Chemical
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
W.
A.
Carey
1
Carey,
W.
A.;
1994.
Chemical
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide.
In
Landis,
T.
D.;
Dumroese,
R.
K.,
technical
coordinators.
Proceedings,
Forest
and
Conservation
Nursery
Associations.
1994,
July
11­
14;
Williamsburg,
VA.
Gen.
Tech.
Rep.
RM­
GTR­
257.
Fort
Collins,
CO:
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Forest
Service,
Rocky
Mountain
Forest
and
Range
Experiment
Station:
4­
11.
Available
at:
http://
www.
fcnanet.
org/
proceedings/
1994/
carey.
pdf
Abstract
 
Three
soil
fumigants
were
evaluated
at
a
nursery
in
Georgia
and
one
in
South
Carolina.
Seedbed
density
and
seedling
development
were
compared
among
plots
treated
with
tarped
and
not
tarped
dazomet
at
140
and
280
lbs/
ac,
tarped
and
not
tarped
chloropicrin
at
125
and
250
lbs/
ac,
tarped
MC33
at
350
lbs/
ac
and
non­
fumigated
plots.
Differences
among
treatments
occurred
only
in
South
Carolina
where
both
initial
seedbed
density
and
harvested
seedlings
differed
with
treatments.
Among
harvested
seedlings,
the
high
rate
of
dazomet
and
chloropicrin
were
not
significantly
different
from
MC33
but
the
low
rates
and
controls
were
inferior.
In
a
second
study
at
the
South
Carolina
nursery,
dazomet
(
150
and
300
lbs/
ac
tarped
and
not
tarped),
MC33
(
350
lbs/
ac
tarped),
1,3­
D
(
290
lbs/
ac
tarped),
metham
­
sodium
(
400
lbs/
ac
tarped
and
not
tarped),
dazomet
(
150
lbs/
ac)
plus
chloropicrin
(
115
lbs/
ac
tarped),
and
metham
­
sodium
plus
chloropicrin
(
400
and
115
lbs/
ac
tarped)
were
evaluated
with
respect
to
weed
control.
MC33
and
1,3­
D
had
the
best
herbicidal
activity.

Keywords:
Fumigation,
Pinus
taeda,
seedling
quality,
weeds
control.

INTRODUCTION
Methyl
bromide
(
MBr)

fumigation
of
soils
controls
a
broad
spectrum
of
fungi,
nema­

todes,
insects,
and
weeds
(
Thompson,
1991).
Because
all
these
taxa
contain
potentially
destructive
pests
of
forest
tree
seedlings,
MBr
fumigation,
with
2%
or
33%
chloropicrin,
has
become
almost
universal
in
southern
nurseries
(
South,
1992,
Carey,
1991).
Virtually
all
southern
nurserymen
fumigate
and
very
few
install
control­
plots
for
evaluating
pest
problems
(
Carey
and
Kelley,
1993).

Straightforward
comparisons
between
fumigated
and
nonfumigated
productions
are
rare.

Comparisons
to
the
pre­

fumigation
era
are
also
complicated
because
the
nursery
industry
itself
has
shifted
most
production
to
sandier
soils
during
the
time
that
fumigation
has
been
extensively
practiced
(
South
and
Davey,
1983).
Handweeding
cost
provided
adequate,
reliable
estimates
for
the
economic
benefits
of
MBr
(
South
and
Gjerstad,
1980)
and
although
alternative
herbicides
have
reduced
its
importance
for
pine
seedlings
(
South,
1992)
the
replacement
in
hardwood
seedling
production
has
been
less
effective
(
Stone,
1991).
The
sporadic
occurrence
(
even
in
the
absence
of
fumigation)
of
soil
born
insects
and
diseases
further
complicates
estimates
for
the
benefits
of
fumigation
where
non­
fumigated
comparisons
are
rare.
Nevertheless,
substantial
savings
are
usually
projected
(
South
and
Gjerstad,
1980)
or
1
Auburn
University
School
of
Forestry,
108
M.
White
Smith,
Auburn,
AL
36849­
5418.
assumed
(
Stone,
1991)
for
MBr
fumigation.
In
fact,
forest
tree
nurseries
had
the
largest
projected
benefit
per
acre
or
per
pound
of
MBr
used
of
all
crops
that
utilized
significant
quanti­

ties
(
Anonymous,
1993).

In
response
to
rumors
of
the
regulatory
disfavor
of
MBr,

during
the
summer
of
1992,
the
Auburn
University
Southern
Forest
Nursery
Management
Cooperative
(
AUSFNMC)
planned
small
plot
trials
to
evaluate
alternative
fumigants.

With
the
first
fumigation
scheduled
for
the
fall
of
1992,
the
delusion
of
being
ahead
of
the
learning
curve
lasted
only
a
few
days.
In
November
1992
MBr
was
listed
as
a
potential
ozone
depleter.
Under
the
authority
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
the
EPA
has
now
assigned
a
phase­
out
schedule
with
production
termination
for
the
year
2001.
Before
our
first
trials
were
finished
we
began
to
test
additional
fumigants
and
a
few
nurseries
have
now
initiated
production
scale
trials
primarily
comparing
chloropicrin,
dazomet
or
1,3­

dichloropropene
with
MBr.
Like
signs
in
store
windows
that
count
down
the
days
to
Christmas
it
seem
only
fair
to
warn
nursery
managers
that
there
are
only
six
more
1+
0
crops
before
2001.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Westvaco
Corporation
and
International
Forest
Seed
Com
­
pany
provided
space
and
took
care
of
all
the
non­
fumigation
practices
required
for
the
commercial
production
of
pine
seedlings
at
nurseries,
respectively
in
Summerville,
SC
and
Statesboro,
GA..
The
cooperation
of
Hendrix
&
Dail,
Inc.
who
provided
the
equipment
and
application
expertise
was
critical
to
the
study
and
the
contribution
of
Basamid
®
(
dazomet)
by
BASF
and
all
other
fumigants
by
Hendrix
&
Dail
is
gratefully
acknowledged.

MATERIALS
AND
METHODS
Fumigation
Treatments:

The
fumigation
treatments
utilized
these
products;
MC33
=

MBC­
33
®
(
67%
MBr
+
33%

chloropicrin),
Triform
®
(
70%
1,3
dichloropropenes
+
30%

chloropicrin
Dazomet
is
Basamid
®
(
99%
ai),
Metham­
sodium
is
Sectagon­
42
®
(
42%
ai),

Chloropicrin
is
HDPic
®
(
96.5%
ai).

Table
1
lists
the
11
fumiga­

tion
treatments
used
on
beds
subsiquently
sown
with
pine
seed.
Each
treatment
was
randomly
assigned
to
positions
within
each
of
five
blocks.
The
same
relationship
of
treatments
within
blocks
was
used
at
both
nurseries
but
at
Statesboro
a
double­
bed
column
contained
each
block
and
treatment
plots
were
68
ft
long
separated
by
5
ft
buffers.
At
Summerville
blocks
were
at
right
angles
to
beds
and
each
bed
contained
five
140
ft
long
treatment
plots
separated
by
5
ft
buffers.

At
Statesboro,
fumigation
treatments
were
applied
October
21
and
22,
1992
to
nursery
beds
but
not
tractor
paths
(
wheel
ruts).

Post­
treatment
soil
samples
were
Table
1.
Fumigation
treatments
applied
to
loblolly
pine
production
beds
in
Statesboro,
GA
and
Summerville,
SC.

Compound
None
None
Dazomet
Dazomet
Dazomet
Dazomet
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
MC33
Rate1
None
None
140
140
280
280
125
125
250
250
350
Application
None
None
Rototilled
Rototilled
Rototilled
Rototilled
Injected
Injected
Injected
Injected
Injected
Seal2
Water
Plastic
Water
Plastic
Water
Plastic
Water
Plastic
Water
Plastic
Plastic
1
Pounds
per
acre.
2
Water
seals
are
the
irrigation
equivalent
of
0.25
inches
of
rain.
collected
November
10,
1992
and
March
5,
1993
before
the
treated
bed
structure
was
dis
­

turbed.
The
Summerville
fumigation
was
March
18,
1993.
Pretreatment
soil
samples
were
collected
and
fumigation
treatments
applied
after
the
field
was
disced
but
before
beds
were
formed
and
both
the
bed
and
future
tractor
paths
were
treated.

