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

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

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

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

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

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

  Title:                   Division Director

  Address:                 Biological and Economic Analysis Division

                           Office of Pesticide Programs

                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                           Mail Code 7503C

                           Washington, DC 20460

                           U.S.A.

  Telephone:               \(703\) 308-3099

  Fax:                     \(703\) 308-8090

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

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

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

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

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

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

***Table of Contents***

[[Part A: Summary]{.smallcaps} 5](#part-a-summary)

[1. Nominating Party 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65591249)

[2. Descriptive Title of Nomination 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65591250)

[3. Crop and Summary of Crop System 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65591251)

[4. Methyl Bromide Nominated 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65591252)

[5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
6](#__RefHeading___Toc65591253)

[6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible
8](#__RefHeading___Toc65591254)

[7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
8](#__RefHeading___Toc65591255)

[8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
10](#__RefHeading___Toc65591256)

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

[Ornamentals - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
11](#__RefHeading___Toc65591258)

[Ornamentals - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65591259)

[Ornamentals - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
16](#__RefHeading___Toc65591260)

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

[Ornamentals - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
17](#__RefHeading___Toc65591262)

[Ornamentals - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 22](#__RefHeading___Toc65591263)

[Ornamentals - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration
Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65591264)

[Ornamentals - 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 23](#__RefHeading___Toc65591265)

[Ornamentals - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
26](#__RefHeading___Toc65591266)

[Ornamentals - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
27](#__RefHeading___Toc65591267)

[Ornamentals - Summary of Technical Feasibility
27](#ornamentals---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps} 28](#part-d-emission-control)

[19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide
Use and Emissions in the Particular Use 28](#__RefHeading___Toc65591270)

[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used,
or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons 28](#__RefHeading___Toc65591271)

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

[21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65591273)

[22. Gross and Net Revenue 30](#__RefHeading___Toc65591274)

[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
31](#__RefHeading___Toc65591275)

[Summary of Economic Feasibility 32](#summary-of-economic-feasibility)

[[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps} 35](#part-f.-future-plans)

[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This Crop? 35](#__RefHeading___Toc65591278)

[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future? 36](#__RefHeading___Toc65591279)

[25. Additional Comments on the Nomination
36](#__RefHeading___Toc65591280)

[26. Citations 37](#__RefHeading___Toc65591281)

[[APPENDIX B. Summary of New Applicants]{.smallcaps}
42](#__RefHeading___Toc65591282)

[Appendix C -- Key Pests of Select Cut Flower Species
43](#__RefHeading___Toc65591283)

***List of Tables***

[*[Part A: Summary]{.smallcaps}* 5](#part-a-summary)

[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65591219)

[Table A.1: Executive Summary 7](#__RefHeading___Toc65591220)

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

[Ornamentals - Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for
Critical Use 10](#__RefHeading___Toc65591222)

[Table A.2: 2005 Sector Request\--Ornamentals
10](#__RefHeading___Toc65591223)

[Table A3: 2006 Sector Nomination\-- Ornamentals
11](#__RefHeading___Toc65591224)

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

[Ornamentals - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 11](#__RefHeading___Toc65591226)

[Ornamentals - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65591227)

[Ornamentals - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule -
Caladium 14](#__RefHeading___Toc65591228)

[Ornamentals - Table 11.3 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule -
Ranunculus 14](#__RefHeading___Toc65591229)

[Ornamentals - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
16](#__RefHeading___Toc65591230)

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

[Ornamentals -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
17](#__RefHeading___Toc65591232)

[Ornamentals -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion 22](#__RefHeading___Toc65591233)

[Ornamentals -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65591234)

[Ornamentals -- Ranunculus - Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives
-- Weeds 25](#__RefHeading___Toc65591235)

[Ornamentals -- Ranunculus -- Table 16.2: Effectiveness of Alternatives
-- Weeds 25](#__RefHeading___Toc65591236)

[Ornamentals -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
26](#__RefHeading___Toc65591237)

[*[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps}* 28](#part-d-emission-control)

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

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

[Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period 30](#__RefHeading___Toc65591241)

[Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65591242)

[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65591243)

[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65591244)

[California Nursery Roses - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives 31](#__RefHeading___Toc65591245)

[*[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps}* 35](#part-f.-future-plans)

[APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index (BUNI).
38](#__RefHeading___Toc65591247)

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[1. Nominating Party]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591249
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

  The United States of America
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[2. Descriptive Title of
  Nomination]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591250
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

  Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Cut
  Flower and Bulb Ornamentals Grown in Open Fields or in Protected
  Environments
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[3. Crop and Summary of Crop
  System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591251
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

In the United States cut flowers, cut foliage and bulb crops are grown
in open fields and under cover (including glass, poly, and saran). In
1997, eight percent of the ornamentals in the United States were grown
under cover and 92 percent were grown in the open. There are three basic
systems in place for ornamentals. Annuals are shallow rooted crops that
represent 50 to 60 percent of the industry. They are often planted to a
depth of 6 to 8 inches. Fumigants can be shanked into the preformed beds
or drip-applied from drip tapes placed on tops of beds under plastic
mulch. Bulb crops represent about 30 percent of the industry. Fumigants
are applied on the flat by deep shanking. Bedding up generally occurs
after planting the bulbs. Perennials are deep-rooted multi-year crops
and represent 10 to 20 percent of the industry in California. Fumigation
needs to penetrate to a depth of 2 to 3 feet and may require multi-level
shanking.

Methyl bromide is used in almost all saran house production -- snap
dragons, asters, gerbera daisies, mums, etc, as a broadcast solid tarp
treatment. It is used in field grown statice and gypsophila as an in-bed
treatment. In some gladiolus production, methyl bromide is used
broadcast solid tarp for increase of cormels and tissue culture stock
(Ragsdale, 2004).

This nomination is for multiple species (see Appendix A) but two species
will be used as examples when possible: caladiums and ranunculus.

Caladiums are grown in Florida on either sandy or muck soils. They are
planted from the middle of March until mid April. Caladiums are dug
annually from November until the middle of March. The rhizomes are
cleaned, graded, repacked, and stored until shipment to customers
throughout the world. Methyl bromide is applied in the short time period
between the end of harvest of one crop and the planting of the next.

Ranunculus are grown as annuals in the field. In fall, seeds are planted
on beds. Flowers are harvested in the spring and the tubers are
harvested in July and August. These tubers are used in landscaping and
planted in the fall (Elmore et al., 2003b).

Without methyl bromide, growers will suffer both yield and quality
losses. There is a need to control previous planted varieties to
eliminate contamination, as well as control other weeds and pathogens.
Some of the alternatives that have been found for other crops are not be
feasible for some floriculture crops because of high cost, difficulties
with quickly treating and replanting fields for multi-cropping, and
buffer zone requirements. In California, township caps limit the use of
1,3-D as an alternative. Although some alternatives have shown potential
to replace methyl bromide use in some situations, the in-field
feasibility of the alternatives for each of the major species of
ornamentals grown in the United States remains to be demonstrated. The
industry has made progress in reducing the use of methyl bromide and
additional research in ongoing. Additional time is needed to complete
the phase-out of methyl bromide in this sector due to the complexity of
production (numerous species, each with its own pests and implementation
issues).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[4. Methyl Bromide
  Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591252
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591219 .anchor}

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

  **2006**                 **230,856**             **578**
  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **5[. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591253
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

The U.S nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are
not suitable. In U.S. ornamental 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
    ornamental production.

-   Key target pests: the U.S. is only nominating a CUE where the key
    pest pressure is moderate to high.

-   Regulatory constraints: e.g., in some areas of the United States
    1,3-Dichloropropene use is limited due to township caps in
    California.

-   Delay in planting and harvesting: e.g., the plant-back interval for
    telone+chloropicrin is two weeks longer than methyl
    bromide+chloropicrin, and in the northern parts of the United States
    an additional delay would occur because soil temperature must be
    higher to fumigate with alternatives. Delays in planting and
    harvesting result in users missing key market windows, and adversely
    affect revenues through lower prices.

Overall, the ornamentals industry has hundreds of crop species and
thousands of varieties. This diversity makes finding methyl bromide
alternatives for each crop species complex, time consuming and costly
(Schneider, 2003).

As part of the overall ornamentals industry, the cut flower, foliage,
and bulb industry is very complex. For example, a single grower in
California may grow as many as 100 species and/or varieties in a single
year. Growers must find methyl bromide alternatives that will control
previous crops grown on the site, as well as a diversity of key pests,
which vary for each crop variety. For example, in ranunculus, residual
tubers, bulbs, and seeds from the previous crop must be killed because
they are reservoirs for nematodes and soil pathogens and considered to
be weeds themselves as they are off-variety. Along with these issues,
there are concerns about phytotoxicity and registration with alternative
chemicals (Schneider, 2003; Elmore et al., 2003b). Recent experiences
with iodomethane indicate that new chemistries can take several years to
be registered by the U.S. EPA and the state regulatory agencies, such as
California Department of Pesticide Regulation. In addition, township
caps in California restrict the amount of 1,3-Dichloropropene that can
be used in a given area (Trout, 2001). Buffer zones may also limit the
adoption of alternatives.

**[Table A.1: Executive
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[^1][]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591220 .anchor}

+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| ### Region                       | ***Ornamentals***                |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| ##### [A                         |                                  |
| mount of Nomination]{.smallcaps} |                                  |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms             | 230,856                          |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/ha)**     | 392                              |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Area (ha)**                    | 578                              |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| ##### [Amount o                  |                                  |
| f Applicant Request]{.smallcaps} |                                  |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| ####  2005 Kilograms             | 226,796                          |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/ha)**     | 392                              |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Area (ha)**                    | 578                              |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms             | 226,796                          |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/ha)**     | 392                              |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Area (ha)**                    | 578                              |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| #### [Economics]{.smallcaps}     |                                  |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Marginal Strategy**            | **Metam Sodium**                 |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| ####  Yield Loss (%)             | 20 %                             |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Loss per hectare (U.S.\$/ha)** | 4,980                            |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Loss per kg Methyl Bromide     | 11.11                            |
| (U.S.\$/kg)**                    |                                  |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Loss as % of Gross Revenue     | 19%                              |
| (%)**                            |                                  |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Loss as % of Net Revenue (%)** | 43%                              |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **6. [Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591254 .anchor}:

  In California, township caps for 1, 3-Dichloropropene limit the number
  of growers that are able to use 1,3-D + chloropicrin. Further, because
  the ornamentals industry is complex, time is needed to determine methyl
  bromide alternatives for all species and varieties grown, including
  determining whether there are any phytotoxicity issues from using
  methyl bromide alternatives (Schneider, 2003). Some of the alternatives
  that have been found for other crops are not feasible for floriculture
  because of their high cost, difficulties with quickly treating and
  replanting fields for multi-cropping, and/or buffer zone requirements
  (Elmore, 2003a). Ornamentals have a high value; as a result many
  manufacturers now avoid registering materials for ornamental crops
  because of liability due to potential phytotoxicity issues.

