution of the fumigant in the     |            |
|              | sandy soils of Florida. 1,3-D's use is  |            |
|              | prohibited due to groundwater           |            |
|              | contamination in key pepper growing     |            |
|              | areas with karst geology, which is      |            |
|              | estimated to be about 40% in of FL      |            |
|              | pepper area in 2002. In Dade County, a  |            |
|              | major pepper production area, 100% of   |            |
|              | pepper acreage is affected by a label   |            |
|              | prohibition that addresses groundwater  |            |
|              | contamination concerns. In areas where  |            |
|              | 1,3-D use is allowed, set back          |            |
|              | restrictions (\~ 100 meters from        |            |
|              | occupied structures; \~ 30 meters for   |            |
|              | emulsified formulations applied via     |            |
|              | chemigation) may limit the portion of a |            |
|              | field that can be treated. In addition, |            |
|              | the 28-day waiting period between       |            |
|              | application and planting can cause      |            |
|              | delays/adjustments in production        |            |
|              | schedules that could lead to missing    |            |
|              | specific higher-end market windows.     |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Metam-sodi   | Provides limited and erratic            | No         |
| um/potassium | performance for suppressing major       |            |
|              | pepper pathogens and pests. Does not    |            |
|              | work under high pest pressure. This     |            |
|              | soil fumigant is considered the best    |            |
|              | available alternative for Dade County   |            |
|              | only, where 1,3 D use is prohibited     |            |
|              | (Aerts, 2003). This is at best a        |            |
|              | treatment that complements other        |            |
|              | fumigants and herbicides, and is not a  |            |
|              | stand-alone option (Noling, 2003).      |            |
|              | Metam sodium has a lower vapor pressure |            |
|              | than methyl bromide, and therefore      |            |
|              | cannot penetrate and diffuse throughout |            |
|              | the soil as effectively as MB. In       |            |
|              | addition, the effectiveness of metam    |            |
|              | sodium is dependent on the organic      |            |
|              | matter and moisture content of the      |            |
|              | soil. Metam sodium tends to degrade     |            |
|              | rapidly in warm soils where it has been |            |
|              | previously used.                        |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| #### [No     |                                         |            |
| n Chemical A |                                         |            |
| lternatives] |                                         |            |
| {.smallcaps} |                                         |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Solarization | Solarization is not technically         | No         |
|              | feasible as a methyl bromide            |            |
|              | alternative for control of nutsedges.   |            |
|              | Research indicates that the lethal      |            |
|              | temperature for nutsedge tubers is 50   |            |
|              | ^o^C or higher (Chase et al. 1999.      |            |
|              | Trials conducted in mid-summer in       |            |
|              | Georgia resulted in maximal soil        |            |
|              | temperatures of 43 ^o^C at 5 cm depth.  |            |
|              | Thus, solarization, even in the warmer  |            |
|              | months in southern states, did not      |            |
|              | result in temperatures reliably high    |            |
|              | enough to destroy nutsedge tubers, and  |            |
|              | tubers lodged deeper in the soil would  |            |
|              | be completely unaffected. Response of   |            |
|              | *Cyperus* species to solarization is    |            |
|              | sporadic and not well understood and    |            |
|              | data show solarization to provide, at   |            |
|              | best, suppression of nutsedge           |            |
|              | populations (Chase et al. 1999). In     |            |
|              | addition, solarization will take fields |            |
|              | out of production since it would be     |            |
|              | needed during the spring and into the   |            |
|              | summer months, which are optimal for    |            |
|              | pepper production.                      |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Steam        | Steam is not a technically feasible     | No         |
|              | alternative for open field pepper       |            |
|              | production because it requires          |            |
|              | sustained heat over a required period   |            |
|              | of time (UNEP 1998). While steam has    |            |
|              | been used effectively against fungal    |            |
|              | pests in protected production systems,  |            |
|              | such as greenhouses, there is no        |            |
|              | evidence that it would be effective in  |            |
|              | open field pepper crops. Any such       |            |
|              | system would also require large amounts |            |
|              | of energy and water to provide          |            |
|              | sufficient steam necessary to sterilize |            |
|              | soil down to the rooting depth of field |            |
|              | crops (at least 20-50 cm).              |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Biological   | Biological control agents alone cannot  | No         |
| Control      | control nutsedge and/or the soil        |            |
|              | pathogens that afflict peppers. The     |            |
|              | bacterium *Burkholderia cepacia* and    |            |
|              | the fungus *Gliocladium virens* have    |            |
|              | shown some potential in controlling     |            |
|              | some fungal plant pathogens (Larkin and |            |
|              | Fravel 1998). However, no biological    |            |
|              | control agent has been identified to    |            |
|              | effectively control nutsedge or         |            |
|              | *Phytophthora.* Therefore, biological   |            |
|              | control is not a stand-along            |            |
|              | replacement for methyl bromide in       |            |
|              | pepper crops. Only a limited number of  |            |
|              | biological organisms are effectively    |            |
|              | used to manage soil borne plant         |            |
|              | pathogens and pests.                    |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Cover crops  | Cover crops and mulches have been       | No         |
| and mulching | integrated to solanaceous crop          |            |
|              | production management. However there is |            |
|              | no evidence these practices effectively |            |
|              | substitute for the control methyl       |            |
|              | bromide provides against nutsedges      |            |
|              | (Burgos and Talbert 1996). Some cover   |            |
|              | crops that have been shown to reduce    |            |
|              | weed populations also reduced or        |            |
|              | delayed crop maturity and/or emergence, |            |
|              | as well as yields (Burgos and Talbert   |            |
|              | 1996, Galloway and Weston 1996).        |            |
|              | Mulching has also been shown to be      |            |
|              | ineffective in controlling nutsedges,   |            |
|              | since these plants are able to          |            |
|              | penetrate through both organic and      |            |
|              | plastic mulches (Munn 1992, Patterson   |            |
|              | 1998).                                  |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Crop         | Crop rotation/fallow is not a           | No         |
| rotation and | technically feasible alternative to     |            |
| fallow land  | methyl bromide because it does not      |            |
|              | provide adequate control of nutsedges   |            |
|              | or fungal pathogens. The crop rotations |            |
|              | available to growers are also           |            |
|              | susceptible to fungi; fallow land can   |            |
|              | still harbor fungal oospores (Lamour    |            |
|              | and Hausbeck 2003). As regards to       |            |
|              | nutsedges, tubers of these perennial    |            |
|              | species provide new plants with larger  |            |
|              | energy reserves than the annual weeds   |            |
|              | that can be frequently controlled by    |            |
|              | crop rotations and fallow land (Thullen |            |
|              | and Keeley 1975). Furthermore, nutsedge |            |
|              | plants can produce tubers within 2      |            |
|              | weeks after emergence (Wilen et al.     |            |
|              | 2003). This enhances their survival     |            |
|              | across different cropping regimes that  |            |
|              | can disrupt other plants that rely on a |            |
|              | longer undisturbed growing period to    |            |
|              | produce seeds to propagate the next     |            |