Treatments
for
a
second
study,
installed
at
Summerville
in
the
fall
of
1993,
are
listed
in
Table
2.
The
treatments
were
arranged
at
a
randomized
complete
block
with
four
blocks
and
plots
were
12
ft
by
110
ft
and
separated
by
5
ft
buffers.
The
area
was
disced
and
then
fumigated
res
pectively,
on
October
24
and
26,
1993.
Dazomet
was
rototilled
into
the
soil
in
two
six­

foot­
wide
strips
and
the
surface
of
all
non­
tarped
plots
was
compacted
("
power­
rolled")

using
a
drum
roller.
All
other
chemicals
were
injected
and
tarped
in
single
12­
foot­
wide
strips.

Seedlings:

A
single
loblolly
pine
(
Pinus
taeda)
half­
sib
seedlot
was
sown
in
each
nursery
on
April
14
(
27
days
after
fumigation)
at
Summerville
and
May
14
(
201
days
after
fumigation)
at
Statesboro.
Beds
were
stabilized
with
a
synthetic
resin
at
Summerville
and
with
pinebark
mulch
at
Statesboro.
Numbers
of
live
seedlings
(
seedbed
density)
and
dead
seedlings
(
damping­
off)
were
determined
35
days
after
sowing
at
both
nurseries.
Two
one­
footwide
sections
across
nursery
beds
were
delineated
near
the
center
of
each
of
replicate
plot
and
these
were
resampled
throughout
the
study.
Seedbed
densities
were
determined
again
at
both
nurseries
September
8­

10,
1993
and
January
2­
5,
1994.

In
January
1994,
seedlings
from
the
four
center
drills
of
each
seedbed­
density­
plot
were
carefully
removed
from
the
soil
and
a
random
subsample
of
25
of
these
seedlings
was
taken.
Rootcollar
diameters
were
used
to
determine
numbers
of
culls
(<

3.25
mm)
and
number
one
(>
4.76
mm)
and
number
two
(
3.26
to
4.75
mm)
seedlings
per
plot.

Above
and
below
ground
por­
tions
of
seedlings
were
separated
and
each
sub­
sample
was
dried
to
a
constant
weight.
Seedling
parameters
were
calculated
both
on
a
mean
seedling
and
a
per
square
foot
basis.
Mean
size
and
mass
values
for
a
25
seedling
replicate
were
multiplied
by
plot
seedbed
density
to
obtain
area
values.
Seedling
height
was
assessed
only
for
Statesboro
seedlings
because
Summerville
seedlings
were
top­
clipped
(
August
5
and
September
16).

Weeds:

The
second
fumigation
trial
Summerville
was
placed
in
an
area
with
a
persistent
infestation
of
nutsedge
(
Cyperus
spp.),
a
weed
not
adequately
controlled
by
alternative
herbicides.

Because
this
area
was
not
put
into
seedling
production,
differences
in
weed
control
were
assessed
without
the
subsequent
application
of
herbicides.
Weed
data
only
from
this
fumigation
are
Table
2.
Fumigation
treatments
applied
to
soil
not
subsequently
used
for
seedling
production
(
Summerville,
SC).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Chemical
MC33
Triform
Dazomet
Dazomet
Dazomet
Dazomet
Metham­
sodium
Metham­
sodium
Dazomet
+
Chloropicrin
Metham­
sodium+
Chloropicrin
Control
Rate
(
lb/
ac)

350
290
300
300
150
150
400
400
150
115
400
115
0
Application
Method
Injected
Injected
Rototilled
Rototilled
Rototilled
Rototilled
Injected
Injected
Rototilled
Injected
Injected
Injected
NA
Soil
Seal
Tarped
Tarped
Tarped
Power­
roll
Tarped
Power­
roll
Tarped
Power­
roll
Tarped
Tarped
NA
presented
here.
Percentages
of
ground
covered
by
weeds
for
each
treatment
plot
was
estimated
April
12
and
all
weeds
within
a
randomly
selected
foursquare
foot
area
near
the
center
of
each
plot
were
counted
May
10.
1994.
Weeds
were
categorized
as
either
"
spring"
or
"
sum
­

mer"
weeds
and
nutsedge
(
Cyperus
spp.)
was
enumerated
separately.

RESULTS
Seedling
quality:

At
Summerville,
numbers
of
live
seedlings
differed
significantly
between
fumigation
treatments
35
days
after
sowing
(
Table
3).
Subsequent
mortality
was
negligible
(
0.4
seedling
per
foot)
and
seedbed
densities
in
May
strongly
predicted
those
of
September
(
r=
0.95,
p=
0.0001)

and
January
(
r=
0.93,
p=
0.0001).
However,
the
effect
of
fumiga­

tion
treatment
was
not
signifi­

cant
in
January
(
p=
0.30).

At
Statesboro,
numbers
of
damped­
off
seedlings
did
not
differ
among
fumigation
treatments
35
days
after
sowing
(
Table
3).
Although
the
mean
seedlings
per
square
foot
in
June
decreased
from
23
to
20.6
from
June
to
January.
Fumigation
treatment
effects
(
in
contrast
to
the
trend
at
Summerville)

increased
moderately
over
the
same
period
(
p
for
June
=
0.15
and
for
January
=
0.08).
Correlations
for
June
plot
densities
(
N=
55)
with
those
of
September
(
r=
0.95,

p=
0.0001)
and
January
(
r=
0.93,
p=
0.0001)
were
significant.

Among
dazomet
treatments
(
N=
20),
seedling
diameters
in
plots
receiving
280
lbs/
ac
were
larger
(
p=
0.03)
and
there
was
more
shoot
(
p=
0.0001)
and
root
(
p=
0.009)
mass
than
at
the
140
lbs/
ac
rate.
Among
chloropicrin
treatments
(
N=
20),
seedlings
in
plots
treated
with
250
lbs/
ac
produced
more
root
mass
per
seedling
(
p=
0.05)
and
per
square
ft
(
p=
0.02)
than
those
treated
with
125
lbs/
ac.
Tarping
did
not
significantly
effect
seedling
size
or
mass
either
in
non­
fumigated
plots
or
those
fumigated
with
dazomet
or
chloropicrin.

Therefore
tarped
and
not­
tarped
treatments
were
combined
for
the
analysis
presented
in
Table
4.

Among
the
five
fumigation
treatments
(
two
rates
each
of
chloropicrin
and
dazomet
and
one
of
MC33
and
control),
plots
fumigated
with
MC33
or
the
high
rates
of
chloropicrin
or
dazomet
produced
larger
seedlings
than
those
not
fumigated
or
fumigated
with
low
rates
(
Table
4).

Among
dazomet
or
chloropi­
crin
fumigations
(
N=
20),
no
measured
seedbed
or
seedling
parameters
differed
either
with
rate
of
fumigant
or
tarping.

Among
non­
fumigated
plots
(
N=
10),
seedlings
were
taller
(
p=
0.02)
and
had
more
stem
mass
(
p=
0.02)
among
non­
tarped
plots.
However,
seedbed
density
and
seedling
root
mass
was
not
significantly
larger
among
tarped
compared
to
non­
tarped
plots.

There
were
no
significant
differences
among
Statesboro
seedlings
in
size
or
mass
attributable
to
the
five
fumigant
by
rate
treatments
(
Table
4).

Weeds:

Weed
cover
by
plot
and
numbers
of
all
weeds
and
of
nutsedge
per
frame
(
4ft
2
)
are
presented
in
Table
5.
In
May,
percentage
weed
cover
differed
(
p=
0.0001)
between
treatments.

MC33
always
had
the
fewest
weeds
and
the
1,3­
D
and
the
metham
­
sodium
plus
chloropicrin
were
almost
as
good.
These
three
treatments
and
the
tarped
metham
­
sodium
and
the
dazomet
plus
chloropicrin
were
not
significantly
different.