  **7. (*i*) [Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591255 .anchor}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   --                                                                  |
| ------------------------ --------------------- ---------------------- |
|   **                                                                  |
| [Region where Methyl     **[Total crop area    **[Proportion of total |
|   Br                                                                  |
| omide use is             (ha)]{.smallcaps}**   crop area treated with |
|   requested]{.smallcaps}**                         methyl bromide     |
|                                                    (%)]{.smallcaps}** |
|                                                                       |
|   **Ornamentals --           10,054                6.3%               |
|   California\***                                                      |
|                                                                       |
|   **Caladiums --             648                   85%                |
|   Florida\*\***                                                       |
|                                                                       |
|   **[Regional                10,702                11%                |
|   Total:]{.smallcaps}**                                               |
|                                                                       |
|   **[National                Not Available         Not Available      |
|   Total:]{.smallcaps}**                                               |
|   --                                                                  |
| ------------------------ --------------------- ---------------------- |
|                                                                       |
| > \* 2000 California Department of Pesticide Regulation Data          |
| >                                                                     |
| > \*\* Based on information from experts in Florida                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **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}**                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Given the number and diversity of species grown in the industry, there
are a number of reasons why methyl bromide is not used. Some crops have
been able to switch to alternatives. For example, growers in Oregon are
now using 1,3-Dichloropropene for Easter lilies. Also, some species may
not need methyl bromide, depending on their key pests and the ability to
use alternatives.

Growers are also maximizing their use of methyl bromide. Instead of
fumigating after each crop (more than once a year), producers may grow
several crops over 1 to 2 years on the same piece of land, using methyl
bromide only when necessary instead of after every crop, and thus
reducing the amount used. Cropping systems have been changed to allow
most sensitive crops to be planted immediately following a fumigation
followed by several other types of plants in decreasing sensitivity to
soil pathogens. Costs of fumigation alone made this a critical change in
cut flower production. In addition, some perennials may be grown for 5
to 25 years. Methyl bromide would only be used once during this cycle.

In this industry, the fumigation situation and need for methyl bromide
varies by species. Although there are some potential alternatives, there
is not enough grower experience for all crop species to switch to
alternatives at this time. One major difficulty is that market desires
require a high degree of flexibility in scheduling certain species and
new cultivars. Therefore, the information on the sensitivity of each
crop to fumigant alternatives as well as the pests is not known until
crops have been in production for at least a few cycles.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **7. (*iii*) [Would it be feasible to expand the use of these methods |
| to cover at least part of the crop that has requested use of methyl   |
| bromide? What changes would be necessary to enable                    |
| this?]{.smallcaps}**                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Not all of the above methods and alternatives being used are feasible |
| for other crops. However, the industry is working to find             |
| alternatives to methyl bromide.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Specifically, township caps in California limit the use of            |
| 1,3-Dichloropropene. Many of the crops are grown in coastal areas,    |
| where cut flowers are also grown. It is expected that about 30        |
| percent of the 2000 fumigated cut flower acres could not have used    |
| 1,3-D at the current 2X cap, which is expected to apply through at    |
| least 2006. This number would be higher with the standard (1X) caps.  |
| Affecting some rotations are plant back times, which can be 1 to 2    |
| weeks longer with 1,3-D. Combined regulatory and plant back           |
| limitations could restrict use of 1,3-D in California to less than 50 |
| percent of the current fumigated area (Trout, 2003; Ragsdale, 2004).  |
| In addition, an alternative that works for one crop species may not   |
| control the key pests of another species or it could be phytotoxic to |
| the other species. The industry needs additional time to complete     |
| ongoing research to find and implement alternatives for each species. |
| The industry needs plans to complete the transition by the end of     |
| 2006.                                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**8. [Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591256 .anchor}

**[Ornamentals - Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for
Critical Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591222 .anchor}

+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| # [Region:]{.smallcaps}                     | ##### Or  |           |
|                                             | namentals |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}   | **[2      | **[2      |
|                                             | 005]{.sma | 006]{.sma |
|                                             | llcaps}** | llcaps}** |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}   | 226,796   | 226,796   |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed          | Flat      | Flat      |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}                      | F         | F         |
|                                             | umigation | umigation |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of    | 67:33     | 67:33     |
| methyl bromide/Chloropicrin mixture)* [to   |           |           |
| be used for the CUE]{.smallcaps}            |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl   | 578       | 578       |
| bromide or methyl bromide/Chloropicrin      |           |           |
| formulation]{.smallcaps} *(m^2^ or ha)*     |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*  | 585       | 585       |
| [for the **formulation**]{.smallcaps}       |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*  | 392       | 392       |
| [for the **Active Ingredient**]{.smallcaps} |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)* [of   | 585       | 585       |
| **formulation** used to calculate requested |           |           |
| kg of methyl bromide]{.smallcaps}           |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)* [of   | 392       | 392       |
| **Active Ingredient** used to calculate     |           |           |
| requested kg of methyl bromide]{.smallcaps} |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+

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

**[Table A.2: 2005 Sector Request\--
Ornamental]{.smallcaps}**[^2][]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591223 .anchor}

  --------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------
  **2005                                               
  Ornamental                                           
  Sector                                               
  Request**                                            

  **Applicant     Requested Hectares (ha)              578
  Request**                                            

                  Requested Application Rate (kg/ha)   392

                  Requested Kilograms (kg)             226,796
  --------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------

**[Table A.3: 2006 Sector Nomination\--
Ornamentals]{.smallcaps}**[^3][]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591224 .anchor}

+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| ##           |                                    |                  |
| # 2006 Ornam |                                    |                  |
| entals Secto |                                    |                  |
| r Nomination |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **Applicant  | Requested Hectares (ha)            | 578              |
| Request**    |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Requested Application Rate (kg/ha) | 392              |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Requested Kilograms (kg)           | 226,796          |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **CUE        | Nominated Hectares (ha)            | 578              |
| Nominated**  |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Nominated Application Rate (kg/ha) | 392              |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Nominated Kilograms (kg)           | 226,796          |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **Sector     | Overall Reduction (%)              | 0%               |
| Nomination   |                                    |                  |
| Totals**     |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **2006 U.S. CUE Nomination (kg)**  | **226,796**      |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **Research Amount (kg)**           | **4060**         |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **Total U.S. Sector Nominated      | **230,856**      |
|              | Kilograms (kg)**                   |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Ornamentals - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591258 .anchor}

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

**[Ornamentals - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for
Methyl Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591226
.anchor}

  -------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------
  **[Region where methyl     **[Key disease(s) and   **[Specific reasons why methyl
  bromide use is             weed(s) to genus and,   bromide needed]{.smallcaps}\
  requested]{.smallcaps}**   if known, to species    ***(e.g. Effective herbicide
                             level]{.smallcaps}**    available, but not registered
                                                     for this crop; mandatory
                                                     requirement to meet
                                                     certification for disease
                                                     tolerance)*

  Ornamentals                All soil borne          Due to the diversity and
                             diseases, weeds, and    complexity of the cut flower
                             nematodes. Includes     and foliage industry, an
                             *Fusarium* spp.,        additional 4.5 years are needed
                             *Rhizoctonia* spp.,     to complete ongoing research
                             *Phytoplithora*,        into implementation of methyl
                             Stromatinia, *Pythium*  bromide alternatives and to
                             spp., and most soil     allow time for registering
                             nematodes i.e.          materials. Alternatives have
                             *Meliodogyne* spp., and not been found for all species.
                             previous crop           Some of the alternatives that
                             propagules. Specific    have been found for other crops
                             pest problems vary by   may not be feasible for
                             individual crop and     floriculture because of high
                             variety. See Appendix C cost, difficulties with quickly
                             for more detailed       treating and replanting fields
                             information.            for multi-cropping, township
                                                     caps, and buffer zone
                                                     requirements (Elmore et al.,
                                                     2003a).
  -------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Ornamentals - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping  |
| System and Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591259       |
| .anchor}                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| *(Place major attention on the key characteristics that affect the    |
| uptake of alternatives):*                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**[Ornamentals - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591227 .anchor}

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}    | ##                          |
|                                        | # [Ornamentals]{.smallcaps} |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.    | Cuttings, bulbs             |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or           |                             |
| cuttings)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                 | Annual and perennial        |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years      |                             |
| between replanting)*                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop                        | A California cut flower     |
| Rotation]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     | producer may grow more than |
| **[and use of methyl bromide for other | 20 ornamental species and   |
| crops in the rotation:]{.smallcaps}**  | hundreds of individual      |
| *(if any)*                             | varieties. Crops are grown  |
|                                        | in rotation on an 8 to 16   |
|                                        | week interval per year on   |
|                                        | the same parcel of land.    |
|                                        | Although species are        |
|                                        | rotated, the complex nature |
|                                        | of this crop makes a        |
|                                        | *typical* crop rotation     |
|                                        | difficult to identify.      |
|                                        | Instead, examples of two    |
|                                        | different types of rotation |
|                                        | will be described here.     |
|                                        |                             |
|                                        | In Florida, caladiums are   |
|                                        | planted between the middle  |
|                                        | of March and the middle of  |
|                                        | April each year. Caladiums  |
|                                        | are dug annually from       |
|                                        | November until the middle   |
|                                        | of March. The fields are    |
|                                        | fumigated between harvest   |
|                                        | and the next planting.      |
|                                        |                             |
|                                        | A more complex crop         |
|                                        | rotation system for a       |
|                                        | grower may involve several  |
|                                        | annuals. The first annual   |
|                                        | crop is planted and         |
|                                        | harvested 90 to 180 days    |
|                                        | later. A different species  |
|                                        | is planted immediately      |
|                                        | after the first harvest.    |
|                                        | Harvest follows             |
|                                        | approximately 90 to 180     |
|                                        | days later. A third crop is |
|                                        | then planted. Fumigation    |
|                                        | would occur when the        |
|                                        | production starts to        |
|                                        | decline, which may be an    |
|                                        | interval of one to two      |
|                                        | years.                      |
|                                        |                             |
|                                        | Most growers produce        |
|                                        | numerous species, including |
|                                        | annuals, perennials, and    |
|                                        | bulbs, throughout the farm. |
|                                        | The rotation involving all  |
|                                        | of these species would be   |
|                                        | more complex than the       |
|                                        | examples above.             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,  | All. For example, caladiums |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                     | are grown in central        |
|                                        | Florida, mostly on muck but |
|                                        | with new acreage on sand.   |
|                                        | Cut flowers in California   |
|                                        | are primarily produced in   |
|                                        | the coastal environment     |
|                                        | where nearly all types of   |
|                                        | soil are present.           |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide         | In general, once every year |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.      | although it may occur less  |
| every two years)*                      | often on a substantial      |
|                                        | portion of the acreage in   |
|                                        | this sector that produce    |
|                                        | perennials and gladiolus.   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                      | None identified.            |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

Tables 11.2 and 11.3 are examples of the characteristics of climate and
crop schedule for two species -- caladium and ranunculus. These
characteristics may vary for other species and other growing regions.

**[Ornamentals - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
-- Caladium (Florida)]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591228
.anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<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">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">9a – 11 Plant hardiness zone</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)*</span></em></td>
<td>65.5</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>72.6</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></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></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="even">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Harvesting
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></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>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> \* Date based on Tampa, Florida records for 1971--2000.