|              | generation.                             |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Fl           | South Florida is generally subject to   | No         |
| ooding/Water | natural flooding during summer months,  |            |
| management   | but other areas cannot be flooded       |            |
|              | because of lack of a shallow,           |            |
|              | impermeable layer. Although flooding is |            |
|              | a pest management tool that has been    |            |
|              | used effectively to manage various soil |            |
|              | borne pest and plant pathogens,         |            |
|              | nutsedges have shown tolerance to this  |            |
|              | treatment. Submergence of nutsedge      |            |
|              | tubers for periods of 8 days to 4 weeks |            |
|              | showed no effect on the sprouting       |            |
|              | capabilities of the tubers (Horowitz,   |            |
|              | 1972). Studies in Florida (Allen, 1999) |            |
|              | showed ineffective nematode, plant      |            |
|              | pathogen, and nutsedge control.         |            |
|              | Regulatory issues concerning water      |            |
|              | management, as well as economic         |            |
|              | feasibility, also preclude its          |            |
|              | viability as an alternative to methyl   |            |
|              | bromide. Land structure, frequent and   |            |
|              | severe droughts, and the economics of   |            |
|              | developing and managing flood           |            |
|              | capabilities will prevent flooding from |            |
|              | being a viable, cost effective          |            |
|              | alternative in the Southeastern states. |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Grafti       | Due to the paucity of scientific        | No         |
| ng/resistant | information on the utility of these     |            |
| roo          | alternatives as methyl bromide          |            |
| tstock/plant | replacements in peppers, they have been |            |
| breed        | grouped together for discussion in this |            |
| ing/soilless | document. The U.S. was unable to locate |            |
| cul          | any studies showing any potential for   |            |
| ture/organic | grafting, resistant rootstock or plant  |            |
| pr           | breeding as technically feasible        |            |
| oduction/sub | alternatives to methyl bromide control  |            |
| strates/plug | of nutsedges. Plug plants are           |            |
| plants.      | extensively used on high value          |            |
|              | vegetable crops like pepper but they do |            |
|              | not control competition from nutsedges. |            |
|              | There are no studies documenting the    |            |
|              | commercial availability of resistant    |            |
|              | rootstock immune to the fungal          |            |
|              | pathogens listed as major pepper pests. |            |
|              | Grafting and plant breeding are thus    |            |
|              | also rendered technically infeasible as |            |
|              | methyl bromide alternatives for control |            |
|              | of *Phytophthora* and *Fusarium* fungi. |            |
|              | Soilless culture, organic production,   |            |
|              | and substrates/plug plants are also not |            |
|              | technically viable alternatives to      |            |
|              | methyl bromide for fungi. Various       |            |
|              | aspects of organic production -- e.g.,  |            |
|              | cover crops, fallow land, and steam     |            |
|              | sterilization - have already been       |            |
|              | addressed in this document and assessed |            |
|              | to be technically infeasible methyl     |            |
|              | bromide alternatives.                   |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| #### [Combi  |                                         |            |
| nations of A |                                         |            |
| lternatives] |                                         |            |
| {.smallcaps} |                                         |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Metam        | This combination has been used in       | No, but    |
| sodium +     | Florida since the 1970s. It is being    | shows      |
| Chloropicrin | tested as a leading alternative to MB   | promise    |
|              | in Dade County because of label         |            |
|              | restrictions for 1,3-D, which do not    |            |
|              | allow its use in that county. However,  |            |
|              | it has shown erratic performance        |            |
|              | suppressing weeds, nematodes, and plant |            |
|              | pathogens in the sandy soils of         |            |
|              | Florida. MB has higher vapor pressure   |            |
|              | than metam sodium and can penetrate and |            |
|              | diffuse throughout the soil more        |            |
|              | effectively. Trials in tomato have      |            |
|              | shown inconsistent efficacy of this     |            |
|              | combination against soil pathogens,     |            |
|              | though it is generally better than      |            |
|              | metam-sodium alone (Locascio and        |            |
|              | Dickson 1998, Csinos et al. 1999). This |            |
|              | alternative will require further        |            |
|              | testing and validation on commercial    |            |
|              | fields.                                 |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| 1,3          | Although this combination, by itself,   | No, but    |
| dichl        | is not effective in areas with moderate | shows      |
| oropropene + | to high nutsedge pressure, it can       | promise    |
| chloropicrin | provide season long control when        | for        |
| (Telone C35) | coupled with herbicides (Chellemi et    | non-karst  |
|              | al. 2001; Gilreath and Santos, 2003).   | geology    |
|              | Trials comparing Flat Fumigation        | areas.     |
|              | applications with standard in-row       |            |
|              | applications indicated the need to      |            |
|              | increase the amount of chloropicrin to  |            |
|              | compensate for the potential decrease   |            |
|              | in efficacy of 1,3-D applied via Flat   |            |
|              | Fumigation. Applications via            |            |
|              | micro-irrigation systems have yielded   |            |
|              | mixed results, probably due to poor     |            |
|              | lateral distribution of the chemical in |            |
|              | the soil (Martin 2003; Dungan and       |            |
|              | Yates, 2003). In addition, 1,3-D's use  |            |
|              | is prohibited due to groundwater        |            |
|              | contamination in areas with karst       |            |
|              | geology, estimated to be about 40% in   |            |
|              | of FL pepper area in 2002. In Dade      |            |
|              | County this combination is not allowed  |            |
|              | at all. A Telone C35 application, along |            |
|              | with a herbicide mix (e.g. clomazone +  |            |
|              | metolachlor) applied at bed formation,  |            |
|              | has been identified by the Florida      |            |
|              | Fruit and Vegetable Association as the  |            |
|              | recommended best MB alternative outside |            |
|              | karst geology areas. Although           |            |
|              | promising, this alternative will        |            |
|              | require further testing and validation  |            |
|              | on commercial fields.                   |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| 1,3          | Trials in tomato have shown             | No         |
| dichl        | inconsistent efficacy of this           |            |
| oropropene + | formulation against fungal pests,       |            |
| Metam-sodium | though it is generally better than      |            |
|              | metam-sodium alone (Csinos et al.       |            |
|              | 1999). Low efficacy in even small-plot  |            |
|              | trials indicates that this is not a     |            |
|              | technically feasible alternative for    |            |
|              | commercially produced peppers at this   |            |
|              | time. In addition, 1,3-D's use is       |            |
|              | prohibited due to groundwater           |            |
|              | contamination in all pepper growing     |            |
|              | areas with karst geology, estimated to  |            |
|              | be about 40% in of FL pepper area in    |            |
|              | 2002. In Dade County 100% of pepper     |            |
|              | acreage is affected by this limitation. |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Fumigant     | Current research suggests that in areas | Yes        |
| c            | of low pest pressure this combination   |            |
| ombination + | may be suitable for some growers as an  |            |
| herbicide    | alternative for methyl bromide. In      |            |
| partners     | these situations growers may employ a   |            |
|              | marginal strategy without major         |            |
|              | economic dislocation if given a         |            |
|              | reasonable time frame for the           |            |
|              | transition                              |            |
+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and
  Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective
  as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780356 .anchor}