In
addition
to
nutsedge,
pigweed
(
Amaranthus
spp.),

dogfennel
(
Eupatorium
capifillifolium),
and
horseweed
(
Coneza
canadensis)
were
common
in
the
May
survey
and
these
(
exclusive
of
nutsedge)
were
analyzed
together
as
"
summer­
weeds".
Other
weeds
were
analyzed
together
as
spring
weeds.
Summer
weeds
did
not
differ
between
treatments
(
p=
0.58).
Spring
weeds
differed
significantly
for
treatment
effects
(
p=
0.0001)
with
the
tarped
dazomet
treatments
and
the
nontreated
control
having
significantly
more
weeds
than
other
treatments
(
Table
5).
Table
3.
Seedlings
per
square
foot
by
nursery,
date,
and
treatment.

Summerville
May
93
Sept
Jan
94
Chemical
Rate
lbs/
ac
Tarp
Dead
Live
Live
Live
Ones
1
Twos
1
Culls
1
MC33
350
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Basamid
Basamid
Basamid
Basamid
None
None
Yes
250
250
125
125
280
280
140
140
0
0
3.6
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
31.7
8.6
4.4
3.6
2.8
6.8
7.2
2.2
3.0
11.8
5.8
31.7
27.2
30.1
29.1
30.1
28.8
30.6
30.6
30.2
27.8
29.2
29.2
28.3
30.2
30.7
28.6
29.0
27.4
30.7
30.5
27.4
29.1
12.9
28.3
30.2
30.7
28.6
29.0
27.4
30.7
30.5
28.1
28.0
15.8
9.3
9.3
11.3
11.4
11.7
13.8
9.1
8.3
6.4
6.9
0.5
15.5
18.8
16.6
14.8
16.6
12.5
19.8
21.3
19.6
19.3
3.5
2.0
2.7
2.3
0.7
1.1
1.7
0.9
2.1
1.8
Mean
value
lsd
for
treatments
2
P
for
treatment
effects
2
5.4
5.1
0.01
29.6
2.6
0.04
29.4
2.7
0.12
29.2
3.0
0.3
10.0
5.2
0.12
17.3
5.7
0.11
1.8
2.1
0.15
Statesboro
June
93
Sept
Jan
94
Chemical
Rate
lbs/
ac
Tarp
Dead
Live
Live
Live
Ones
1
Twos
1
Culls
1
MC33
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Basamid
Basamid
Basamid
Basamid
None
None
350
250
250
125
125
280
280
140
140
0
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.40
1.20
0.00
23.3
24.1
25.1
21.8
22.9
23.6
21.7
21.5
21.4
23.6
23.9
19.7
20.7
21.6
18.9
19.5
19.7
19.5
18.2
19.1
20.0
20.7
20.3
22.1
22.6
19.9
21.0
20.7
19.2
18.6
19.3
20.8
21.5
7.7
9.1
10.2
10.1
9.0
7.3
8.9
8.1
7.3
8.2
8.3
10.8
11.8
9.5
8.6
9.8
11.7
8.2
8.9
9.1
10.2
10.4
1.7
1.1
2.8
1.1
2.1
1.6
2.1
1.6
2.9
2.3
2.7
Mean
value
lsd
for
treatments
2
P
for
treatment
effect
2
0.47
1.02
0.70
23.0
2.81
0.15
19.7
2.19
0.06
20.6
2.59
0.08
8.6
3.16
0.61
9.9
3.0
0.25
2.0
1.88
0.49
1
Seedling
rating
where
ones,
two
and
culls
have
ground
line
diameters,
respectively
of
4.76
mm,
4.75
mm
­
3.26
mm,
and
3.25
mm.
2
Statistics
from
SAS
ANOVA.
1
DISCUSSION
The
herbicidal
activities
of
the
fumigants
was
assessed
within
seedbeds
but
standard
herbicide
applications
controlled
weeds
to
the
extent
that
production
was
not
effected.
Non­
soil
associated
disease
and
insect
problems
were
likewise
expected
to
be
controlled
by
standard
practices.
We
expected
that
any
important
differences
between
fumigants
would
be
measured
for
seed
efficiency
and
seedling
quality
due
to
soil­
pests
other
than
weeds.
The
economic
aspects
of
seed
efficiency
(
that
is,
the
number
of
plantable
seedlings
culls
omitted
produced
per
unit
of
pure
live
seed)
have
been
addressed
by
South
(
1987)
who
showed
that
small
changes
had
significant
economic
impacts.

Non­
significant
differences
between
tarped
and
not
tarped
applications
of
dazomet
or
chloropicrin
were
somewhat
surprising.
Plastic
tarps
increase
effective
concentrations
of
MC2
or
MC33
(
Munnecke
and
Van
Gundy,
1979).
However,
MBr
boils
at
4.6
°
C
and
is
more
physically
active
than
most
other
fumigants
at
normal
soil
tem
­

peratures.
Dazomet,
applied
as
a
granular
product
evolves
its
fumigant
in
contact
with
soil
moisture.
Our
estimates
for
soil
fungi
(
data
not
presented)
indi­

cate
that
much
of
its
activity
can
occur
after
tarps
would
normally
Table
4.
Seedbed
densities
and
seedling
size
and
mass
by
fumigant
rate
and
nursery.

Summerville
(
271
days
after
sowing).

Fumigant
Rate
(
lbs/
ac)
Seedlings
(/
ft
2
)
Diameter
(
mm)
Shoot
(
gm
OD)
Root
(
gm
OD)
MC33
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Basamid
Basamid
None
350
250
125
280
140
0
29.2
a
1
29.6
a
29.2
a
28.2
a
30.6
a
28.1
a
4.70
a
4.56
abc
4.40
cd
4.68
ab
4.44
cd
4.21
d
2.45
ab
2.38
ab
2.22
bc
2.57
a
2.00
c
2.00
c
0.78
a
0.76
ab
0.67
b
0.82
a
0.69
b
0.68
b
Mean
value
lsd
for
treatments
2
P
for
treatment
effect
29.1
2.3
0.19
4.48
0.23
0.001
2.26
0.28
0.001
0.73
0.08
0.001
Statesboro
(
250
days
after
sowing).

Fumigant
Rate
(
lbs/
ac)
Seedlings
(/
ft
2
)
Diameter
(
mm)
Shoot
(
gm
OD)
Root
(
gm
OD)
MC33
Chlorpicrin
Chlorpicrin
Basamid
Basamid
None
350
250
125
280
140
0
20.32
abc
22.37
a
20.47
abc
19.95
bc
18.99
c
21.16
ab
4.52
a
4.63
a
4.71
a
4.60
a
4.53
a
4.47
a
3.31
a
3.40
a
3.40
a
3.37
a
3.22
a
2.86
a
0.93
a
1.00
a
1.05
a
1.02
a
0.97
a
0.94
a
Mean
value
lsd
for
treatments
P
for
treatment
effect
20.6
1.93
0.012
4.58
0.28
0.52
3.25
0.52
0.21
0.99
0.15
0.61
1
Means
followed
by
the
same
letter
not
significantly
different
(
alpha
=
.05).
2
"
lsd"
and
"
P"
values
from
SAS
GLM.
Table
5.
Weeds
by
fumigant
and
date
on
ground
not
cultivated
after
a
fall
fumigation.

Fumigant
Rate
lb/
ac
Chl.
lb/
ac
Tarp
Cover
%
1
(
May)
Numbers
2
(
April)
Nutsedge
2
#'
s
MBr
1,3­
D
Dazomet
Dazomet
Dazomet
Dazomet
Dazomet
Metham­
sodium
Metham­
sodium
Metham­
sodium
Control
235
290
300
300
150
150
150
400
400
400
0
115
0
0
0
0
0
115
0
0
115
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
29
c
35
c
95
a
65
b
95
a
70
b
46
c
36
c
90
a
38
c
100
a
8.5
c
14.5
c
101.5
a
79.3
ab
82.8
ab
81.8
ab
55.0
abc
28.5
c
35.2
bc
17.3
c
91.8
a
0.25
c
2.00
c
36.70
abc
63.52
a
29.75
abc
56.75
a
47.25
abc
10.25
bc
5.75
abc
5.50
bc
31.75
abc
lsd
16.22
44.21
38.22
1
Percentage
of
ground
covered
by
weeds
on
Apr.
12,
1994.
2
Number
of
weeds
in
four
square
foot
frame
on
May
10,
1994.

be
removed.
Chloropicrin
is
liquid
at
normal
soil
temperatures
which
evaporates
slowly
(
boiling
point
112
°
C)
to
produce
a
gas
heavier
than
air.
It
seems
possible
that
chloropicrin
evaporated
and
subsequently
diffused
slowly
enough
without
tarping
to
achieve
a
large
percentage
of
that
effective
concentration
produced
under
plastic.
Differences
between
effective
concentration
of
the
high
and
low
rates
of
dazomet
or
chloropicrin
indicate
that
measured
variables
(
seedling
and
fungi
but
not
weeds)
were
sensitive
to
treatment
differences.