**[Ornamentals - Table 11.3 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
-- Ranunculus (California)]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591229
.anchor}

The ranunculus crop is different from other cut flower, foliage, and
bulb crops because they have two planting sequences to ensure long
season availability of the product. The first sequence occurs on a very
small percent of the acreage and used only to produce cut flowers. It
begins with land preparation in May followed by fumigation in June.
Planting occurs in June and July and flowers are harvested from
September through February. The main planting is used to produce both
cut flowers and bulbs. Land preparation occurs in August followed by
fumigation in September and October. Planting occurs from September
through December with harvesting of cut flowers occurring from February
through May (possibly into June in some years).

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<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">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul-1"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-1"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">9a – 11 Plant hardiness zone.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)*</span></em></td>
<td>16.0</td>
<td>72.1</td>
<td>17.3</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>Trace</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>Trace</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>44.7</td>
<td>56.9</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>30.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(C)*</em></span></td>
<td>14.4</td>
<td>14.8</td>
<td>20.8</td>
<td>25.7</td>
<td>30.3</td>
<td>27.4</td>
<td>25.1</td>
<td>18.4</td>
<td>13.4</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>10.3</td>
<td>10.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>Land prep</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X (very small area)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key Market
Window</span></strong></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\*Data for Jan-Aug, 2003 and Sep-Dec 2002 for Fresno, California.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Ornamentals --]{.smallcaps} 11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of the     |
| above characteristics in 11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake   |
| of any relevant alternatives?]{.smallcaps}**                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| [Caladium]{.underline}                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Caladiums are dug annually from November through March 15. The time   |
| frame between lifting the previous year's crop and planting the new   |
| crop is about 30 days, or possibly shorter when severe cold           |
| temperatures or unexpected rainfall occurs. Any product with a fallow |
| (post-treatment) time of 30 days or more will not work for this       |
| industry as fields must be planted before April 15 each year and      |
| cannot be prepared for planting until the middle of March.            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Ornamentals - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
  Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591260 .anchor}

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

**[Ornamentals - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591230 .anchor}

+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[For as many | **     | **1   | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| years as       | 1997** | 998** | 1999** | 2000** | 2001** | 2002** |
| possible as    |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| shown          |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| specify:]      |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| {.smallcaps}** |        |       |        |        |        |        |
+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Area        | 833    | 700   | 610    | 617    | 373    | 529    |
| Treated]       | (CA)   | (CA)  | (CA)   | (CA)   | (CA)   | (CA)   |
| {.smallcaps}** |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| *(hectares)*   |        |       |        |        |        |        |
+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[ratio of    | Nearly | N     | Nearly | Nearly | Nearly | Nearly |
| Flat           | all    | early | all    | all    | all    | all    |
| Fumigation     | Flat   | all   | Flat   | Flat   | Flat   | Flat   |
| methyl bromide | Fumi   | Flat  | Fumi   | Fumi   | Fumi   | Fumi   |
| use to         | gation | Fumig | gation | gation | gation | gation |
| strip/bed use  |        | ation |        |        |        |        |
| if strip       |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| treatment is   |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| used]          |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| {.smallcaps}** |        |       |        |        |        |        |
+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Amount of   | 2      | 23    | 1      | 1      | 98,896 | 1      |
| methyl bromide | 81,905 | 8,824 | 85,475 | 73,230 | (CA)   | 17,395 |
| active         | (CA)   | (CA)  | (CA)   | (CA)   |        | (CA)   |
| ingredient     |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| used]          |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| {.smallcaps}** |        |       |        |        |        |        |
|                |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| *(total kg)*   |        |       |        |        |        |        |
+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| *              | 67:33; | 6     | 67:33; | 67:33; | 67:33; | 67:33; |
| *[formulations | 98:2   | 7:33; | 98:2   | 98:2   | 98:2   | 98:2   |
| of methyl      |        | 98:2  |        |        |        |        |
| bromide]       |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| {.smallcaps}** |        |       |        |        |        |        |
|                |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| *(methyl       |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| bromide        |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| /              |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| chloropicrin)* |        |       |        |        |        |        |
+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Method by   | Ch     | Chi   | Ch     | Ch     | Ch     | Ch     |
| which methyl   | iseled | seled | iseled | iseled | iseled | iseled |
| bromide        | or     | or    | or     | or     | or     | or     |
| applied]       | s      | sh    | s      | s      | s      | s      |
| {.smallcaps}** | hanked | anked | hanked | hanked | hanked | hanked |
| *(e.g.         |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| injected at    |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| 25cm depth,    |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| hot gas)*      |        |       |        |        |        |        |
+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Application | 487    | 487   | 487    | 392 -- | 392 -- | 392 -  |
| rate of        | (FL)   | (FL)  | (FL)   | 448    | 448    | 448    |
| formulations   |        |       |        | (FL)   | (FL)   | (FL)   |
| i              |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| n]{.smallcaps} |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| kg/ha\***      |        |       |        |        |        |        |
+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Application | 338    | 340   | 304    | 281    | 264    | 222    |
| rate of Active | (CA)   | (CA)  | (CA)   | (CA)   | (CA)   | (CA)   |
| Ingredient     |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| i              |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| n]{.smallcaps} |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| kg/ha\***      |        |       |        |        |        |        |
+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Actual      | 487    | 487   | 487    | 392 -  | 392 -- | 392    |
| dosage rate of | (FL)   | (FL)  | (FL)   | 448    | 448    | -448   |
| formulations]  |        |       |        | (FL)   | (FL)   | (FL)   |
| {.smallcaps}** |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| *(             |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| g/m^2^)***[\*] |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| {.smallcaps}** |        |       |        |        |        |        |
+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Actual      | 338    | 340   | 304    | 281    | 264    | 222    |
| dosage rate of | (CA)   | (CA)  | (CA)   | (CA)   | (CA)   | (CA)   |
| Active         |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| Ingredient]    |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| {.smallcaps}** |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| *(             |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| g/m^2^)***[\*] |        |       |        |        |        |        |
| {.smallcaps}** |        |       |        |        |        |        |
+----------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

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

The California (CA) application rate includes both outdoor and
greenhouse use. The outdoor use rate is lower than the greenhouse rate.
For example, in 2002 the outdoor use rate was 178 kg/ha and the
greenhouse rate was 318 kg/ha. In Florida (FL), the higher rates tend to
be used on muck soils and the lower rates on sandy soils.

Growers are expected to use a 67:33 formulation in the future, although
this may vary depending on the crop grown and the pest situation. It is
not clear that a 50:50 formulation is feasible. In Florida, caladiums
are grown on muck and sandy soils. The majority are grown on muck soils,
which require a higher application rate because it is more difficult for
the fumigant to be distributed evenly in this soil type.

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Ornamentals - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591262 .anchor}