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

**[Florida -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780218 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| #### H             | For nutsedges: potential crop injury; plant     |
| alosulfuron-methyl | back restrictions. Efficacy is lowered in rainy |
|                    | conditions (which are common in this region).   |
|                    | Also, a 24-month plant back restriction may     |
|                    | cause significant economic disruption if        |
|                    | growers must rely on this control option.       |
|                    | Halosulfuron is registered for use in row       |
|                    | middles only.                                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Glyphosate         | For nutsedges: Non-selective; will not control  |
|                    | nutsedge in the plant rows; does not provide    |
|                    | residual control                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Paraquat           | For nutsedges: Non-selective; will not control  |
|                    | nutsedge in the plant rows; does not provide    |
|                    | residual control. Another weed, nightshade, has |
|                    | shown resistance to paraquat, a dangerous       |
|                    | development since this plant serves as a        |
|                    | reservoir for many insects (e.g., whiteflies),  |
|                    | that are vectors of pepper diseases (Aerts,     |
|                    | 2004)                                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

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

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

#  Since methyl bromide has been used effectively to manage minor crop production, there are limited pesticide alternatives due primarily to the small market share and the high cost associated with pesticide registration. Labeling of these products in minor crops could be more expensive than returns from potential sales, and therefore pesticide manufactures have been reluctant to register pesticides for minor crop uses. Methyl bromide will be needed until a cost-effective alternative regimen is in place. 