Seedling
sizes
and
masses
differed
between
fumigation
treatments
only
at
Summerville
where
all
differences
followed
the
same
pattern.
Seedlings
did
not
differ
significantly
between
the
MC33
or
the
high
rate
of
chloropicrin
or
dazomet
but
these
were
significantly
larger
than
seedlings
from
plots
treated
with
the
low
rates
which
did
not
differ
from
non­
fumigated
controls.
Final
seedbed
densities
did
not
differ
among
treatments
but
sizes
and
masses
were
negatively
correlated
with
plot
densities.

The
effects
of
seedbed
density
on
loblolly
pine
are
well
documented
(
South,
et
al.
1990).
Density
differences
at
the
two
nurseries
result
largely
from
sowing
rates
and
complicate
inferences
for
fumigation
treatment
effects.
At
Summerville,

the
30
seedlings/
ft
2
at
the
first
survey
changed
negligibly
before
harvest
but
at
Statesboro,

the
initial
23/
ft
2
,
was
to
20/
ft
2
during
that
period
due
to
causes
not
(
p
=
0.14)
associated
with
fumigation
treatments.
Differ­
ences
in
seedbed
densities,

between
treatments,
increased
but
remained
non­
significant
at
Statesboro
and
decreased
at
Summerville.

Non­
significant
differences
for
seedling
growth
among
treatments
at
the
Statesboro
nursery
could
be
attributable
either
to
environmental
conditions
unfavorable
for
diseases
controlled
by
fumigation
or
just
the
chance
"
escape"
of
the
study
area
from
a
normally
sporadic
pathogen
development.

Not
surprisingly,
estimates
of
weed
cover
in
April
and
num
­

bers
of
weeds
per
sample
plot
in
May
indicate
essentially
the
same
relative
herbicidal
activi­

ties
for
the
fumigant
treatments.
It
seems
unfortunate
that
MC33,

which
will
soon
be
unavailable,

was
the
best
fumigant
tested
but
1,3­
D
was
almost
as
good.

Although
increasing
the
concentration
of
chloropicrin
usually
decrease
the
herbicidal
activity
of
MBr,
it
significantly
(
in
April)
enhanced
the
activity
of
dazomet
and
insignificantly
that
of
Metham­
sodium.
Dazomet
had
the
least
herbicidal
activity
of
the
fumigants.

Nutsedge
is
currently
one
of
the
most
difficult
weeds
to
control
in
southern
pine
nurseries
Although
plants
per
treatment
are
presented
in
Table
3
with
a
multiple
means
comparison
(
Duncan's
for
SAS
ANOVA)
it's
logical
to
believe
that
tuber
producing
plants
will
not
(
as
required
by
these
statis
­

tics)
be
normally
distributed.

Nutsedge
plants
differed
significantly
between
treatments
for
non­
parametric
statistics
also
(
SAS
NPAR1WAY)
but
mul­
tiple
comparisons
are
difficult.

Anyway,
no
treatments
were
significantly
different
from
the
control.

As
a
part
of
these
studies
that
will
be
presented
later,
soil
samples
were
collected
each
time
seedlings
were
surveyed
and
subsequently
plated
on
media
selective
for
the
development
of
Fusarium
(
Nash
and
Snyder,
1961),
Rhizoctonia
(
L.
J.

Herr,
1973)
and
Trichoderma
(
Elad
et
al,
1981).
Numbers
of
fungi
identified
on
selective
media
did
not
differ
significantly
among
blocks
or
rows
for
pretreatment
soil
samples
but
all
fumigation
treatments
significantly
reduced
populations.
The
assessed
fungal
"
groups"
were
differentially
affected
by
fumigants
and
subsequently
recovered
to
prefumigation
levels
at
different
rates.

LITERATURE
CITED
Anonymous.
1993.
The
biologic
and
economic
assessment
of
methyl
bromide.
USDA
NAPIAP.
99
pp.

Carey,
W.
A.
1991.
Insect
and
disease
problems
on
hardwoods
in
southern
nurseries.

In
Proceedings.
Nursery
pest
management
workshop.

Athens,
TN
July
30­
Aug
1.

Carey,
W.
A.
and
W.
D.
Kelley.

1994.
Seedling
production
trends
and
fusiform
rust
control
practices
at
southern
nurseries,
1981­
1991.
South.

J.
Appl.
For.
17:
207­
211.

Elad,
Y.
I.
Chet
and
Y.
Henis.

1981.
A
selective
media
for
improving
quantitative
isolation
of
Trichoderma
spp.
from
soil.
Phytoparasitica
9:
59­
67.

Herr,
L.
J.
1973.
Disk­
plate
method
for
selective
isolation
of
Rhizoctonia
solani
form
soil.
Can.
J.
Microbiol.

19:
1269­
1273.

Munnecke,
D.
E.
and
S.
D.
Van
Gundy.
1979.
Movement
of
fumigants
in
soil,
dosage
responses,
and
differential
effects.
Ann.
Rev.
Phytopathol.
17:
405­
429.

Nash,
S.
M.
and
W.
C.
Snyder.
1961.
Quantative
estimates
in
plate
counts
of
propagules
of
the
bean
root
rot
fusarium
in
field
soils.
Phyto­

pathology
52:
567­
572.

South,
D.
B.
and
D.
H.
Gjerstad.

1980.
Nursery
weed
control
with
herbicides
or
fumigation:
an
economic
evaluation.
SJAF
4:
40­
45.

South,
D.
B.
and
C.
B.
Davey.

1983.
The
southern
forest
nursery
soil
testing
program.
Alabama
Agricultural
Experiment
Station
Circular
265.
38
pp.

South,
D.
B.,
H.
S.
Larsen,
J.
N.

Boyer
and
H.
M.
Williams.
1990.
Seed
spacing
and
seedling
biomass:
Effect
on
root
growth
potential
of
loblolly
pine.
New
Forests
4:
179­
192.

Stone,
J.
M.
1991.
Hardwood
pest
problems
weeds,
grasses
&
herbicide
controls.
In
Proceedings.
Nursery
pest
management
workshop.

Athens,
TN
July
30­
Aug
1.

Thompson,
W.
T.
1991.