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

**[Ornamentals -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591232 .anchor}

+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| **[Name of   | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons  | **[Is the    |
| Al           | for the alternative not being feasible | alternative  |
| ternative]{. | or available]{.smallcaps}**            | considered   |
| smallcaps}** |                                        | cost         |
|              |                                        | e            |
|              |                                        | ffective?]{. |
|              |                                        | smallcaps}** |
+==============+========================================+==============+
| #            |                                        |              |
|  [Chemical A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-Dic      | Township caps are in place for 1,3-D   | No.          |
| hloropropene | that limit its use in California. Many |              |
|              | of the crops are grown in coastal      |              |
|              | areas, where cut flowers are also      |              |
|              | grown. It is expected that about 30    |              |
|              | percent of the 2000 fumigated cut      |              |
|              | flower acres could not have used 1,3-D |              |
|              | at the current 2X cap, which is        |              |
|              | expected to apply through at least     |              |
|              | 2006. This number would be higher with |              |
|              | the standard (1X) caps. Affecting some |              |
|              | rotations are plant back times, which  |              |
|              | can be 1 to 2 weeks longer with 1,3-D. |              |
|              | Combined regulatory and plant back     |              |
|              | limitations could restrict use of      |              |
|              | 1,3-D in California to less than 50    |              |
|              | percent of the current fumigated area  |              |
|              | (Trout, 2003; Ragsdale, 2004). In      |              |
|              | California, buffer zones of 100 to 300 |              |
|              | feet make using this alternative       |              |
|              | difficult because often flowers are    |              |
|              | produced on small parcels of land.     |              |
|              | 1,3-D cannot be used in greenhouses.   |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | For caladiums, chloropicrin was needed |              |
|              | in addition to 1,3-D to reach the same |              |
|              | yield as methyl bromide plus           |              |
|              | chloropicrin (Overman and Harbaugh,    |              |
|              | 1983). The plant-back window for       |              |
|              | caladiums is variable and the 1,3-D    |              |
|              | plant-back interval will limit use on  |              |
|              | some acres. In addition, caladium      |              |
|              | growers are reluctant to use 1,3-D     |              |
|              | because it does not control weeds.     |              |
|              | Growers also have to tarp 1,3-D and do |              |
|              | not have the equipment to do it        |              |
|              | themselves (they can apply metam       |              |
|              | sodium themselves) (Gilreath, 2004).   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Metam sodium | In California, buffer zones of 500     | No.          |
|              | feet make using this alternative       |              |
|              | difficult because flowers are produced |              |
|              | on small parcels of land. Also, this   |              |
|              | alternative is not labeled for         |              |
|              | greenhouse use in California. In       |              |
|              | addition, the plant back restrictions  |              |
|              | may cause some growers to be able to   |              |
|              | grow fewer crops in a year. Many years |              |
|              | of research have indicated difficulty  |              |
|              | achieving consistent efficacy with     |              |
|              | metam sodium on high value crops.      |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | Metam sodium is used by some growers   |              |
|              | of caladiums in rotation with methyl   |              |
|              | bromide, due to the expense of methyl  |              |
|              | bromide. Growers feel that they can    |              |
|              | use metam sodium if they used methyl   |              |
|              | bromide the previous year. The growers |              |
|              | that have tried using metam sodium 2   |              |
|              | years in a row had bad nematode        |              |
|              | infestations the second year and will  |              |
|              | now only use it once every 2 years.    |              |
|              | Most growers will not use metam sodium |              |
|              | because they must meet certification   |              |
|              | requirements (free of nematodes) for   |              |
|              | certain markets (several U.S. states   |              |
|              | and some international markets)        |              |
|              | (Gilreath, 2004).                      |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | This fumigant is currently used and    |              |
|              | will continue to be used where it      |              |
|              | gives adequate pest control. It is     |              |
|              | unlikely that metam sodium will        |              |
|              | replace significant portions of the    |              |
|              | current use of methyl bromide.         |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Dazomet      | In some cut flowers (carnation and     | No.          |
| (Basamid)    | chrysanthemum) dazomet was effective   |              |
|              | against *Fusarium*, *Rhizoctonia*,     |              |
|              | *Erwinia*, and *Pseudomonas.*          |              |
|              | Appropriate aeration times, which are  |              |
|              | dependent on soil temperature, are     |              |
|              | needed to avoid phytotoxicity (Semer,  |              |
|              | 1987). In addition, plant back         |              |
|              | restrictions may cause some growers to |              |
|              | be able to grow fewer crops in a year. |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Chloropicrin | Chloropicrin may not currently be used | No.          |
|              | in greenhouses in California. In       |              |
|              | California, buffer zones vary with     |              |
|              | county and condition in California.    |              |
|              | Buffer zones of 100 feet in sensitive  |              |
|              | areas make using this alternative      |              |
|              | difficult because flowers are produced |              |
|              | on small parcels of land. There is     |              |
|              | reluctance to use chloropicrin in many |              |
|              | areas due to the proximity of cut      |              |
|              | flower fields to residences. Several   |              |
|              | California counties impose large       |              |
|              | buffers (\>152 meters) and restrict    |              |
|              | rates to less than 224 kg/ha. Weed     |              |
|              | control is also poorer than with       |              |
|              | methyl bromide (Ragsdale, 2004).       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| MITC         | Same issues described above for metam  | No.          |
|              | sodium and dazomet.                    |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [No     |                                        |              |
| n Chemical A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| B            | Biofumigation is still largely in the  | No.          |
| iofumigation | experimental stages. (Pizano, 2001).   |              |
|              | Specific brassicas as well as specific |              |
|              | years yield variable amounts of        |              |
|              | activity. While this alternative may   |              |
|              | provide some control, the control of   |              |
|              | all target pests is not sufficient.    |              |
|              | Also, brassica waste must be available |              |
|              | in huge quantities to provide at best  |              |
|              | minor effects. The extremely large     |              |
|              | volume of raw material required makes  |              |
|              | this impractical.                      |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Solarization | Solarization takes several weeks to    | No.          |
|              | control many pests to a depth of 30    |              |
|              | cm. This length of time for a          |              |
|              | treatment is not economically feasible |              |
|              | in the intensive, year-round           |              |
|              | production situation of the cut flower |              |
|              | industry (Pizano, 2001). Production    |              |
|              | areas in California are mainly coastal |              |
|              | where solarization is not feasible due |              |
|              | to cool temperatures and solar         |              |
|              | radiation most of the year.            |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Steam        | Steam can be a technically effective   | No.          |
|              | alternative in some cases. Reasons     |              |
|              | cited for not using steam for this     |              |
|              | crop system are high initial cost and  |              |
|              | an adverse affect on soil organic      |              |
|              | matter in enclosed structures. Some    |              |
|              | greenhouse growers have adapted this   |              |
|              | approach already in crops where it     |              |
|              | works better (such as Freesia).        |              |
|              | In-field steaming is not a feasible    |              |
|              | alternative due to lack of machinery   |              |
|              | that can deliver the steam,            |              |
|              | differences in soil type, and          |              |
|              | environmental impact of fuel use.      |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Biological   | Results with biological control agents | No.          |
| control      | may vary with field or environmental   |              |
|              | conditions (Pizano, 2001). Even in     |              |
|              | small containers, biological control   |              |
|              | is not reliable for soil-borne         |              |
|              | pathogens.                             |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Crop residue | Rotation is used extensively in cut    | No.          |
| compost/Crop | flower production. However, in annual  |              |
| rot          | cropping they are generally too short  |              |
| ation/fallow | for the full effects of rotating       |              |
|              | schemes to be effective. The previous  |              |
|              | crop (bulbs, corms) often contaminate  |              |
|              | the following crop or may harbor       |              |
|              | pathogens. In addition, crop rotation  |              |
|              | is not really a solution to pest       |              |
|              | problems in floriculture because       |              |
|              | either the crop cycle is too long      |              |
|              | (perennials) or the pests persist in   |              |
|              | the soil for a long time (Pizano,      |              |
|              | 2001). Flower rotations are generally  |              |
|              | not a true rotation in the pest        |              |
|              | control sense.                         |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Flooding and | Beds are generally designed and graded | No.          |
| water        | for good drainage to prevent standing  |              |
| management   | water. Flooding could increase the     |              |
|              | incidence of certain diseases and is   |              |
|              | also time restrictive. (Environmental  |              |
|              | laws prohibit run-off in the most of   |              |
|              | the state of California making use     |              |
|              | (and often access) to water in this    |              |
|              | manner impossible).                    |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| General IPM  | Although IPM is currently practiced,   | No.          |
|              | this alone will not control weed and   |              |
|              | disease pests.                         |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Grafti       | Grafting/resistant rootstock/plant     | No.          |
| ng/resistant | breeding are not feasible              |              |
| roo          | alternatives. Given the thousands of   |              |
| tstock/plant | varieties of ornamentals, plant        |              |
| breeding     | breeding for the variety of pests is   |              |
|              | not practical.                         |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Organic      | Not effective alone in weed or pest    | No.          |
| amendm       | management; may be incorporated as     |              |
| ents/compost | part of an IPM program. Does not       |              |
|              | provide adequate weed and disease      |              |
|              | control.                               |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Physical     | Appropriate sanitation practices are   | No.          |
| remova       | already used extensively.              |              |
| l/sanitation |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Resistant    | Given the thousands of varieties of    | No.          |
| cultivars    | ornamentals, developing resistant      |              |
|              | cultivars for each variety, each with  |              |
|              | unique pest problems, is not           |              |
|              | practical. Choices are often market    |              |
|              | driven.                                |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Soilless     | Container production may be possible   | No.          |
| culture /    | in higher value cut flower crops but   |              |
| Substrates   | it not generally feasible, especially  |              |
| /plug plants | for deeper rooted crops and on large   |              |
|              | acreage.                               |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [Combi  |                                        |              |
| nations of A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-Dichl    | In California, 1,3-D use is limited by | No.          |
| oropropene + | township caps, buffer zones, and plant |              |
| chloropicrin | back times, which could affect some    |              |
|              | rotations. 1,3-D cannot be used in     |              |
|              | greenhouses.                           |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | For caladiums, chloropicrin was needed |              |
|              | in addition to 1,3-D to reach the same |              |
|              | yield as methyl bromide plus           |              |
|              | chloropicrin (Overman and Harbaugh,    |              |
|              | 1983). 1,3-D is also limited by the    |              |
|              | plant-back interval, the lack of weed  |              |
|              | control, and the lack of equipment     |              |
|              | necessary to fumigate with 1,3-D       |              |
|              | (Gilreath, 2004).                      |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | In California, limitations to          |              |
|              | chloropicrin include buffer zones,     |              |
|              | poorer weed control than methyl        |              |
|              | bromide, and that it may not currently |              |
|              | be used in greenhouses. There is       |              |
|              | reluctance to use chloropicrin in many |              |
|              | areas due to the proximity of cut      |              |
|              | flower fields to residences.           |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-Dichl    | Pebulate is currently not registered.  | No.          |
| oropropene + |                                        |              |
| ch           | In California, 1,3-D use is limited by |              |
| loropicrin + | township caps, buffer zones, and plant |              |
| pebulate     | back times, which could affect some    |              |
|              | rotations. 1,3-D cannot be used in     |              |
|              | greenhouses.                           |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | For caladiums, chloropicrin was needed |              |
|              | in addition to 1,3-D to reach the same |              |
|              | yield as methyl bromide plus           |              |
|              | chloropicrin (Overman and Harbaugh,    |              |
|              | 1983). 1,3-D is also limited by the    |              |
|              | plant-back interval, the lack of weed  |              |
|              | control, and the lack of equipment     |              |
|              | necessary to fumigate with 1,3-D       |              |
|              | (Gilreath, 2004).                      |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | In California, limitations to          |              |
|              | chloropicrin include buffer zones,     |              |
|              | poorer weed control than methyl        |              |
|              | bromide, and that it may not currently |              |
|              | be used in greenhouses. There is       |              |
|              | reluctance to use chloropicrin in many |              |
|              | areas due to the proximity of cut      |              |
|              | flower fields to residences.           |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Dazomet      | In some cut flowers (carnation and     | No.          |
| (Basamid) +  | chrysanthemum) dazomet was effective   |              |
| chloropicrin | against *Fusarium*, *Rhizoctonia*,     |              |
|              | *Erwinia*, and *Pseudomonas.*          |              |
|              | Appropriate aeration times, which are  |              |
|              | dependent on soil temperature, are     |              |
|              | needed to avoid phytotoxicity (Semer,  |              |
|              | 1987). In addition, plant back         |              |
|              | restrictions may cause some growers to |              |
|              | be able to grow fewer crops in a year. |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | In California, limitations to          |              |
|              | chloropicrin include buffer zones,     |              |
|              | poorer weed control than methyl        |              |
|              | bromide, and that it may not currently |              |
|              | be used in greenhouses. There is       |              |
|              | reluctance to use chloropicrin in many |              |
|              | areas due to the proximity of cut      |              |
|              | flower fields to residences.           |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Metam        | In California, limitations to metam    | No.          |
| sodium +     | sodium include buffer zones,           |              |
| chloropicrin | greenhouse uses are not labeled, and   |              |
|              | plant back restrictions. In addition,  |              |
|              | many years of research have indicated  |              |
|              | difficulty achieving consistent        |              |
|              | efficacy with metam sodium on high     |              |
|              | value crops.                           |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | Metam sodium is used by some growers   |              |
|              | of caladiums in rotation with methyl   |              |
|              | bromide. The growers that have tried   |              |
|              | using metam sodium 2 years in a row    |              |
|              | had bad nematode infestations the      |              |
|              | second year and will now only use it   |              |
|              | once every 2 years. Most growers will  |              |
|              | not use metam sodium because they must |              |
|              | meet certification requirements (free  |              |
|              | of nematodes) for certain markets      |              |
|              | (several U.S. states and some          |              |
|              | international markets) (Gilreath,      |              |
|              | 2004).                                 |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | This fumigant is currently used and    |              |
|              | will continue to be used where it      |              |
|              | gives adequate pest control. It will   |              |
|              | be unlikely to replace significant     |              |
|              | portions of current use of methyl      |              |
|              | bromide.                               |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | In California, limitations to          |              |
|              | chloropicrin include buffer zones,     |              |
|              | poorer weed control than methyl        |              |
|              | bromide, and that it may not currently |              |
|              | be used in greenhouses. There is       |              |
|              | reluctance to use chloropicrin in many |              |
|              | areas due to the proximity of cut      |              |
|              | flower fields to residences.           |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Metam        | In California, limitations to metam    | No.          |
| sodium +     | sodium include buffer zones,           |              |
| crop         | greenhouse uses are not labeled, and   |              |
| rotation     | plant back restrictions. In addition,  |              |
|              | many years of research have indicated  |              |
|              | difficulty achieving consistent        |              |
|              | efficacy with metam sodium on high     |              |
|              | value crops.                           |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | Metam sodium is used by some growers   |              |
|              | of caladiums in rotation with methyl   |              |
|              | bromide. The growers that have tried   |              |
|              | using metam sodium 2 years in a row    |              |
|              | had bad nematode infestations the      |              |
|              | second year and will now only use it   |              |
|              | once every 2 years. Most growers will  |              |
|              | not use metam sodium because they must |              |
|              | meet certification requirements (free  |              |
|              | of nematodes) for certain markets      |              |
|              | (several U.S. states and some          |              |
|              | international markets) (Gilreath,      |              |
|              | 2004).                                 |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | This fumigant is currently used and    |              |
|              | will continue to be used where it      |              |
|              | gives adequate pest control. It will   |              |
|              | be unlikely to replace significant     |              |
|              | portions of current use of methyl      |              |
|              | bromide.                               |              |
|              |                                        |              |
|              | In annual cropping they are generally  |              |
|              | too short for the full effects of      |              |
|              | rotating schemes to be effective. The  |              |
|              | previous crop (bulbs, corms) often     |              |
|              | contaminate the following crop or may  |              |
|              | harbor pathogens. In addition, crop    |              |
|              | rotation is not really a solution to   |              |
|              | pest problems in floriculture because  |              |
|              | either the crop cycle is too long      |              |
|              | (perennials) or the pests persist in   |              |
|              | the soil for a long time (Pizano,      |              |
|              | 2001).                                 |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Ornamentals - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}**
  *(and Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not
  Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591263 .anchor}