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780357
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Florida -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780219 .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          | Pre-plant soil fumigant. Not | Yes           | Unknown  |
| odomethane | registered yet               |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Triflo     | Herbicide - recently         | No            | Unknown  |
| xysulfuron | registered for tomato in FL  |               |          |
| sodium     | only. Crop injury potential  |               |          |
|            | exist                        |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| F          | Not registered on peppers    | No            | Unknown  |
| osthiazate |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Furfural   | Not registered               | No            | Unknown  |
| (M         |                              |               |          |
| ultigard) |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Not registered. No           | No            | Unknown  |
| azide      | registration application     |               |          |
|            | received.                    |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Not registered. No           | No            | Unknown  |
| bromide    | registration application     |               |          |
|            | received.                    |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| *Pa        | Biological nematicide; not   | Yes           | Unknown  |
| ecilomyces | registered                   |               |          |
| lilacinus* |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| > Muscador | > Registration package has   | > Yes         | Re       |
| > albus    | > been received.             |               | gistered |
| > Strain   |                              |               | but not  |
| > QST      |                              |               | yet for  |
| > 20799    |                              |               | sale in  |
|            |                              |               | the U.S. |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
  Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
  for which It Is Being
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780358
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Florida - Table 16.1. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato (Locascio et al.
1997)]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780220
.anchor}**[-]{.smallcaps}** )

+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Chemicals**  | **Rate     | **Average  | **Average  | **% Yield  |
|                | (kg/ha)**  | Nutsedge   | Marketable | Loss       |
|                |            | Density**  | Yield**    | (compared  |
|                |            |            |            | to MB)**   |
|                |            | **         | **         |            |
|                |            | (#/m^2^)** | (ton/ha)** |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ## Untre       | \-         | 300 ^ab^   | 20.1 ^a^   | 59.1       |
| ated (control) |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **MB + Pic     | 390 kg     | 90 ^c^     | 49.1 ^b^   | \-\--      |
| (67-33),       |            |            |            |            |
| chi            |            |            |            |            |
| sel-injected** |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **1,3 D + Pic  | 327 l      | 340 ^a^    | 34.6 ^c^   | 29.5       |
| (83-17),       |            |            |            |            |
| chi            |            |            |            |            |
| sel-injected** |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Metam Na,    | 300 l      | 320 ^a^    | 22.6 ^a^   | 54.0       |
| Flat           |            |            |            |            |
| Fumigation**   |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Metam Na,    | 300 l      | 220 ^b^    | 32.3 ^c^   | 34.2       |
| drip           |            |            |            |            |
| irrigated**    |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

***Notes*:** (1) Numbers followed by the same letter (within a column)
are not significantly different at the 0.05

level of probability, using Duncan's multiple range test.

\(2\) Data shown are from the Gainesville/Horticultural Unit site, 1994
season (this was one of three

sites included in this study). This site had relatively high nutsedge
pressure, and data for both

pest pressure and marketable yields for all treatments shown.

All fumigants were injected 15-20 cm deep, with three chisels per bed,
30 cm apart

Locascio et al. (1997) studied MB alternatives on tomatoes grown in
small plots at two Florida locations with high nutsedge infestation. The
data from the tomato study are being cited because pepper data are not
available.

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

**[Florida -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780221 .anchor}

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| #               | ##### [         | ##### [Ra       | **[Best         |
| #### [Alternati | List Type of Pe | nge of Yield Lo | Estimate of     |
| ve]{.smallcaps} | st]{.smallcaps} | ss]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                 |                 |                 | Loss            |
|                 |                 |                 | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1,3             | Nutsedges,      | 20 - 100        | 29              |
| di              | fungal          |                 |                 |
| chloropropene + | pathogens       |                 |                 |
| chloropicrin    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Metam-sodium    | Nutsedges,      | 30 - 55         | 44              |
| (with or        | fungal          |                 |                 |
| without         | pathogens       |                 |                 |
| chloropicrin)   |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Over     |                 |                 | **29 % if 1,3   |
| all Loss Estima |                 |                 | D + pic is      |
| te for All Alte |                 |                 | used; 44 % if   |
| rnatives to Pes |                 |                 | metam-sodium is |
| ts]{.smallcaps} |                 |                 | used**          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
  Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780359 .anchor}

  Iodomethane is being considered for registration as a methyl bromide
  replacement. Its registration date is not known. Please refer to Table
  15.1 for details.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Florida- 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop |
| which Avoid the Need for Methyl                                       |
| Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780360 .anchor}       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The U.S. EPA is unaware of large- scale, commercial greenhouse        |
| operations for peppers or other technologies that could reduce methyl |
| bromide use. There may be local or small community organic or         |
| hothouse pepper production that targets fresh market and/or temporal  |
| (seasonal) sectors[.]{.smallcaps}                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Grafting has not been evaluated for vegetable production due to the   |
| high cost and the large number of plants that would be needed. In     |
| addition this alternative is primarily used for nematode and plant    |
| pathogen management, but there is no evidence that it applies to      |
| competition from weeds. Plug plants are extensively used on high      |
| value vegetable crops like pepper but they do not control competition |
| from nutsedges.                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Florida - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.smallcaps}            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

In addition, labeling of 1,3-dichloropropene products restricts its use
in key pepper growing areas of the U.S. where karst geology exists due
to ground-water contamination concerns. In areas where
1,3-dichloropropene use is allowed, set back restrictions and a 28 day
waiting periods, at the maximum label rate, between application and
planting cause delays/adjustments in production schedules that could
lead to missing specific market windows, thus reducing profits on pepper
crops. For example, peppers produced during the winter fetch a higher
price than peppers produced during warmer months, and many growers rely
on this price premium to maintain profitability.