Agricultural
chemicals.
Book
III
 
Miscellaneous
agricultural
chemicals.
1991­
1992
revi­

sion.
Thompson
Publications.
Fresno,
CA.
1
Michigan
Seedling
Species/
Seed
Source
Abies
balsamea
Abies
concolor
Abies
fraseri
Abies
intermedii
Abies
koreana
Abies
lasiocarpa
ssp
arizonica
Abies
nobilis
Abies
nordmania
Abies
procera
Abies
veitchi
Abis
balsamea
var.
phanerolipsis
Acer
bulergerianula
Acer
crissifoliura
Acer
ginnala
Acer
japonicum
Acer
negundo
Acer
palmatum
Acer
palmatum
atrapureum
Acer
pseudoplatanus
Acer
rubrum
Acer
saccharinum
Acer
saccharum
Acer
tatricum
Acer
truncatum
Aesculus
glabra
Aesculus
turbinate
Ainus
rugosa
Alnus
rugosa
Amelanchier
alnifolia
Amelanchier
Canadensis
Amelanchier
grandiflora
Amelanchier
laevis
Amelanchier
wamarckii
Ammophila
breviligulata
Aronia
melanocarpa
Asimina
triloba
Berberis
thumburgii
Betula
nigra
Betula
papyrifera
Betula
pendula
Betula
platphylla
`
japonica'
Buddleia
davidii
2
Campsis
radicans
Caragana
arborescens
Carpinus
japonica
Carya
glabra
Carya
illinoinensis
Carya
lacinosa
Carya
ovata
Castanea
mollissima
Cedrus
Deodara
Celastrus
scandens
Celtis
occidentalis
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
Cercis
Canadensis
Cercis
chinensis
Cornilla
varia
Cornus
alternifolia
Cornus
amomum
Cornus
controversa
Cornus
florida
Cornus
florida
`
rubra'
Cornus
kousa
Cornus
kousa
`
Milky
Way'
Cornus
mas
Cornus
officinalis
Cornus
racemosa
Cornus
sanguinea
Cornus
sericea
Cornus
stolonifera
(
sericea)
Corylus
Americana
Corylus
coruta
var.
cornuta
Cotinus
coggygria
Cotinus
coggygria
`
atropurpurea'
Crataegus
crus­
galli
Crataegus
mollis
Crataegus
phaenopyrum
Diospyros
virginiana
Eleagnus
angustifolia
Eleagnus
umbellate
Euonymus
alatus
Evodia
Hupenesis
Fagus
grandifolia
Fagus
sylvatica
Fagus
sylvatica
purpurea
3
Forsythia
spp
Fraxinus
Americana
Fraxinus
nigra
Fraxinus
pennsylvaniaca
Ginko
biloba
Gleditsia
triacanthos
`
inermis'
Gymnacladus
dioicus
Hamamelis
virginiana
Hibiscus
syriacus
Ilex
verticillata
Ilex
opaca
Juglans
cinerea
Juglans
nigra
Juglans
regia
Juniperus
virginiana
Larix
deciduas
Larix
laricina
Larix
leptolepis
Lindera
benzoin
Liquidambar
styraciflua
Liriodendron
tulipfera
Lonicera
maackii
`
Rem
Red'
Lonicera
tatarica
Malus
baccata
Malus
baccata
`
Mandshurica'
Malus
coronaria
Malus
floribunda
Malus
hybrid
magneta
Malus
sargentii
Malus
sargentii
`
Roselow'
Malus
x
Red
Splender
Malus
Zumi
Morus
rubra
Myrica
pensylvanica
Nyssa
sylvatica
Pachysandra
terminalis
Physocarpus
opulifolia
Physocarpus
opulifolius
Picea
abies
Picea
englemanni
Picea
glauca
Picea
glauca
densata
Picea
mariana
4
Picea
meyeri
Picea
omorika
Picea
pungens
Picea
pungens
`
glauca'
Pinus
banksiana
Pinus
mugo
mughus
Pinus
mugo
pumilla
Pinus
nigra
Pinus
pondersosa
Pinus
resinosa
Pinus
strobiformis
Pinus
strobes
Pinus
sylvestris
Platanus
occidentalis
Populus
x
Carolina
Prunus
Americana
Prunus
angustifolia
Prunus
besseyi
Prunus
pumila
Prunus
serotina
Prunus
tomentosa
Prunus
virginiana
Pseudotsuga
menziesii
Pseudotsuga
menziesii
glauca
Pterostyrak
Hispida
Pyrus
calleryana
Pyrus
coxxxxnis
Bartlett
Quercus
acutissima
Quercus
alba
Quercus
bicolor
Quercus
coccinea
Quercus
ellipsoidalis
Quercus
falc.
var.
paggodifolia
Quercus
imbricaria
Quercus
lyrata
Quercus
macrocarpa
Quercus
muehlenbergi
Quercus
palustris
Quercus
robur
Quercus
rubra
Quercus
shumardii
Quercus
velutina
Rhus
aromatica
5
Rhus
glabra
Rhus
typhina
Robinia
pseudoacacia
Rosa
rugosa
Salix
discolor
Sambucus
Canadensis
Sambucus
pubens
Sassafras
albidum
Sorbus
alnifolia
Sorbus
Americana
Sorbus
aucuparia
Syringa
reticulate
Syringa
villosa
Syringa
vulgaris
Syringa
josikaea
Taxodium
distichum
Taxus
capitata
Thuja
occidentalis
Tilia
Americana
Tilia
cordata
Tsuga
Canadensis
Tsuga
chinensis
Tsuga
heterophylla
Ulmus
Americana
Ulmus
parvifolia
Ulmus
pumila
Viburnum
acerifolia
Viburnum
bracteatum
Viburnum
dentatum
Viburnum
carlesii
Viburnum
lantana
Viburnum
lentago
Viburnum
opulus
Viburnum
prunifolium
Viburnum
trilobum
Vinca
minor
Vitis
riparia
Weigela
florida
Wisteria
sinensis
Xanthocerus
Sorbifolia
Ziziphus
jujuba
1.

2.

3.

4.

Light
x
Medium
Heavy
0
to
2%
x
2
to
5
%
over
5%

5.

6.
Specialty
(
check
one)

7.
agronomic
8.
economic
9.
Daytime
phone
10.
FAX
11.

List
an
additional
contact
person
if
available.
Specialty
(
check
one)

12.
agronomic
x
13.
economic
x
14.
15.
FAX
16.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Contact
name
Address
Daytime
phone
E­
mail
Allendale,
MI
49401
Brian
Bosch
(
616)
892­
4090
(
616)
892­
4290
10785
84th
Ave.
Location
(
Enter
the
state,
region,
or
county.
Provide
more
detail
about
the
location
if
relevant
to
the
feasibility
of
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide.)

Crop/
commodity
(
Include
all
crops/
commodities
that
benefit
from
the
application
of
methyl
bromide
in
a
fumigation
cycle.
A
fumigation
cycle
is
the
period
of
time
between
methyl
bromide
fumigations.)

Climate
(
Individual
users
should
enter
their
climate
zone
designation
by
reviewing
the
U.
S.
climate
zone
map.
If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
please
indicate
the
estimated
percentage
of
consortium
users
in
each
climate
zone.
This
map
is
located
at
the
end
of
this
workbook
or
it
can
be
reviewed
online
at
http://
www.
usna.
usda.
gov/
Hardzone/
ushzmap.
html).

Regions
4B
and
5B
Michigan
Dept.
of
Agriculture
Worksheet
1.
Contact
and
Methyl
Bromide
Request
Information
The
following
information
will
be
used
to
determine
the
amount
of
methyl
bromide
requested
and
the
contact
person
for
this
request.
It
is
important
that
we
know
whom
to
contact
in
case
we
need
additional
information
during
the
review
of
the
application.

Other
geographic
factors
that
may
affect
crop/
commodity
yield
(
e.
g.,
water
table).

Michigan
Seedling
Association
State
of
Michigan
Conifer
and
deciduous
seedling
and
transplants
Soil
Type:

Organic
Matter:
Soil
type
Check
the
box(
es)
for
the
soil
types
and
percent
organic
matter
that
apply
to
your
area.
If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
please
indicate
the
estimated
percentage
of
consortium
users
in
each
soil
type.

Consortium
name
Lansing,
MI
48909
rosenbaumr@
michigan.
gov
(
517)
335­
4540
Contact
name
Address
(
517)
335­
6542
E­
mail
Robin
Rosenbaum
Worksheet
1.
Contact
and
Methyl
Bromide
Request
Information
17.
20,160
lbs.

17a.
acres
units
18.
Yes
x
No
18a.

19.

20.

20a.

OMB
Control
#
If
applying
as
a
consortium
for
many
users
of
methyl
bromide,
please
define
a
representative
user
.
Define
exactly,
issues
such
as
size
of
the
operation
(
acres
treated
with
methyl
bromide
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications),
whether
the
representative
user
owns
or
rents
the
land
or
operation,
intensity
of
methyl
bromide
use
(
treat
regularly
or
only
when
pest
reaches
a
threshold),
pest
pressure,
etc.
Target
Pest(
s)
or
Pest
Problem(
s):
(
Be
as
specific
as
possible
about
the
species
or
classes
of
pests
relevant
to
the
feasibility
of
alternatives.)
If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
for
question
17
and
17a.
should
be
the
total
for
the
consortium.

In
the
question
below,
area
is
defined
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Are
you
requesting
methyl
bromide
for
additional
years
beyond
2005?

acres
acres
2007
In
the
table
below,
area
is
defined
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Year
How
much
active
ingredient
(
ai)
of
methyl
bromide
are
you
requesting
for
2005?