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

**[Ornamentals -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591233 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Herbicides and     | Caladium - All were effective for weeds but     |
| fumigation with    | positive results may have been influenced by    |
| methyl bromide,    | previous years of MB fumigation (Gilreath, et   |
| 1,3-D and          | al, 1999). However, there was control on        |
| chloropicrin,      | *Fusarium* and only MB reduced *Pythium*.       |
| metam sodium and   | Herbicides are more feasible for perennials if  |
| chloropicrin       | they are registered. The short time interval    |
|                    | between crops (a crop may only take 90 days)    |
|                    | often restricts the use of herbicides due to    |
|                    | replant intervals or phytotoxicity. Also,       |
|                    | herbicides are often selective and there are a  |
|                    | limited number registered.                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Hot water dips     | Caladium rhizomes are cleaned with hot water    |
|                    | dips (121-122F for 30 minutes). A               |
|                    | fungicide/bactericide dip may follow. Some      |
|                    | growers may spray the rhizomes with a fungicide |
|                    | to protect them from diseases. The hot water    |
|                    | dip is effective at reducing root knot nematode |
|                    | on the rhizomes but fumigation is needed to     |
|                    | maintain the control. Controlling *Fusarium* on |
|                    | the rhizomes will not control losses if the     |
|                    | soil is contaminated by the previous year's     |
|                    | pests.                                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Sodium azide       | Preliminary results in a calla trial suggest    |
|                    | that sodium azide may not be a feasible         |
|                    | alternative in this crop due to reduced crop    |
|                    | vigor and increased mortality (Gerik, 2003).    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Ornamentals -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591264
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Ornamentals -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591234 .anchor}

+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| **[Name of  | ##### [Present Regis        | **[          | **[Date  |
| Alte        | tration Status]{.smallcaps} | Registration | of       |
| rnative]{.s |                             | being        | possible |
| mallcaps}** |                             | considered   | future   |
|             |                             | by national  | regi     |
|             |                             | authorities? | stration |
|             |                             | (Y/N)]{.     | :]{.smal |
|             |                             | smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Iodomethane | Not registered              | Yes          | Unknown  |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Sodium      | Not registered              | Registration | Unknown  |
| azide       |                             | package not  |          |
|             |                             | submitted    |          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Propargyl   | Not registered              | Registration | Unknown  |
| bromide     |                             | package not  |          |
|             |                             | submitted    |          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Ornamentals - 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___Toc65591265 .anchor}

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

**Preplant Pest Management in Ranunculus Production (Elmore et al.,
2003b):** Results from this study do not compare most of the
alternatives to methyl bromide because most of the alternatives were
used in higher moisture fields and methyl bromide was used in lower
moisture fields. In lower moisture areas, the plots were treated with
methyl bromide/chloropicrin or iodomethane/chloropicrin. In the higher
moisture areas, the plots were treated dazomet or metam sodium. In
addition, these treatments were followed with either Telone C-35 or
1,3-D plus chloropicrin. Controls were used in both the low and high
moisture areas. Other treatments included drip applied metam sodium,
iodomethane/chloropicrin, chloropicrin, sodium azide, or 1-3-D
+chloropicrin, but yield results are not available. In all studies there
were no statistical differences between treatments in either weed
pressure or yield among the alternatives. In the lower moisture
treatments, there was a 34 percent yield loss between methyl bromide and
the untreated control. See Table 16.1 below for more detail. The lack of
differences in the treatments is likely due to the lack of pest pressure
in the higher moisture fields. The higher moisture fields needed for
certain alternatives were only available in areas not previously planted
to ranunculus, and therefore there was not a buildup of pest pressure
over time (Mellano, 2003).

**Evaluation of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Floriculture Crops
(Gerik, 2003):** In Trial 1, the following chemical treatments were
evaluated: untreated control; sodium azide (112 kg ai/ha); furfural
50% + metam sodium 50% (672 kg ai/ha); 1,3-dichloropropene (272 kg/ha);
1,3-dichloropropene 65% + chloropicrin 35% (627 kg/ha); iodomethane
50% + chloropicrin 50% (336 kg/ha); iodomethane 33% + chloropicrin 66%
(448 kg/ha); chloropicrin (448 kg/ha). Drip applications were used in
all treatments. Sachets with malva and mustard seed, and nutsedge and
calla rhizomes were buried in the plots before treatment to evaluate
weed control efficacy. None of the treatments killed the malva seeds.
Chloropicrin controlled the nutsedge and calla rhizomes. Mustard seed,
*Pythium* spp. and *Fusarium oxysporum* were controlled or reduced by
all treatments compared to the untreated control, in addition to overall
weed emergence. Sodium azide was the only chemical treatment that did
not reduce *Phytophthora* spp. populations and resulted in reduced crop
vigor and mortality in the planted calla. At the time of the report,
there were plans to collect additional data in the fall.

In Trial 3, the following treatments were evaluated: 1) untreated
control; 2) Multiguard Protect/Metham 50/50 672 kg/ha; 3) Sodium Azide
112 kg/ha; 4) Multiguard FFA; 5) Vapam 935 L/ha; 6) Chloropicrin 336
kg/ha; 7) Inline 468 L/ha; 8) Iodomethane/Chloropicrin 30/70 448 kg/ha
(Midas). The crop in this trial was Liatris. With the exception of
iodomethane/chloropicrin and the control, the alternatives controlled
Pythium. The alternatives, except iodomethane/chloropicrin,
chloropicrin, and the control, controlled Fusarium. Weed control was
comparable among the alternatives in most cases, with Multiguard FFA and
the control providing the least level of control. Although
iodomethane/chloropicrin did not control pathogens, it is suspected that
it may be due to an application malfunction. At harvest, there was no
significant difference in yield (stems/m²)

Several trials were in progress at the time of the report and not all of
the trials are discussed here.

**[Ornamentals -- Ranunculus - Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives
-- Weeds]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591235 .anchor}

+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| **[Key Pest:                | ##  |       |       |   |             |
| Weeds]{.smallcaps}**        | ### |       |       |   |             |
|                             |  [A |       |       |   |             |
|                             | ver |       |       |   |             |
|                             | age |       |       |   |             |
|                             |  di |       |       |   |             |
|                             | sea |       |       |   |             |
|                             | se  |       |       |   |             |
|                             | % o |       |       |   |             |
|                             | r r |       |       |   |             |
|                             | ati |       |       |   |             |
|                             | ng  |       |       |   |             |
|                             | and |       |       |   |             |
|                             |  yi |       |       |   |             |
|                             | eld |       |       |   |             |
|                             | s i |       |       |   |             |
|                             | n p |       |       |   |             |
|                             | ast |       |       |   |             |
|                             |  3\ |       |       |   |             |
|                             | ~5  |       |       |   |             |
|                             | yea |       |       |   |             |
|                             | rs] |       |       |   |             |
|                             | {.s |       |       |   |             |
|                             | mal |       |       |   |             |
|                             | lca |       |       |   |             |
|                             | ps} |       |       |   |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| **[Methyl Bromide           | >   | **    |       | > | **[Actual   |
| formulations and            |  ** | [Weed |       |   | Yields      |
| Alternatives]{.smallcaps}** | [\# | Co    |       | * | (Total      |
|                             | >   | ntrol |       | * | B           |
| *(include dosage rates and  |  of | (Weed |       | [ | unches)]{.s |
| application method)*        | > R | C     |       | \ | mallcaps}** |
|                             | eps | ounts |       | # |             |
|                             | ]{. | per 5 |       | > |             |
|                             | sma | S     |       |   |             |
|                             | llc | quare |       | o |             |
|                             | aps | Feet) |       | f |             |
|                             | }** | ]{.sm |       | > |             |
|                             |     | allca |       |   |             |
|                             |     | ps}** |       | R |             |
|                             |     |       |       | e |             |
|                             |     |       |       | p |             |
|                             |     |       |       | s |             |
|                             |     |       |       | ] |             |
|                             |     |       |       | { |             |
|                             |     |       |       | . |             |
|                             |     |       |       | s |             |
|                             |     |       |       | m |             |
|                             |     |       |       | a |             |
|                             |     |       |       | l |             |
|                             |     |       |       | l |             |
|                             |     |       |       | c |             |
|                             |     |       |       | a |             |
|                             |     |       |       | p |             |
|                             |     |       |       | s |             |
|                             |     |       |       | } |             |
|                             |     |       |       | * |             |
|                             |     |       |       | * |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| **Lower moisture areas**    |     | **Ma  | **Clo |   |             |
|                             |     | lva** | ver** |   |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| Methyl bromide/chloropicrin | 4   | 0.8 b | 55.5  | 4 | 431.8 a     |
| (50:50) 358 kg/ha           |     |       |       |   |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| Iodomethane/chlorpicrin     | 4   | 0.5 b | 61.1  | 4 | 457.6 a     |
| (50:50) 336 kg/ha           |     |       |       |   |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| Iodomethane/chloropicrin    | 4   | 0.5 b | 43.6  | 4 | 426.5 a     |
| (50:50) 392 kg/ha           |     |       |       |   |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| Untreated -- tarped         | 4   | 2.1 a | 62.5  | 4 | 287.0 b     |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| **Higher moisture areas**   |     |       |       |   |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| Metam sodium + Telone C-35  | 4   | 2.0 b | 6.2   | 4 | 353.2       |
| 358 kg/ha + 327 L/ha        |     |       |       |   |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| Metam sodium + 1,3-D +      | 4   | 2.1 b | 4.5   | 4 | 357.0       |
| chloropicrin 358 kg/ha +    |     |       |       |   |             |
| 140 L/ha + 224 kg/ha        |     |       |       |   |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| Metam sodium 358 kg/ha      | 4   | 3.1 b | 3.2   | 4 | 357.3       |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| Dazomet + Telone C-35 224   | 4   | 2.8 b | 6.1   | 4 | 358.3       |
| kg/ha + 327 L/ha            |     |       |       |   |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| Dazomet + 1,3-D +           | 4   | 2.1 b | 5.5   | 4 | 332.5       |
| chloropicrin 224 kg/ha +    |     |       |       |   |             |
| 140 L/ha + 224 kg/ha        |     |       |       |   |             |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+
| Untreated -- tarped         | 4   | 7.8 a | 6.8   | 4 | 348.3       |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---+-------------+

Elmore et al., 3003b

**[Ornamentals -- Ranunculus -- Table 16.2: Effectiveness of
Alternatives -- Weeds]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591236
.anchor}