Metam sodium provides limited and erratic performance at suppressing all
major solanaceous pathogens and pests. Data indicate that metam sodium
is not an effective alternative to methyl bromide for nutsedge control
in bell pepper fields (Webster et al. (2002). A 14-30 day planting delay
is also recommended for this chemical. In addition there is evidence
that both 1,3-dichloropropene and methyl isothiocynate (the breakdown
product of metam sodium) levels decline more rapidly, thus further
compromising efficacy, in areas where these are repeatedly applied
(Smelt et al. 1989, Ou et al. 1995, Gamliel et al. 2003). This is due to
enhanced degradation of these chemicals by soil microbes (Dungan and
Yates 2003).

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

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

Research on the effectiveness of non-chemical alternatives to methyl
bromide is still in a preliminary stage, particularly for high value,
minor-use crops.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [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___Toc125780363
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

#### [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 Growers have switched from From 2 % to 33 %             No
  reduction methods are     use HDPE tarps.        a 98% MB formulation to a                               
  presently                                        67 % formulation. Between                               
  adopted?]{.smallcaps}**                          1997 and 2001, the U.S.                                 
                                                   has achieved a 36 %                                     
                                                   reduction in use rates.                                 

  **[What further           Research is underway   A 50 % MB formulation is   A 50 % MB formulation is     The U.S. anticipates that
  use/emission reduction    to develop use in      being tested in Michigan   being tested in Michigan     the decreasing supply of
  steps will be taken for   commercial production  pepper fields. A similar   pepper fields. A similar     methyl bromide will motivate
  the methyl bromide used   systems                formulation was tested in  formulation was tested in    growers to try less frequent
  for critical                                     Florida and found to be    Florida and found to be      applications.
  uses?]{.smallcaps}**                             ineffective.               ineffective.                 

  **[Other                  Examination of         Measures adopted in        Measures adopted in Michigan Unknown
  measures]{.smallcaps}**   promising but          Michigan will likely be    will likely be used in the   
  *(please describe)*       presently unregistered used in the other regions  other regions when fungi are 
                            alternative fumigants  when fungi are the only    the only key pests involved  
                            and herbicides, alone  key pests involved                                      
                            or in combination with                                                         
                            non-chemical methods,                                                          
                            is planned in all                                                              
                            regions (Please see                                                            
                            Section 17 for each                                                            
                            region for details)                                                            
  ------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[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___Toc125780364 .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 MB. The use of MB in the     |
| growing of peppers in the United States is minimized in several ways. |
| First, because of its toxicity, MB has, for the last 40 years, been   |
| regulated as a restricted use pesticide in the United States. As a    |
| consequence, MB can only be used by certified applicators who are     |
| trained at handling these hazardous pesticides. In practice, this     |
| means that MB is applied by a limited number of very experienced      |
| applicators with the knowledge and expertise to minimize dosage to    |
| the lowest level possible to achieve the needed results. In keeping   |
| with both local requirements to avoid "drift" of methyl bromide into  |
| inhabited areas, as well as to preserve MB and keep related emissions |
| to the lowest level possible, MB application for cucurbits is most    |
| often machine injected into soil to specific depths.                  |
|                                                                       |
| As MB has become scarce, users in the United States have, where       |
| possible, experimented with different mixes of MB and chloropicrin.   |
| Specifically, in the early 1990s, MB was typically sold and used in   |
| MB mixtures made up of 92% MB and 2% chloropicrin, with the           |
| chloropicrin being included solely to give the chemical a smell       |
| enabling those in the area to be alerted if there was a risk.         |
| However, with the outset of very significant controls on MB, users    |
| have been experimenting with significant increases in the level of    |
| chloropicrin and reductions in the level of MB. While these new       |
| mixtures have generally been effective at controlling target pests,   |
| at low to moderate levels of infestation, it must be stressed that    |
| the long-term efficacy of these mixtures is unknown.                  |
|                                                                       |
| Tarpaulin (high density polyethylene) is also used to minimize use    |
| and emissions of MB. In addition, pepper growers utilize cultural     |
| practices.                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Reduced MB concentrations in mixtures, cultural practices, and the    |
| extensive use of tarpaulins to cover land treated with MB has         |
| resulted in reduced emissions and an application rate that we believe |
| is among the lowest in the world for the uses described in this       |
| nomination.                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

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

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **21. [Operating]{.smallcaps} [Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl
  Bromide Over 3-Year
  Period]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780366
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 21.1: Peppers -- Operating Costs of Alternatives Compared to
Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780225
.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)*

  Florida                                                                                           

  Methyl Bromide                  100%                        \$20,341           \$20,341           \$20,341

  1,3-D + Chloropicrin            71%                         \$18,510           \$18,510           \$18,510

  Metam-Sodium                    56%                         \$16,999           \$16,999           \$16,999

  Georgia                                                                                           

  Methyl Bromide                  100%                        \$28,623           \$28,623           \$28,623

  1,3-D + Chloropicrin            71%                         \$25,790           \$25,790           \$25,790

  Metam-Sodium                    56%                         \$23,598           \$23,598           \$23,598

  Michigan                                                                                          

  Methyl Bromide                  100%                        \$23,938           \$23,938           \$23,938

  1,3-D + Chloropicrin            94%                         \$25,607           \$25,607           \$25,607

  Southeast USA                                                                                     

  Methyl Bromide                  100%                        \$18,758           \$18,758           \$18,758

  1,3-D + Chloropicrin            71%                         \$18,844           \$18,844           \$18,844