All
of
the
growers
in
the
consortium
grow
the
same
species
of
plants
in
roughly
the
same
climate.
The
representative
user
owns
half
of
the
acres
they
farm
and
rent
or
lease
the
rest.
Methyl
bromide
is
used
on
6­
10
acres.
They
need
to
use
methyl
bromide
every
year
on
the
soil
into
which
they
plant
their
new
seedlings
or
transplants.
How
much
area
will
this
be
applied
to?
Please
list
units.
84
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Explain
why
this
user
represents
the
typical
user
in
the
consortium.
84
Yes.
We
are
requesting
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
until
economically
feasible
alternatives
are
2006
Quantity
ai
(
lb.)
of
Methyl
Bromide
20,160
Area
to
be
Treated
84
If
yes,
please
list
year
and
quantity
active
ingredient
(
ai)
of
methyl
bromide
requested
in
the
table
below
and
explain
why
you
need
authorization
for
multiple
years.

developed
or
become
available.

If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
below
should
be
the
total
for
the
consortium.

20,160
Unit
of
Area
Treated
Annual
and
perennial
weeds
Grubs
and
nematodes
Fungi
Worksheet
Title
Instructions
specific
to
each
worksheet
are
located
at
the
top
of
each
sheet.

2­
A
Methyl
Bromide
Use
for
1997
­
2000
This
worksheet
provides
data
in
actual
usage
for
1997­
2000.

2­
B
Methyl
Bromide
­
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
and
Gross
Revenue
for
1997­

2000
This
worksheet
provides
crop/
commodity
yield
and
gross
revenue
for
1997
through
2000.

2­
C
Methyl
Bromide
­
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
and
Gross
Revenue
for
2001
This
data
provides
historical
information
on
crop/
commodity
yield
and
gross
revenue
for
2001.

2­
D
Methyl
Bromide
Use
and
Costs
for
2001
This
worksheet
isolates
use
and
cost
data
for
2001.

2­
E
Methyl
Bromide
­
Other
Operating
Costs
for
2001
This
data
is
needed
to
estimate
a
baseline
for
operating
costs
in
order
to
estimate
the
impact
on
operating
profit
and
short­
run
economic
viability
as
a
result
of
not
using
methyl
bromide.

2­
F
Methyl
Bromide
­
Fixed
And
Overhead
Costs
for
2001
This
data
is
needed
to
estimate
a
baseline
for
total
costs
in
order
to
estimate
the
impact
on
profitability
and
long­
run
economic
viability
as
a
result
of
not
using
methyl
bromide.

Purpose
of
Data:
To
establish
a
baseline
estimate
of
crop/
commodity
yields,
gross
revenues,
and
costs
using
methyl
bromide.
Worksheet
2.
Methyl
Bromide
­
Historical
Use
of
Methyl
Bromide
Col
A:
Formulation
of
Methyl
Bromide
Col
B,
E,
H,
K:
Actual
Area
Treated
Col
C,
F,
I,
L:
Actual
Total
lbs.
ai
of
Methyl
Bromide
Applied
Col
D,
G,
J,
M:
Actual
Average
lbs.
ai
Applied
per
Area
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Total
Actual
Area
Treated
Actual
Total
lbs.
ai
of
Methyl
Bromide
Applied
Average
lbs.
ai
Applied
per
Area
Total
Actual
Area
Treated
Actual
Total
lbs.
ai
of
Methyl
Bromide
Applied
Average
lbs.
ai
Applied
per
Area
Total
Actual
Area
Treated
Actual
Total
lbs.
ai
of
Methyl
Bromide
Applied
Average
lbs.
ai
Applied
per
Area
Total
Actual
Area
Treated
Actual
Total
lbs.
ai
of
Methyl
Bromide
Applied
Average
lbs.
ai
Applied
per
Area
over
95%
methyl
bromide
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!

75%
methyl
bromide,
25%
chloropicrin
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!

67%
methyl
bromide,
33%
chloropicrin
129
30,960
240
137
32,880
240
113
27,120
240
127
30,480
240
50%
methyl
bromide,
50%
chloropicrin
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!

__%
methyl
bromide,
__%
chloropicrin
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!

__%
methyl
bromide,
__%
chloropicrin
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!

#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!

All
formulations
of
methyl
bromide
30,960
#
DIV/
0!
32,880
#
DIV/
0!
27,120
#
DIV/
0!
30,480
#
DIV/
0!

Comments:

OMB
Control
#
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
2­
A.
Methyl
Bromide
­
Use
1997­
2000
Enter
the
appropriate
data
in
Col
B­
M
for
each
formulation,
if
known,
and/
or
the
totals
and
averages
for
all
formulations.
If
you
enter
only
the
total
and
averages
for
all
formulations
in
the
last
row
of
the
table,
please
describe
in
the
comments
section
the
formulations
typically
used,
or
the
approximate
proportions
of
the
formulations
used.

If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
all
data
should
reflect
the
actual
data
for
the
consortium.

The
average
application
rates
in
pounds
ai
of
methyl
bromide
per
area
are
automatically
calculated
from
the
previous
2
columns.
2000
Enter
the
total
actual
area
treated.
Note:
This
number
should
be
the
total
actual
area
treated
by
the
individual
user
or
total
actual
area
for
the
entire
consortium,
for
the
year
indicated.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Formulation
of
Methyl
Bromide
Enter
the
actual
total
pounds
active
ingredient
(
ai)
of
methyl
bromide
applied.
Note:
This
number
should
be
the
total
pounds
ai
applied
by
the
individual
user
or
the
entire
consortium,
for
the
year
indicated.

1997
1998
1999
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

A
C
D
E
F
Year
Methyl
Bromide
was
Applied
Unit
of
Crop/
Commodity
(
e.
g.,
pounds,
bushels)
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
(
Units
per
area)
Price
(
per
unit
of
crop/
commodity)
Revenue
(
per
area)

1997
plants
100,000
$
0.50
$
50,000.00
1998
plants
100,000
$
0.50
$
50,000.00
1999
plants
100,000
$
0.50
$
50,000.00
2000
plants
100,000
$
0.50
$
50,000.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
Total
Revenue
for
1997
$
50,000.00
Total
Revenue
for
1998
$
50,000.00
Total
Revenue
for
1999
$
50,000.00
Total
Revenue
for
2000
$
50,000.00
Average
Revenue
Per
Year
$
50,000.00
Comments:

OMB
Control
#
conifer/
deciduous
plants
conifer/
deciduous
plants
conifer/
deciduous
plants
conifer/
deciduous
plants
B
Col.
E:
Price
Col.
F:
Revenue
Crop/
Commodity
Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Average
Revenue
per
Year:
The
average
revenue
per
year
is
calculated
automatically
using
the
summary
data
you
enter
for
each
year.

Total
Revenue
for
1997­
2000
Enter
the
total
revenue
per
year
by
adding
the
revenue
for
all
crops
for
that
year.

Col.
A:
Year
Col.
B:
Crop/
Commodity
Col.
C:
Unit
of
Crop/
Commodity
Col.
D:
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
Worksheet
2­
B.
Methyl
Bromide
­
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
and
Gross
Revenue
1997­
2000
If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
for
this
table
should
reflect
the
actual
averages
for
the
consortium.

Enter
the
average
prices
received
by
the
users
for
the
year
and
crop/
commodity
indicated
(
1997­
2000).

This
number
is
calculated
automatically
using
the
values
you
entered
in
Cols.
D
and
E.
You
may
override
the
formula
to
enter
a
different
revenue.
Please
explain
why
the
revenue
amount
is
different
in
the
comment
section
below.

Enter
the
unit
of
measurement
for
each
crop/
commodity.

Be
sure
to
enter
the
year.
Use
as
many
rows
as
needed
for
each
year
for
all
the
crops/
commodities
in
the
fumigation
cycles
from
1997
to
2000.
If
a
fumigation
cycle
overlaps
more
than
one
calendar
year,
then
the
year
of
the
fumigation
cycle
is
the
year
methyl
bromide
was
applied.

Enter
all
crops/
commodities
that
benefit
from
methyl
bromide
in
each
fumigation
cycle.
(
For
example,
if
normally
methyl
bromide
is
applied
and
tomatoes
are
grown
and
harvested
followed
by
peppers
without
an
additional
treatment
of
methyl
bromide,
then
both
tomatoes
and
peppers
would
be
part
of
the
same
fumigation
cycle.)
See
the
Fumigation
Cycle
Worksheet
for
a
comprehensive
definition
of
the
fumigation
cycle.