+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
| **[Key Pest: Weeds in | #  |        |        |   |                 |
| Ranu                  | ## |        |        |   |                 |
| nculus]{.smallcaps}** | ## |        |        |   |                 |
|                       |  [ |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | We |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | ed |        |        |   |                 |
|                       |  C |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | on |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | tr |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | ol |        |        |   |                 |
|                       |  a |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | nd |        |        |   |                 |
|                       |  R |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | an |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | un |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | cu |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | lu |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | s  |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | vi |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | go |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | r  |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | af |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | te |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | r  |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | pr |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | ep |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | la |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | nt |        |        |   |                 |
|                       |  D |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | ri |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | p  |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | ap |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | pl |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | ic |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | at |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | io |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | n  |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | of |        |        |   |                 |
|                       |  p |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | es |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | ti |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | ci |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | de |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | s  |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | in |        |        |   |                 |
|                       |  S |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | an |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | dy |        |        |   |                 |
|                       |  s |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | oi |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | l] |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | {. |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | sm |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | al |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | lc |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | ap |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | s} |        |        |   |                 |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
| **[Methyl Bromide     | >  | **[D   |        | > | **[Plant        |
| formulations and      |  * | isease |        |   | Vigor\*         |
| Altern                | *[ | (% or  |        | * | ]{.smallcaps}** |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | \# | rati   |        | * |                 |
|                       | >  | ng)]{. |        | [ |                 |
| *(include dosage      | of | smallc |        | \ |                 |
| rates and application | >  | aps}** |        | # |                 |
| method)*              |  R |        |        | > |                 |
|                       | ep |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | s] |        |        | o |                 |
|                       | {. |        |        | f |                 |
|                       | sm |        |        | > |                 |
|                       | al |        |        |   |                 |
|                       | lc |        |        | R |                 |
|                       | ap |        |        | e |                 |
|                       | s} |        |        | p |                 |
|                       | ** |        |        | s |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | ] |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | { |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | . |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | s |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | m |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | a |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | l |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | l |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | c |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | a |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | p |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | s |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | } |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | * |                 |
|                       |    |        |        | * |                 |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
|                       |    | **[    | **     |   |                 |
|                       |    | Clover | [Total |   |                 |
|                       |    | (#/    | Weeds  |   |                 |
|                       |    | linear | (#/    |   |                 |
|                       |    | M)]{.  | Linear |   |                 |
|                       |    | smallc | M]{.   |   |                 |
|                       |    | aps}** | smallc |   |                 |
|                       |    |        | aps}** |   |                 |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
| Metam sodium 364      | 6  | 13.5 a | 13.7 a | 6 | 9.2 ab          |
| kg/ha                 |    |        |        |   |                 |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
| Iod                   | 6  | 15.3 a | 15.3 a | 6 | 8.7 b           |
| omethane/chloropicrin |    |        |        |   |                 |
| 392 kg/ha             |    |        |        |   |                 |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
| Chloropicrin 168      | 6  | 9.7 a  | 10.3 a | 6 | 9.7 ab          |
| kg/ha                 |    |        |        |   |                 |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
| Chloropicrin 336      | 6  | 12.8 a | 13.3 a | 6 | 9.7 ab          |
| kg/ha                 |    |        |        |   |                 |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
| Sodium azide 112      | 6  | 12.2 a | 12.2 a | 6 | 8.7 b           |
| kg/ha                 |    |        |        |   |                 |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
| 1,3-D/chloropicrin    | 6  | 11.5 a | 11.5 a | 6 | 10.0 a          |
| 168 kg/ha             |    |        |        |   |                 |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
| 1,3-D/chloropicrin    | 6  | 8.3 a  | 8.3 a  | 6 | 9.5 ab          |
| 336 kg/ha             |    |        |        |   |                 |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+
| Untreated-tarped      | 6  | 15.3 a | 16.8 a | 6 | 6.0 c           |
+-----------------------+----+--------+--------+---+-----------------+

(Elmore et al., 2003a)

\* Visual evaluation: 10 = vigorous, 0 = dead

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Ornamentals -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
  Summary]{.smallcaps}**

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

Yield losses will vary by species but, based on expert opinion for the
two representative crops, ranunculus and caladiums, an estimate has been
determined. The experts are a cut flower producer and a researcher
located in different areas of the country. Based on grower experience,
it is estimated that 10 to 35 percent yield losses could occur without
methyl bromide. These yield losses may be higher in highly diseased
fields. Quality is also a major concern for the industry. In addition,
ranunculus exported to Japan, Canada, and Europe need a certificate
stating that it has been grown in manner not conducive to certain
diseases, which generally means in a field fumigated with methyl
bromide. Even in crops without these regulations, consumers expect a
high quality product. Selling a product that is not of high quality will
cause growers to lose customers. There are some promising alternatives
for many crops, but more time is needed to determine what particular
alternatives will work with individual crops to meet customer standards
and avoid yield losses if methyl bromide can no longer be used (Mellano,
2003). In ranunculus, a 50 percent yield loss (flowers and tubers) can
occur due to soil pathogens (Elmore et al., 2003b). The situation is
similar for caladiums. Studies conducted on caladiums did not
necessarily show yield or quality losses but any losses would depend on
pest populations. Herbicides were also used to control weeds that
wouldn't be controlled by the fumigant alone. In the first year, growers
may experience a 5% reduction in the number of tubers in the most
desirable size grades, with a 30% reduction in production in the second
year possible. Losses are not likely to exceed 35 to 40%. Growers will
likely find successful alternatives but more time is needed to
transition to these alternatives (Gilreath, 2004).

Currently, the applicants do not consider any alternative to be a
feasible replacement for methyl bromide in this diverse sector. However,
in an attempt to provide an estimate the potential impacts from the
adoption of the most common methyl bromide alternatives, the following
table presents likely yield losses.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591237 .anchor}

+---------------+----------------------+------------+-----------------+
| #####         | ##### [List Type     | ##### [Ra  | **[Best         |
|  [Alternative | of Pest]{.smallcaps} | nge of Yie | Estimate of     |
| ]{.smallcaps} |                      | ld Loss]{. | Yield           |
|               |                      | smallcaps} | Loss            |
|               |                      |            | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+---------------+----------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 1,3-D plus    | Nematodes and        | 10 to 25 % | 25%             |
| chloropicrin  | Diseases (no control |            |                 |
|               | of weeds or previous |            |                 |
|               | crop)                |            |                 |
+---------------+----------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Dazomet       | Multiple             |            | 25%             |
+---------------+----------------------+------------+-----------------+
| Metam Sodium  | Multiple             |            | 20%             |
+---------------+----------------------+------------+-----------------+
| #####         |                      |            | **20 to 25%**   |
| [Overall Loss |                      |            |                 |
|  Estimate for |                      |            |                 |
|  All Alternat |                      |            |                 |
| ives to Pests |                      |            |                 |
| ]{.smallcaps} |                      |            |                 |
+---------------+----------------------+------------+-----------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Ornamentals - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
  Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591266
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

  Research is currently being conducted to identify potential
  alternatives.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Ornamentals - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the
  Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide?:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591267 .anchor}

  A number of technologies are currently being used in this sector,
  including integrated pest management, crop rotation, fallow periods,
  hand weeding, etc. However, these practices are still not sufficient to
  control the key target pests without the use of methyl bromide.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Ornamentals - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.smallcaps}        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Without methyl bromide, certain growers will suffer both yield and    |
| quality losses. In addition growers who rotate several species of     |
| ornamentals on a particular field, need to kill crop residue from     |
| previous crops to eliminate contamination, as well as control other   |
| weeds and pathogens. Due to the diversity and complexity of the cut   |
| flower and foliage industry, an additional 2 to 3 years are needed to |
| complete ongoing research into implementation of methyl bromide       |
| alternatives. Alternatives have not been found for all species. Some  |
| of the alternatives that have been found for other crops (such as     |
| 1,3-D for Easter lilies in Oregon) may not be feasible for            |
| floriculture in general because of high cost, difficulties with       |
| quickly treating and replanting fields for multi-cropping, and buffer |
| zone requirements. In addition, township caps limit the use of        |
| 1,3-Dichloropropene in California. Other alternatives provide         |
| inconsistent control or have restrictions that limit their use at     |
| this time. Growers also need time to transition to the alternatives.  |
|                                                                       |
| In this industry, the fumigation situation and need for methyl        |
| bromide varies by species. Although there are some potential          |
| alternatives, there is not enough grower experience and research to   |
| justify to switching to alternatives by the 2006 growing season.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [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___Toc65591270
  .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 Some growers have switched Unknown.                     unknown
  reduction methods are     use HDPE tarps.        from a 98% MB formulation                               
  presently                                        to a 67 % formulation.                                  
  adopted?]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[What further           The U.S. anticipates   The U.S. anticipates that  The U.S. anticipates that    The U.S. anticipates that
  use/emission reduction    that the decreasing    the decreasing supply of   the decreasing supply of     the decreasing supply of
  steps will be taken for   supply of methyl       methyl bromide will        methyl bromide will motivate methyl bromide will motivate
  the methyl bromide used   bromide will motivate  motivate growers to try    growers to try increasing    growers to try less frequent
  for critical              growers to try high    lowering methyl bromide    the chloropicrin percentage. applications.
  uses?]{.smallcaps}**      density films.         dosages..                                               

  **[Other                  Water seals of newer   Unknown                    Unknown                      Unknown
  measures]{.smallcaps}**   products                                                                       
  *(please describe)*                                                                                      
  ------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being  |
| Used]{.smallcaps}**                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **[or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the                    |
| Nomination]{.smallcaps}**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **[State Reasons]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591271         |
| .anchor}                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

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

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

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

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

***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 for an enterprise, is
gross revenue minus the sum of operating and fixed costs. Net income is
smaller than the net revenue measured in this study, often substantially
so. We did not include fixed costs because they are difficult to measure
and verify.***

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **21. [Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
  Period]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591273 .anchor}

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

**Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591241 .anchor}

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

  Methyl Bromide                  100                         3,607              3,607              3,607

  Dazomet                         75                          3,900              3,900              3,900

  1,3-d + pic                     75                          3,500              3,500              3,500

  Metam Sodium                    80                          3,607              3,607              3,607
  ------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **22. [Gross and Net
  Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591274
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net
Revenue**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591242 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| ####                  |                       |                      |
|  [Year 1]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*        |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 25,918                | 11,257               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Dazomet               | 18,467                | 3,933                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d + pic           | 18,459                | 4,425                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | 20,735                | 6,547                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591243 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 2]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*        |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 25,918                | 11,257               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Dazomet               | 18,467                | 3,933                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d + pic           | 18,459                | 4,425                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | 20,735                | 6,547                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591244 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 3]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*        |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 25,918                | 11,257               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Dazomet               | 18,467                | 3,933                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d + pic           | 18,459                | 4,425                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | 20,735                | 6,547                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
  Alternatives]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591275
  .anchor}

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

**[Cut Flowers - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591245 .anchor}

  ---------------------------- ------------------------ ------------- ----------- -----------
  **Cut flowers**              **[Methyl                **Dazomet**   **1,3-D +   **Metam
                               Bromide]{.smallcaps}**                 Pic**       Sodium**

  **[Yield Loss                0                        25 %          25%         20%
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                              

  **[Yield per                 187                      157           157         168
  Hectare]{.smallcaps}**                                                          

  **[\* Price per Unit         138.38                   131.46        131.46      138.38
  (U.S.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                         

  **[= Gross Revenue per       25,918                   18,467        18,459      20,735
  Hectare                                                                         
  (U.S.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                         

  **[- Operating Costs per     14,391                   14,534        14034       14,188
  Hectare                                                                         
  (U.S.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                         