  Metam-Sodium                    56%                         \$16,731           \$16,731           \$16,731
  ------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

*\* As percentage of typical or 3-year average yield, compared to methyl
bromide e.g. 10% more yield, write 110.*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **22. [Gross and Net
  Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780367
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 22.1: [Peppers -- Year 1, 2, and 3 Gross and Net
Revenues]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc125780226 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #### [Year 1,         |                       |                      |
| 2, and 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)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Florida               |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$29,498              | \$9,158              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-D + Chloropicrin  | \$20,944              | \$2,433              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam-Sodium          | \$16,519              | \$(479)              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Georgia               |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$35,176              | \$6,553              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-D + Chloropicrin  | \$24,975              | \$(816)              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam-Sodium          | \$19,698              | \$(3,900)            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Michigan              |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$24,056              | \$118                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-D + Chloropicrin  | \$20,916              | \$(2,994)            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Southeastern USA      |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$30,579              | \$11,822             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-D + Chloropicrin  | \$21,711              | \$2,867              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam-Sodium          | \$17,124              | \$393                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

Note: Year 1 equals year 2 and 3.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780368 .anchor}

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

**[Florida Pepper - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780227 .anchor}

  -------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- --------------------------------
  **florida pepper**               **[Methyl                **[1, 3-D +                   **[Metam-Sodium]{.smallcaps}**
                                   Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   Chloropicrin]{.smallcaps}**   

  **[Yield Loss (%)]{.smallcaps}** 0%                       29%                           44%

  **[Yield per                     2,922                    2,074                         1,636
  Hectare]{.smallcaps}**                                                                  

  **[\* Price per Unit             \$10                     \$10                          \$10
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare   \$29,498                 \$20,944                      \$16,519
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare \$20,341                 \$18,510                      \$16,999
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare     \$9,158                  \$2,433                       \$(479)
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

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

  **[1. Loss per Hectare           \$0                      \$6,724                       \$9,637
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of       \$0                      \$45                          \$64
  Methyl Bromide                                                                          
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of    0%                       23%                           33%
  Gross Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                        

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of    0%                       73%                           105%
  Net Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                          

  **[5. Profit Margin              31%                      12%                           -3%
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                      
  -------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- --------------------------------

**[Georgia Pepper - Table E.2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780228 .anchor}

  -------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Georgia pepper**               **[Methyl                **[1, 3-D +                   **[Metam-Sodium]{.smallcaps}**
                                   Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   Chloropicrin]{.smallcaps}**   

  **[Yield Loss (%)]{.smallcaps}** 0%                       29%                           44%

  **[Yield per                     4,440                    3,152                         2,486
  Hectare]{.smallcaps}**                                                                  

  **[\* Price per Unit             \$8                      \$8                           \$8
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare   \$35,176                 \$24,975                      \$19,698
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare \$28,623                 \$25,790                      \$23,598
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare     \$6,553                  \$(816)                       \$(3,900)
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

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

  **[1. Loss per Hectare           \$0                      \$7,368                       \$10,453
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of       \$0                      \$49                          \$70
  Methyl Bromide                                                                          
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of    0%                       21%                           30%
  Gross Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                        

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of    0%                       112%                          160%
  Net Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                          

  **[5. Profit Margin              19%                      -3%                           -20%
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                      
  -------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- --------------------------------

**[Michigan Pepper- Table E.3: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780229 .anchor}

  --------------------------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------------
  **michigan pepper**                     **[Methyl                **[1, 3-D +
                                          Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   Chloropicrin]{.smallcaps}**

  **[Yield Loss (%)]{.smallcaps}**        0%                       6%

  **[Yield per Hectare]{.smallcaps}**     4,530                    4,258

  **[\* Price per Unit                    \$5                      \$5
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                            

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare          \$24,056                 \$20,916
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                            

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare        \$23,938                 \$25,607
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                            

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare            \$118                    \$(4,690)
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                            

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

  **[1. Loss per Hectare                  \$0                      \$4,808
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                            

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl       \$0                      \$40
  Bromide (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                    

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross     0%                       20%
  Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                       

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of Net       0%                       100%
  Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                       

  **[5. Profit Margin (%)]{.smallcaps}**  0%                       -22%
  --------------------------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------------

**[Southeastern USA (except Georgia) Pepper - Table E.4: Economic
Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780230 .anchor}

  -------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Southeastern USA (Except       **[Methyl                **[1, 3-D +                   **[Metam-Sodium]{.smallcaps}**
  Georgia) pepper**                Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   Chloropicrin]{.smallcaps}**   

  **[Yield Loss (%)]{.smallcaps}** 0%                       29%                           44%

  **[Yield per                     3,707                    2,632                         2,076
  Hectare]{.smallcaps}**                                                                  

  **[\* Price per Unit             \$8                      \$8                           \$8
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare   \$30,579                 \$21,711                      \$17,124
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare \$18,758                 \$18,844                      \$16,731
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare     \$11,822                 \$2,867                       \$393
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

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

  **[1. Loss per Hectare           \$0                      \$8,954                       \$11,429
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of       \$0                      \$60                          \$76
  Methyl Bromide                                                                          
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of    0%                       29%                           37%
  Gross Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                        

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of    0%                       76%                           97%
  Net Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                          

  **[5. Profit Margin              39%                      13%                           2%
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                      
  -------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- --------------------------------