Enter
the
number
of
units
of
crop/
commodities
produced
per
area.

If
someone
other
than
the
applicant
benefits
from
the
application
of
methyl
bromide
in
the
fumigation
cycle
and
you
do
not
have
the
quantitative
data
for
the
crops
grown
on
the
same
land,
please
indicate
so
in
the
comments
section
below.

The
purpose
of
this
worksheet
is
to
estimate
the
gross
revenue
for
1997
­
2000
when
using
methyl
bromide.
Post­
harvest
and
structural
users
may
work
with
EPA
to
modify
this
form
to
accommodate
differences
in
operations
when
providing
gross
revenue
data.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Col.
B:
Price
Factors
Col.
C:
Unit
of
Crop/
Commodity
Col.
D:
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
Col.
E:
Price
Col.
F:
Revenue
A
B
C
D
E
F
Crop/
Commodity
Price
Factors
(
grade,
time,
market)
Unit
of
Crop/
Commodity
(
e.
g.,
pounds,
bushels)
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
(
Units
per
area)
Price
(
per
unit
of
crop/
commodity)
Revenue
(
per
area)

Conifer
seedlings
size
1,000
trees
500
­
800
80
­
200
40,000
­
160,000
Conifer
transplants
size
1,000
trees
60
­
120
300
­
900
18,000
­
108,000
Deciduous
transplants
size
1,000
trees
100
­
300
250
­
750
25,000
­
225,000
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
Total
Revenue
83,000
­
493,000
Comments:

OMB
Control
#

The
purpose
of
this
worksheet
is
to
estimate
the
gross
revenue
for
2001when
using
methyl
bromide.
Post­
harvest
users
may
modify
this
form
to
accommodate
differences
when
providing
gross
revenue
data.
If
2001
was
not
a
typical
year
for
the
individual
or
for
the
representative
user
of
a
consortium,
the
applicant
may
provide
additional
data
for
a
different
year.
However,
all
applicants
must
complete
this
worksheet
for
the
year
2001
regardless.
Please
explain
in
the
comment
section
at
the
bottom
of
the
worksheet
why
2001
is
not
considered
a
typical
year,
if
that
is
the
case.
Enter
all
crops/
commodities
that
benefit
from
methyl
bromide
in
the
fumigation
cycle
(
interval
between
fumigations)
beginning
with
the
treatment
of
methyl
bromide
in
2001.
If
multiple
crops
are
grown
during
the
interval
between
fumigations
(
e.
g.
tomatoes
followed
by
peppers
in
a
single
growing
season,
or
strawberries
followed
by
lettuce
over
2
or
3
years)
include
all
of
the
crops
during
the
entire
interval.
See
the
Fumigation
Cycle
Worksheet
for
a
comprehensive
definition
of
the
fumigation
cycle.

If
someone
other
than
the
applicant
benefits
from
the
application
of
methyl
bromide
in
the
fumigation
cycle
and
you
do
not
have
the
quantitative
data
for
the
crops
grown
on
the
same
land,
please
indicate
so
in
the
comments
section
below.

Col.
A:
Crop/
Commodity
Worksheet
2­
C.
Methyl
Bromide
­
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
and
Gross
Revenue
2001
Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
for
this
table
should
reflect
the
representative
user
for
the
consortium.

Enter
average
2001
prices
received
by
the
users
for
that
crop/
commodity
and
price
factor.

Revenue
is
automatically
calculated
using
the
data
you
entered
for
yield
and
price.
If
revenue
is
not
equal
to
yield
times
price,
you
may
override
the
formula
and
enter
a
different
revenue
amount.
Please
explain
why
this
revenue
amount
is
different
in
the
comment
section
below.

Enter
factors
that
determine
prices
(
e.
g.,
grade,
time,
market).
If
you
received
different
prices
for
your
crop/
commodity
as
a
result
of
quality,

grade,
market
(
e.
g.
fresh
or
processing),
timing
of
harvest,
etc.,
you
may
itemize
by
using
more
than
one
row.
Itemize
or
aggregate
these
factors
to
the
extent
appropriate
in
making
the
case
that
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
affects
these
price
factors.

Enter
the
unit
of
measurement
for
each
crop/
commodity.

Enter
the
number
of
units
of
crop/
commodity
produced
per
area
for
that
price
factor.
Col.
A:
Formulation
of
Methyl
Bromide
Col
B:
Average
lbs.
active
ingredient
(
ai)
of
Methyl
Bromide
Applied
per
Area
Cols.
C,
D,
E,
G:
Prices
and
Costs
Col.
F:
Actual
Area
Treated
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Formulation
of
Methyl
Bromide
Lb.
ai
of
Methyl
Bromide
Applied
per
Area
(
2001
Average)
Price
per
lb.
ai
of
Methyl
Bromide
(
2001
Average)
Cost
of
Applying
Pesticide
per
Area
(
2001
Average)
Other
MBr
Costs
(
e.
g.
tarps,

etc.)
per
Area
(
2001
Average)
Total
Actual
Area
Treated
in
the
Consortium
Cost
per
Area
over
95%
methyl
bromide
$
0.00
75%
methyl
bromide,
25%
chloropicrin
$
0.00
67%
methyl
bromide,
33%
chloropicrin
235
84
$
1,434.00
50%
methyl
bromide,
50%
chloropicrin
$
0.00
__%
methyl
bromide,
__%
chloropicrin
$
0.00
__%
methyl
bromide,
__%
chloropicrin
$
0.00
$
0.00
All
formulations
of
methyl
bromide
$
1,434.00
Comments:
Approximately
95%
of
the
MB
applied
to
seedlings
is
custom
applied.

The
cost
per
area
reflects
the
cost
of
the
MB
and
the
application
costs,
tarps,
etc.

MB
costs
approximately
$
2.50
per
pound
if
the
farmer
applies
the
product.

OMB
Control
#
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

If
2001
was
not
a
typical
year
for
the
individual
or
for
the
representative
user
of
a
consortium,
the
applicant
may
provide
additional
data
for
a
different
year.
However,
all
applicants
must
complete
this
worksheet
for
the
year
2001
regardless.
If
you
provide
an
additional
year's
data,
please
explain
in
the
comment
section
at
the
bottom
of
the
worksheet
why
2001
is
not
considered
a
typical
year.

If
the
methyl
bromide
is
custom
applied
then
put
the
cost
per
area
in
Column
G
and
fill
in
the
average
lb
ai
of
methyl
bromide
applied
per
area
(
Col
B)
and
the
Total
Actual
Area
Treated
(
Col
F).

Worksheet
2­
D.
Methyl
Bromide
­
Use
and
Costs
for
2001
If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
in
Cols.
B,
C,
D,
and
E
should
reflect
the
representative
user
in
the
consortium.
The
data
in
Col.
F
should
reflect
the
actual
area
treated
by
all
users
in
the
consortium.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Enter
the
appropriate
data
in
Col
B­
G
for
each
formulation,
if
known,
and/
or
the
totals
and
averages
for
all
formulations
of
methyl
bromide.
If
you
just
enter
data
in
the
bottom
row
in
the
table
(
All
formulations
of
methyl
bromide),
please
describe
in
the
comments,
the
relative
usage
of
the
various
formulations,
to
the
extent
known.

Enter
the
average
pounds
active
ingredient
(
ai)
of
methyl
bromide
applied
per
area.

Enter
the
average
price
per
pound
active
ingredient
(
ai)
of
methyl
bromide
in
Col.
C
and
the
average
cost
of
applying
methyl
bromide
per
area
treated
in
Col.
D.
In
Col.
E,
enter
the
average
other
costs
per
area
associated
with
applying
methyl
bromide
(
e.
g.,
tarps).
Column
G
will
be
calculated
automatically
using
the
values
you
entered
in
columns
B­
E.
If
methyl
bromide
is
custom
applied,
enter
the
cost
per
area
in
Col.
G
and
fill
in
Cols.
B
and
F.