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare 11,527                   3,933         4,425       6,547
  (U.S.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                         

  **[1. Loss per Hectare       \$0                      7,594         7,102       4,980
  (U.S.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                         

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of   \$0                      16.94         15.84       11.11
  Methyl Bromide                                                                  
  (U.S.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                         

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage   0%                       29%           27%         19%
  of Gross Revenue                                                                
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                              

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage   0%                       66%           62%         43%
  of Net Revenue                                                                  
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                              
  ---------------------------- ------------------------ ------------- ----------- -----------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ######### Summary of Economic Feasibility                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The economic analysis evaluated methyl bromide alternative control    |
| scenarios for cut flower production for Florida, and California by    |
| comparing the economic outcomes of methyl bromide oriented production |
| systems to those using alternatives. However, due to the fact that    |
| there are over 100 species of ornamentals grown in all regions of the |
| country, the data from these two examples are used to derive a proxy  |
| estimate for the entire industry.                                     |
|                                                                       |
| The economic factors that most influence the feasibility of methyl    |
| bromide alternatives for fresh cut flower production are: (1) yield   |
| losses, referring to reductions in the quantity produced, (2)         |
| increased production costs, which may be due to the higher-cost of    |
| using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/or    |
| resulting shifts in other production or harvesting practices, and (3) |
| missed market windows due to plant back time restrictions, which also |
| affect the quantity and price received for the goods.                 |
|                                                                       |
| The economic reviewers analyzed crop budgets for pre-plant sectors to |
| determine the likely economic impact if methyl bromide were           |
| unavailable. Various measures were used to quantify the impacts,      |
| including the following:                                              |
|                                                                       |
| \(1\) **Loss per Hectare.** For crops, this measure is closely tied   |
| to income. It is relatively easy to measure, but may be difficult to  |
| interpret in isolation.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| \(2\) **Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide**. This measure indicates |
| the nominal marginal value of methyl bromide to crop production.      |
|                                                                       |
| \(3\) **Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue.** This measure has the |
| advantage that gross revenues are usually easy to measure, at least   |
| over some unit, *e.g.*, a hectare of land or a storage operation.     |
| However, high value commodities or crops may provide high revenues    |
| but may also entail high costs. Losses of even a small percentage of  |
| gross revenues could have important impacts on the profitability of   |
| the activity.                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| \(4\) **Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue**. We define    |
| net cash revenues as gross revenues minus operating costs. This is a  |
| very good indicator as to the direct losses of income that may be     |
| suffered by the owners or operators of an enterprise. However,        |
| operating costs can often be difficult to measure and verify.         |
|                                                                       |
| \(5\) **Operating Profit Margin**. We define operating profit margin  |
| to be net operating revenue divided by gross revenue per hectare.     |
| This measure would provide the best indication of the total impact of |
| the loss of methyl bromide to an enterprise. Again, operating costs   |
| may be difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult,      |
| therefore fixed costs were not included in the analysis.              |
|                                                                       |
| These measures represent different ways to assess the economic        |
| feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide users,  |
| who are producers in this case. Because producers (suppliers)         |
| represent an integral part of any definition of a market, we          |
| interpret the threshold of significant market disruption to be met if |
| there is a significant impact on commodity suppliers using methyl     |
| bromide. The economic measures provide the basis for making that      |
| determination.                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Several methodological approaches will help interpret the findings.   |
| Economic estimates were first calculated in pounds and acres and then |
| converted to kilograms and hectares. Costs for alternatives are based |
| on market prices for the control products multiplied by the number of |
| pounds of active ingredient that would be applied. Baseline costs     |
| were based on the average number of annual applications necessary to  |
| treat cut flowers with methyl bromide.                                |
|                                                                       |
| 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. Fixed costs were |
| not included because they are difficult to measure and verify.        |
|                                                                       |
| Loss per hectare measures the value of methyl bromide based on        |
| changes in operating costs and/or changes in yield. Loss expressed as |
| a percentage of the gross revenue is based on the ratio of the        |
| revenue loss to the gross revenue. Likewise for the loss as a         |
| percentage of net revenue. The profit margin percentage is the ratio  |
| of net revenue to gross revenue per hectare. The values to estimate   |
| gross revenue and the operating costs for each alternative were       |
| derived for three alternative control scenarios for Florida and       |
| California, relative to methyl bromide: 1) Dazomet; 2) 1,3-d +        |
| chloropicrin; and 3) metam sodium. Yield loss estimates were based on |
| data from the CUE's and U.S. EPA data, as well as expert opinion.     |
|                                                                       |
| Regulatory constraints.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| In California, 1,3-d plus chloropicrin would also be the primary      |
| replacement for methyl bromide. California restricts total use of     |
| 1,3-d, at the local level (township cap). In Florida, the use of      |
| 1,3-d also requires a 100-foot buffer around inhabited structures.    |
| This would reduce the production acreage an estimated 10%. Nematodes  |
| and weeds and pathogens are key pests in Florida and California bulb  |
| grower and are controlled with methyl bromide. Chloropicrin is not as |
| effective in controlling weeds as methyl bromide. Using chloropicrin  |
| adds to production costs through increased chemical, weeding and      |
| labor costs.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Alternative 1 (Dazomet), yield loss was estimated to be 25%, and      |
| gross revenues are expected to decline 29% and prices offset by 05%,  |
| if growers miss key market windows. Buffer restrictions would also    |
| reduce gross revenues but the number of acres affected to estimate    |
| the impact is not available. The estimated net revenue is estimated   |
| to decline more than 66%. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in  |
| U.S. dollars is estimated to be \$16.94 per kilogram.                 |
|                                                                       |
| Under alternative 2 (1,3-d plus chloropicrin), the yield loss was     |
| also estimated to be 25 % and prices offset by 05%, if growers miss   |
| key market windows due to increased re-entry interval time. Buffer    |
| restrictions would also reduce gross revenues but the number of acres |
| affected to estimate the impact is not available. Gross revenue is    |
| expected to decline 27%. The net revenue is expected to decline by    |
| more than 62%. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in U.S.        |
| dollars is estimated to be \$15.84 per kilogram.                      |
|                                                                       |
| Under alternative 3 (metam sodium), there is no expected plant back   |
| restriction as the re-entry interval increases by 2 days so the yield |
| loss was estimated to be 20%, and the gross revenue loss was          |
| estimated to by 19%. The net revenue is expected to decline by more   |
| than 43%. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in U.S. dollars is  |
| estimated to be \$11.11 per kilogram.                                 |
|                                                                       |
| Note: Market price data was not available for the United States cut   |
| flower industry but it is assumed that the net effect of shifting     |
| from methyl bromide to any of the alternatives other than metam       |
| sodium would result in additional revenue reductions due fluctuations |
| in market price due to changes in production and harvesting times.    |
|                                                                       |
| It should be noted that the applicants do not consider any            |
| alternative to be feasible and that these estimates are an attempt to |
| measure potential impacts.                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy       |
| Alternatives for This                                                 |
| Crop?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591278 .anchor}           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Between 1992 and 2003, the California Cut Flower Commission has spent |
| \$260,000 in research related to methyl bromide alternatives in       |
| addition to hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by individual      |
| growers trying to find workable alternatives. Future research will    |
| focus on the following pests: weeds, *Fusarium oxysporum*, *Pythium*  |
| spp., *Meloidogyne* spp., and previous crop debris, such as bulblets, |
| cormlets, etc. from crops such as callas, caladiums, and gladiolus.   |
| 1,3-D, metam sodium, dazomet, chloropicrin, and methyl iodide have    |
| already been tested. Future research will focus on methyl iodide,     |
| sodium azide, combinations of 1,3-D, metam sodium, and chloropicrin,  |
| and drip applied chloropicrin. The reason to transition away from     |
| methyl bromide has been ongoing for 10 years and should be completed  |
| by the end of 2006.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| In Florida, research trials for 2003 are in place for caladiums in    |
| muck, aster, and snapdragons, and caladiums in sand are planned for   |
| 2004. Several alternatives will be tested, including metam sodium,    |
| 1,3-D/chloropicrin, iodomethane/chloropicrin, and sodium azide. In    |
| California, trials are in place or planned for callas, myrtle,        |
| ranunculus, liatris, freesia, and wax flower (at a minimum) for       |
| several alternatives. Additional funds (\$90,000 for California       |
| researchers and an unknown amount for Florida) have just been made    |
| available via the IR-4 program to support new work in 2004.           |
|                                                                       |
| The Agricultural Research Service (United States Department of        |
| Agriculture) has two full time employees (since 2000) working on      |
| methyl bromide alternatives for flowers and ornamentals. This         |
| represents about a \$600,000 annual investment. In addition, a recent |
| grant and other money, about \$100,000 has provided two CCC grants    |
| for flower alternatives.                                              |
|                                                                       |
| 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         |
| ornamentals research will require 4060 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 five year field study testing the comparative           |
| performance of methyl bromide, 1,3-D, metam sodium, and new reduced   |
| risk chemicals for control of soilborne pests with emphasis on        |
| nematodes and weeds.                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
  Critical Use in the
  Future?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591279 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[25. Additional Comments on the
  Nomination?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591280 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[26. Citations]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591281 .anchor}

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

Elmore, C., J. MacDonald, H. Ferris, I. Zasada, S. Tsjvold, K. Robb, C.
Wilen, L. Bolkin, L. Yahaba, J. Roncoroni, 2003a, Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide for Control of Weeds, Nematodes, and Soil-Borne Fungi, Bacteria
in Coastal Ornamental Crops -- Draft.

Elmore, C., J. Roncoroni, K. Robb, C. Wilen, and H. Ajwa, 2003b,
Preplant Pest Production in Ranunculus Production, Proceeding from the
2003 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Web address: www.mbao.org

Gerik, J., 2003, Evaluation of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Floriculture Crop -- Progress Report submitted by USDA-ARS.

Gilreath, J.P., R. McSorley, and R.J. McGovern, 1999, Soil Fumigant and
Herbicide Combinations for Soilborne Pest Control in Caladium, Proc Fla
State Hort Soc 112: 285-290.

Gilreath, J., 2004, University of Florida -- IFAS, Personal
communication.

Mellano, M, Mellano and Company, 2003, Personal communication.

Overman, A.J. and B. K. Harbaugh, 1983, Soil Fumigation Increases
Caladium Tuber Production on Sandy Soil, Proc Fla State Hort Soc 96:
248-250.

Pizano, M., 2001, Floriculture and the Environment: Growing Flowers
without Methyl Bromide, United Nations Environment Programme.

Ragsdale, N., USDA-ARS National Program Staff, 2004, Personal
communication.

Schneider, S., E. Rosskopf, J. Leesch, D. Chellemi, C. 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.

Semer, C. R. IV, 1987, Basamid and Methyl Bromide Compounds as Fumigants
in Carnation and Chrysanthemum Production in Selected Propagation Media,
Proc Fla State Hort Soc 100: 330-334.

Trout, T., 2001, Impact of Township Caps on Telone Use in California.

Trout, T., 2003, Impact of Township Caps on Telone Use in California,
Proc. Annual International Research Conference on MB Alternatives and
Emission Reductions, p. 109.

**APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index
(BUNI**).[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591247 .anchor}

![](media/image1.wmf)

**Footnotes for Appendix A:**

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

1.  **[Average Hectares in the US]{.underline}** -- Average Hectares in
    the US is the average of 2001 and 2002 total hectares in the US in
    this crop when available. These figures were obtained from the USDA
    National Agricultural Statistics Service.

2.  **[% of Average Hectares Requested]{.underline}** - Percent (%) of
    Average Hectares Requested is the total area in the sector's request
    divided by the Average Hectares in the US. Note, however, that the
    NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector
    nominations in the U.S. CUE nomination (e.g., roma and cherry
    tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not
    included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due
    to the inclusion of these varieties in the U.S. CUE request that
    were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are
    often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of
    applications received from growers.

3.  **[2006 Amount of Request]{.underline}** -- The 2006 amount of
    request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total
    pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl
    bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of
    methyl bromide per acre. U.S. units of measure were used to describe
    the initial request and then were converted to metric units to
    calculate the amount of the US nomination.

4.  **[2001 & 2002 Average Use]{.underline}** -- The 2001 & 2002 Average
    Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures
    provided by the applicants given in total pounds active ingredient
    of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and
    application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per
    acre. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to unavailable
    2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use figure is
    used.

5.  **[Quarantine and Pre-Shipment]{.underline}** -- Quarantine and
    pre-shipment (QPS) hectares is the percentage (%) of the applicant's
    request subject to QPS treatments.

6.  **[Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares]{.underline}** --
    Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares is the 2001 and 2002
    average estimate of hectares within the defined region. These
    figures are taken from various sources to ensure an accurate
    estimate. The sources are from the USDA National Agricultural
    Statistics Service and from other governmental sources such as the
    Georgia Acreage estimates.

7.  [**Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage %**]{.underline} - Regional
    Hectares, Requested Acreage % is the area in the applicant's request
    divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered
    by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
    Service (NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not
    always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U.S.
    CUE nomination (e.g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the
    applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values
    greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties
    in the U.S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS:
    nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the
    requested coverage of applications received from growers.

8.  **[2006 Nomination Options]{.underline}** -- 2006 Nomination Options
    are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust
    the initial applicant request into the nomination figure.

9.  **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts]{.underline}** --
    Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were
    subtracted from the initial request amount.

10. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request]{.underline}**
    -- Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request is the starting
    point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant
    request in kilograms.

11. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double
    Counting]{.underline}** - Subtractions from Requested Amounts,
    Double Counting is the estimate measured in kilograms in situations
    where an applicant has made a request for a CUE with an individual
    application while their consortium has also made a request for a CUE
    on their behalf in the consortium application. In these cases the
    double counting is removed from the consortium application and the
    individual application takes precedence.

12. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE
    Comparison]{.underline}** - Subtractions from Requested Amounts,
    Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the
    estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the
    amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater
    than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the
    difference in the 2006 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE
    application compared with the 2006 request from the applicant's 2003
    CUE application.

13. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS]{.underline}** -
    Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in
    kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction
    estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting,
    minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then multiplied by the
    percentage subject to QPS treatments. *Subtraction from Requested
    Amounts, QPS = (2006 Request -- Double Counting -- Growth)\*(QPS %)*

14. **[Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate
    Difference]{.underline}** -- Subtractions from requested amounts,
    use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the
    lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The
    subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double
    Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount,
    if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate
    and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares.

15. **[Adjustments to Requested Amounts]{.underline}** -- Adjustments to
    requested amounts were factors that reduced to total amount of
    methyl bromide requested by factoring in the specific situations
    were the applicant could use alternatives to methyl bromide. These
    are calculated as proportions of the total request. We have tried to
    make the adjustment to the requested amounts in the most appropriate
    category when the adjustment could fall into more than one category.

16. **[(%) Karst topography]{.underline}** -- Percent karst topography
    is the proportion of the land area in a nomination that is
    characterized by karst formations. In these areas, the groundwater
    can easily become contaminated by pesticides or their residues.
    Regulations are often in place to control the use of pesticide of
    concern. Dade County, Florida, has a ban on the use of 1,3D due to
    its karst topography.

17. **[(%) 100 ft Buffer Zones]{.underline}** -- Percentage of the
    acreage of a field where certain alternatives to methyl bromide
    cannot be used due the requirement that a 100 foot buffer be
    maintained between the application site and any inhabited structure.

18. **[(%) Key Pest Impacts]{.underline}** - Percent (%) of the
    requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are
    those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For
    example, the key pest in Michigan peppers, *Phytophthora* spp.
    infests approximately 30% of the vegetable growing area. In southern
    states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge.

19. **[Regulatory Issues (%)]{.underline}** - Regulatory issues (%) is
    the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be
    legally used (e.g., township caps) pursuant to state and local
    limits on their use.

20. **[Unsuitable Terrain (%)]{.underline}** -- Unsuitable terrain (%)
    is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot
    be used due to soil type (e.g., heavy clay soils may not show
    adequate performance) or terrain configuration, such as hilly
    terrain. Where the use of alternatives poses application and
    coverage problems.

21. **[Cold Soil Temperatures]{.underline}** -- Cold soil temperatures
    is the proportion of the requested acreage where soil temperatures
    remain too low to enable the use of methyl bromide alternatives and
    still have sufficient time to produce the normal (one or two) number
    of crops per season or to allow harvest sufficiently early to obtain
    the high prices prevailing in the local market at the beginning of
    the season.

22. **[Combined Impacts (%)]{.underline}** - Total combined impacts are
    the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be
    used due to key pest, regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc. In
    each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is
    impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be
    independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available
    (e.g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive). For example, if
    50% of the requested area had moderate to severe key pest pressure
    and 50% of the requested area had karst topography, then 75% of the
    area was assumed to require methyl bromide rather than the
    alternative. This was calculated as follows: 50% affected by key
    pests and an additional 25% (50% of 50%) affected by karst
    topography.

23. **[Qualifying Area]{.underline}** - Qualifying area (ha) is
    calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined
    impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

29. **[Dichotomous Variables]{.underline}** -- dichotomous variables are
    those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no.
    These variables were used to categorize the uses during the
    preparation of the nomination.

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

31. **[Currently Use Alternatives]{.underline}** -- Currently use
    alternatives is 'yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some
    portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use
    methyl bromide is made.

32. **[Research/ Transition Plans]{.underline}** -- Research/ Transition
    Plans is 'yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is
    research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to
    transition to alternatives.

33. **[Tarps/ Deep Injection Used]{.underline}** -- Because all
    pre-plant methyl bromide use in the US is either with tarps or by
    deep injection, this variable takes on the value 'tarp' when tarps
    are used and 'deep' when deep injection is used.

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

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

36. **[Change from Prior CUE Request]{.underline}**- This variable takes
    a '+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a
    '0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a
    '-' if the current request is smaller that the previous request.

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

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

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

40. **[Loss per Hectare]{.underline}** -- This measures the total loss
    per hectare when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl
    bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss
    (relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional
    costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in
    current US dollars.

41. **[Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide]{.underline}** -- This
    measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is
    replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized
    value of yield loss (relative to yields obtained with methyl
    bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the
    alternative. It is measured in current US dollars.

42. **[Loss as a % of Gross revenue]{.underline}** -- This measures the
    loss as a proportion of gross (total) revenue. Loss comprises both
    the monetized value of yield loss (relative to yields obtained with
    methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the
    alternative. It is measured in current US dollars.

43. **[Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue]{.underline}** -This
    measures loss as a proportion of total revenue minus operating
    costs. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss
    (relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional
    costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in
    current US dollars. This item is also called net cash returns.

44. **[Quality/ Time/ Market Window/Yield Loss (%)]{.underline}** --
    When this measure is available it measures the sum of losses
    including quality losses, non-productive time, missed market windows
    and other yield losses when using the marginal strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  California Cut Flower Commission         400,000

  National Country Ham Association         1,172

  Wayco Ham Company                        39

  California Date Commission               5,319

  National Pest Management Association     319,369

  Michigan Pepper Growers                  20,904

  Michigan Eggplant Growers                6,968

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

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

  Virginia Tobacco Growers - Transplant    941
  Trays                                    

  Michigan Herbaceous Perennials           4,200

  Ozark Country Hams                       240

  Nahunta Pork Center                      248

  American Association of Meat             296,800
  Processors                               

  Total lbs                                **1,087,434**

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Appendix C -- Key Pests of Select Cut Flower
  Species]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591283 .anchor}

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

The following list is not comprehensive, but is intended to demonstrate
the complexity of the industry. In addition to the diseases and
nematodes listed below, there are numerous weed species that are major
problems in cut flower production. These species include the bulbs,
tubers, or cormlets from a previous crop, yellow nutsedge (*Cyperus
esculentus*), little mallow (*Malva parviflora*), and common sow thistle
(*Sonchus oleracea*).

Diseases and Nematodes of cut flower crops currently controlled with
Methyl Bromide.

  --------------- -------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Crop**        **Key Pests**        **Scientific name**

  *Antirrhinum*   Nematodes            *Belanolaimus longidorus,
                                       Criconomella* spp.*, Dolichodorus
                                       heterocephalus*

                  Pythium root rot     *Pythium irregulare* (documented
                                       resistance to mefenoxam is 25-50%)

  *Calla lily*    Erwinia soft rot     *Erwinia carotovora*

                  Pythium root rot     *Pythium* spp. (resistance to
                                       mefenoxam suspected to be
                                       widespread

  *Delphinium*    Sclerotinia stem rot *Sclerotinia* spp.

  *Dianthus*      Fusarium wilt        *Fusarium oxysporum* fsp.
                                       *dianthii*

  *Eustoma*       Fusarium wilt, root  *Fusarium oxysporum, F. solani,*
                  rot, and stem rot    and *F. avenaceaum*

  *Freesia*       Fusarium wilt        *Fusarium* spp.

  *Gladiolus*     Fusarium wilt        *Fusarium oxysporum* fsp.
                                       *gladioli*

                  Stromatinia neck rot *Stromatinia gladioli*

  *Helianthus*    Downy mildew         *Plasmopara halstedii* (this is a
                                       soil-borne pathogen)

  *Hypericum*     Root knot nematode   *Meloidogyne* spp.

                  Pythium root rot     *Pythium* spp.

  *Iris*          Fusarium wilt        *Fusarium oxysporum* fsp. *iridis*

  *Larkspur*      Sclerotinia stem rot *Sclerotinia sclerotiorum*

  *Liatris        Sclerotinia stem rot *Sclerotinia sclerotiorum*
  spicata*                             

  *Lilium*        Pythium root rot     *Pythium* spp.

  *Matthiola*     Sclerotinia stem rot *Sclerotinia sclerotiorum*

                  Xanthomonas leaf     *Xanthomonas campestris* pv.
                  spot                 *campestris*

  *Ranunculus*    Pythium root rot     *Pythium* spp.

                  Xanthomonas leaf     *Xanthomonas campestris*
                  spot                 
  --------------- -------------------- -----------------------------------

[^1]: ^\*^ See Appendix A for complete description of how nominated
    amount was calculated.

[^2]: ^\*^ See Appendix A for a complete discussion of how the nominated
    amount was calculated.

[^3]: ^\*^ See Appendix A for complete description of how nominated
    amount was calculated.