######### Summary of Economic Feasibility

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

#  {#section-9}

# Michigan

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

## 1. Yield Loss

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

### 2. Missed Market Windows

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

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

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

# Florida

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

# Georgia

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

# Southeastern USA Except Georgia

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

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy       |
| Alternatives for This                                                 |
| Crop?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780371 .anchor}          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 peppers |
| research will require 2844 kg per year of methyl bromide for 2005 and |
| 2006. This amount of methyl bromide is necessary to conduct research  |
| on alternatives and is in addition to the amounts requested in the    |
| submitted CUE applications. One example of the research is a field    |
| study testing the comparative performance of methyl bromide, host     |
| resistance, cultural practices, pest management approaches for        |
| control of root-knot nematodes. Another example is a five year field  |
| study comparing methyl bromide to 1,3-D combined with biologically    |
| based materials including transplant treatments for control of weeds, |
| root-knot nematodes and soil borne fungal pathogens.                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the  |
| Critical Use in the                                                   |
| Future?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780372 .anchor}        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| See Section 23 above.                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| For further details regarding the transition plans for this sector    |
| please consult the national management strategy.                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[25. Additional Comments on the                                     |
| Nomination?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780373 .anchor}    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| New data used in this CUN                                             |
|                                                                       |
| 1\. Southeastern states, including Georgia                            |
|                                                                       |
| New data on potential MB alternatives for use on peppers were         |
| submitted by the Georgia and Southeast U.S. Peppers Consortium.       |
| Results of a small plot field study conducted in Tifton, Georgia by   |
| Culpepper and Langston (2004) show that 1,3-D + chloropicrin,         |
| followed by more chloropicrin, was more effective than MB against     |
| yellow nutsedge, but less effective against purple nutsedge. Although |
| this treatment performed as well as MB in terms of spring crop yield, |
| its fall yield performance was inferior to that of MB. In a second    |
| treatment, 1,3-D by itself, followed by chloropicrin, was             |
| significantly less effective than methyl bromide for the control of   |
| both purple and yellow nutsedge, but as effective as MB for the       |
| control soil nematodes. In terms of spring and fall pepper yield,     |
| however, this treatment performed as well as MB. In a third           |
| treatment, 1,3-D + chloropicrin, followed by metam sodium, was as     |
| effective as MB against yellow nutsedge, 36% less effective than MB   |
| against purple nutsedge, and as effective as MB for the control of    |
| soil nematodes. This treatment also performed as well as MB in terms  |
| of both spring and fall pepper yield. Although these combinations are |
| showing promise, they will require further testing and validation.    |
|                                                                       |
| Ongoing research at University of Florida includes various techniques |
| with existing chemical alternatives as well as the development of new |
| chemistries, such as propargyl bromide, a compound with reduced risk. |
| The efficacy of pre plant herbicides and soil-applied fumigants       |
| depends on the physical, chemical and biological properties of the    |
| soil. The depth of the incorporation could play a critical role in    |
| the efficacy of a given chemical alternative, because of the changes  |
| in soil humidity, microbial activity, and temperature. These changes  |
| could alter the chemistry of the applied chemicals.                   |
|                                                                       |
| In addition, the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association has been     |
| screening, as stand-alone MB replacements, 1,3-D, chloropicrin, metam |
| sodium, and dazomet evaluated against 98:2 and 67:33 MB +             |
| chloropicrin formulations at the maximum allowable label rate at      |
| multiple locations. Results indicate that the best alternatives will  |
| likely include a pre-plant application of 1,3-D + chloropicrin,       |
| followed by an application of chloropicrin injected into the raised   |
| bed and a herbicide mix applied to the raised bed at plastic laying.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[26. Citations]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780374 .anchor}

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

Aerts, M. 2003. Asst. Director, Environmental and Pest Management
Division, FFVA (Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association). Personal
Communication with G. Tomimatsu, U.S. EPA, December 2, 2003.

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

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

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

Banks, H. J. 2002. [2002 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee, 2002 Assessment.]{.underline} P. 46.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Culpepper A.S. and D.B. Langston. 2004. Fumigant/herbicide combinations.
Unpublished report. University of Georgia, Tifton.

Csinos, A.S., D.R. Sumner, R.M. McPherson, C. Dowler, C.W. Johnson, and
A.W. Johnson. 1999. Alternatives for methyl bromide fumigation of
tobacco seed beds, pepper, and tomato seedlings. Proc. Georgia Veg.
Conf. Available on the Web at
http://www.tifton.uga.edu/veg/Publications/Gfvga99.pdf

Dowler, C. C. 1999. Herbicide activity of metham, methyl iodide, and
methyl bromide applied through irrigation systems. Proc. Southern Weed
Sci. Soc. 52: 77 -- 78.

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

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

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

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

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

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

# Gevens, A., and M. K. Hausbeck. 2003. *Phytophthora capsici* in irrigation water and isolation of *P. capsici* from snap beans in Michigan. Michigan State Univ. Vegetable Crop Advisory Team Alert Vol. 18 (19). Available on the Web at [**www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT03_veg/V09-24-03.htm**](http://www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT03_veg/V09-24-03.htm).

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

Hausbeck, M.K. and B.D. Cortright. 2003. Evaluation of fumigants for
managing *Phytophthora* crown and fruit rot of solanaceous and cucurbit
crops, plot two, 2003. Unpublished study (MI CUE \# 03-0061).

Horowitz, M. 1972. Effects of desiccation and submergence on the
viability of rhizome fragments of bermudagrass, johnsongrass, and tubers
of nutsedge. Israel J. Agric. Res. 22(4):215-220.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noling, J. W. 2003. University of Florida-Lake Alfred. Personal
Communication with G. Tomimatsu. <Jwn@lal.ufl.edu>. 11/25/2003.

Noling, J.W., E. Rosskopf, and D.L. Chellemi. 2000. Impacts of
alternative fumigants on soil pest control and tomato yield. Proc.
Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions. Available on the web at
[*http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro00.html*](http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro98.html).

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

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

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

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

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

Schaetzl, R.J. and D.M. Tomczak. 2001. Wintertime temperatures in the
fine-textured soils of

> the Saginaw Valley, Michigan. The Great Lake Geographer, 8(2):87-99.
>
> <http://geography.ssc.uwo.ca/great_lakes_geographer/GLG_volume8/Schaetzl_Tomczak.pdf>

Smelt, J.H., S.J.H. Crum, and W. Teinissen. 1989. Accelerated
transformation of the fumigant methyl isocyanate in soil after repeated
application of metam sodium. J. Environ. Sci. Health B24: 437-455.

Stall, W.M. and J. Morales-Payan. 2000. The critical period of nutsedge
interference in tomato. S.W. Florida Research & Education Center.
Available on the web at
[www.imok.ufl.edu/liv/groups/IPM/weed_con/nutsedge.htm](http://www.imok.ufl.edu/liv/groups/IPM/weed_con/nutsedge.htm)

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 1998. Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) 1998 assessment of alternatives to
methyl bromide. p.49.

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

<http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/imagemap/nemmap/ent156html/204NEM/CHEM/XTELCHRT>

U.S. EPA. 2002. Peppers-Field. Peppers Grown Outdoors on Plastic Mulch.
CUN2003/058

Verhagen, C., G. Lebbink, and J. Bloem. 1996. Enhanced biodegradation of
the nematicides 1,3-dichloropropene and methyl isothiocyanate in a
variety of soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 28:1753--1756.

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

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

Wilen, C. A., M. E. McGiffen, and C. L. Elmore. 2003. Nutsedge:
Integrated Pest Management for Home Gardeners and Landscape
Professionals. University of California IPM Publication \# 4732.
Available on the Web at
[www.ipm.ucdavis.edu](http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/).

**APPENDIX A. 2008 Methyl Bromide Usage Newer Numerical Index
(BUNNI***).*[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125780232 .anchor}

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.495833333333334in"
height="6.215972222222222in"}

**Footnotes for Appendix A:**

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

1.  **[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.

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

3.  **[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.

4.  **[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.

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

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

7.  **[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.

8.  **[Quarantine and Pre-Shipment Removed?]{.underline}** -- This
    indicates whether the Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares
    subject to QPS treatments were removed from the nomination.

9.  **[Most Likely Combined Impacts (%)]{.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.

10. **[(%) Karst geology]{.underline}** -- Percent karst geology 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 geology.

11. **[(%) 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.

12. **[(%) 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.

13. **[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.

14. **[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.

15. **[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.

16. **[Total 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
    geology, 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 geology.

17. **[Most Likely Baseline Transition]{.underline}** -- Most Likely
    Baseline Transition amount was determined by the DELPHI process and
    was calculated by determining the maximum share of industry that can
    transition to existing alternatives.

18. **[(%) Able to Transition]{.underline}** -- Maximum share of
    industry that can transition

19. **[Minimum \# of Years Required]{.underline}** -- The minimum number
    of years required to achieve maximum transition.

20. **[(%) Able to Transition per Year]{.underline}** -- The Percent
    Able to Transition per Year is the percent able to transition
    divided by the number of years to achieve maximum transition.

21. **[EPA Adjusted Use Rate]{.underline}** - Use rate is the lower of
    requested use rate for 2008 or the historic average use rate or is
    determined by MBTOC recommended use rate reductions.

22. **[EPA Adjusted Strip Dosage Rate]{.underline}** -- The dosage rate
    is the use rate within the strips for strip / bed fumigation.

23. **[2008 Amount of Request]{.underline}** -- The 2008 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.

24. **[EPA Preliminary Value]{.underline}** -- The EPA Preliminary Value
    is the lowest of the requested amount from 2005 through 2008 with
    MBTOC accepted adjustments (where necessary) included in the
    preliminary value.

25. **[EPA Baseline Adjusted Value]{.underline}** -- The EPA Baseline
    Adjusted Value has been adjusted for MBTOC adjustments, QPS, Double
    Counting, Growth, Use Rate/ Strip Treatment, Miscellaneous
    adjustments, MBTOC recommended Low Permeability Film Transition
    adjustment, and Combined Impacts.

26. **[EPA Transition Amount]{.underline}** -- The EPA Transition Amount
    is calculated by removing previous transition amounts since
    transition was introduced in 2007 and removing the amount of the
    percent (%) Able to Transition per Year multiplied by the EPA
    Baseline Adjusted Value.

27. **[Most Likely Impact Value]{.underline}** -- The qualified amount
    of the initial request after all adjustments have been made given in
    total kilograms of nomination, total hectares of nomination, and
    final use rate of nomination.

28. **[Sector Research Amount]{.underline}** -- The total U.S. amount of
    methyl bromide needed for research purposes in each sector.

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