Enter
the
actual
area
treated.
Note:
This
number
should
be
the
total
area
treated
by
all
users
in
the
consortium.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Col
A:
Operation
Col
B:
Custom
Operation
Cost
Col
C:
Material
Cost
per
Area
Col
D:
Labor
Cost
per
Area
Col
E:
Total
Cost
per
Area
Col
F:
Typical
Equipment
Used
A
B
C
D
E
F
Material
Cost
per
Area
Labor
Cost
per
Area
Total
Cost
per
Area
Typical
Equipment
Used
Prepare
soil
$
100.00
$
300.00
$
400.00
100
hp
tractor
Fertilize
$
200.00
$
100.00
$
300.00
70
hp
tractor
Plants
$
16,666.00
$
8,333.00
$
25,000.00
100
hp
tractor
Irrigate
$
1,666.00
$
3,333.00
$
5,000.00
40
hp
pump
Apply
Pesticides
$
666.00
$
1,333.00
$
2,000.00
100
hp
tractor
Harvest
$
833.00
$
25,000.00
$
25,833.00
100
hp
tractor
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
Total
Custom
per
Area
$
0.00
User
Total
per
area
$
58,533.00
OMB
Control
#
Operation
Done
by
User
Worksheet
2­
E.
Methyl
Bromide
­
Other
Operating
Costs
for
2001
Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Custom
Operation
Cost
per
Area
Operation
If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
for
this
table
should
reflect
a
representative
user.

Do
not
include
methyl
bromide
costs.

Identify
the
typical
equipment
used
for
operations
done
by
user.
Please
be
specific,
such
as
tractor
horsepower.
No
cost
data
is
required
in
this
column.

If
you
do
not
incur
custom
operation
costs,
enter
the
material
cost
per
area.

The
total
cost
per
area
is
calculated
automatically
from
the
values
you
enter
in
Cols.
C
and
D.

If
you
do
not
incur
custom
operation
costs,
enter
the
labor
cost
per
area.

Enter
all
operating
costs
except
methyl
bromide
costs
incurred
during
the
fumigation
cycle
(
interval
between
fumigations)
beginning
in
2001.
See
the
Fumigation
Cycle
Worksheet
for
a
comprehensive
definition
of
the
fumigation
cycle.
Enter
these
costs
in
Col
B
for
custom
operations,
or
in
Col
C
and
D
for
operations
done
by
user.

Identify
in
Col
A
the
operations
(
except
methyl
bromide)
to
which
the
costs
apply.
For
growers,
these
operations
should
include
but
are
not
limited
to
(
1)
prepare
soil,
(
2)
fertilize,
(
3)
irrigate,
(
4)
plant,
(
5)
harvest,
(
6)
other
pest
controls,
etc.
You
must
include
all
other
operating
costs.

If
you
incur
custom
operation
costs,
enter
those
costs
in
Col.
B.

Submit
crop
budgets
for
each
crop,
if
available.
You
may
submit
crop
budgets
electronically
or
in
hard
copy.
If
your
costs
are
significantly
different
than
the
crop
budgets,

please
explain
in
the
comments.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Col
A:
Cost
Item
Col
B:
Description
Col
C:
Allocation
Method
Col
D:
Cost
per
Area
A
B
C
D
Cost
Item
Description
Allocation
Method
Cost
per
Area
Rent
Rental
cost
to
use
the
land
250/
acre/
year
$
250.00
Interest
Interest
on
loans
200/
acre/
year
$
200.00
Depreciation
Building
and
equipment
5,000/
year
$
833.00
Management
Wages,
etc.
1,000/
acre/
year
$
1,000.00
Office
Secretary
and
equipment
1,000/
acre/
year
$
1,000.00
Total
$
3,283.00
Comments:

OMB
Control
#
Worksheet
2­
F.
Methyl
Bromide
Fixed
and
Overhead
Costs
in
2001
Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
for
this
table
should
reflect
a
representative
user.

Identify
in
Col.
A
the
cost
items.
These
items
should
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
(
1)
land
rent,
(
2)
interest,
(
3)
depreciation,

(
4)
management,
and
(
5)
overhead
such
as
office
and
administration.)

Please
describe
the
cost
in
more
detail.

Please
describe
how
you
estimated
the
portion
of
total
fixed
cost
of
the
farm
or
entity
that
applies
to
this
crop/
commodity.

Enter
the
cost
per
area
of
methyl
bromide
treated.

Enter
all
fixed
and
overhead
costs
incurred
during
the
fumigation
cycle
(
interval
between
fumigations)
beginning
in
2001.
See
the
Fumigation
Cycle
Worksheet
for
a
comprehensive
definition
of
the
fumigation
cycle.
Worksheet
Title
3­
A
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
This
form
is
used
to
obtain
information
on
the
chemical
alternatives
identified
by
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
(
MBTOC)
that
are
registered
for
use
in
the
United
States,
as
well
as
the
non­
chemical
alternatives
identified
by
the
MBTOC.
Applicants
must
address
the
technical
feasibility
of
all
the
chemical
and
non­
chemical
alternatives
identified
on
the
list.

3­
B
Alternatives
­
Pest
Control
Regimen
Costs
This
form
is
used
to
estimate
the
cost
of
using
alternative
pest
control
regimens.

3­
C
Alternatives
­
Crop/

Commodity
Yield
and
Gross
Revenue
This
form
is
used
to
estimate
the
crop/
commodity
yields
and
gross
revenues
when
using
alternative
pest
control
regimens.

3­
D
Alternatives
­
Changes
in
Other
Costs
This
form
is
used
to
estimate
change
in
any
other
costs
as
a
result
of
using
the
alternatives.

Complete
each
of
the
worksheets
below
(
3­
A,
3­
B,
3­
C,
and
3­
D)
for
each
alternative
pest
control
regimen
listed
in
the
"
U.
S.
Matrix"
for
chemical
controls
(
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr/
cueqa.
html)
and
the
"
International
Matrix"
for
non­
chemical
pest
controls
(
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr/
cue).
Each
worksheet
contains
a
place
holder
in
the
title
for
you
to
insert
the
name
of
the
specific
alternative
pest
control
regimen
addressed.
You
should
add
additional
worksheets
as
required.
Please
add
a
number
designation
to
each
worksheet
title
to
indicate
a
different
alternative.
For
example,
for
the
first
alternative
pest
control
regimen
label
the
worksheets
as
3­
A(
1),
3­
B(
1),
3­
C(
1),
and
3­
D(
1).
For
the
second
alternative
pest
control
regimen
label
the
worksheets
3­
A(
2),
3­
B(
2),
3­
C(
2),
and
3­(
D)(
2).

Purpose
of
Data
on
Alternative
Pest
Control
Regimens:
To
estimate
the
loss
as
a
result
of
not
having
methyl
bromide
available.
EPA
needs
to
compare
data
(
yields,
crop/
commodity
prices,
gross
revenues
and
costs)
on
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
and
alternative
pest
control
regimens.

Worksheet
3.
Alternatives
­
Feasibility
of
Alternative
Pest
Control
Regimens
Enter
all
alternative
pesticides
and
pest
control
methods
(
and
associated
cost
and
yield
data)
that
would
replace
one
treatment
of
methyl
bromide
throughout
the
fumigation
cycle.
See
the
fumigation
cycle
worksheet
for
a
comprehensive
definition.
Use
additional
pages
as
needed.

Alternative:
Study:

Section
I.
Initial
Screening
on
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
1.
Are
there
any
location­
specific
restrictions
that
inhibit
the
use
of
this
alternative
on
your
site?

1a.
Full
use
permitted
x
1b.
Township
caps
1c.
Alternative
not
acceptable
in
consuming
country
1d.
Other
(
Please
describe)
Chemical
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
dazomet
(
Basamid
granular)

If
use
of
this
alternative
is
precluded
by
regulatory
restriction
for
all
users
covered
by
this
application,
the
applicant
should
not
complete
Section
II.
In
addition,
EPA
acknowledges
that,
for
certain
circumstances,
some
alternatives
are
not
technically
feasible
and
therefore
no
research
has
been
conducted
(
i.
e.
solarization
may
not
be
feasible
in
Seattle).
You
should
look
at
the
list
of
alternatives
provided
by
the
Agency
and
explain
why
they
cannot
be
used
for
your
crop
and
in
your
geographic
area.
When
completing
Section
II,
if
you
cite
a
study
that
is
on
the
EPA
website,
you
only
need
to
complete
questions
1,
5,
and
8.
Summarize
each
of
the
research
studies
you
cite
in
the
Research
Summary
Worksheet.

If
you
prefer,
you
may
provide
the
information
requested
in
this
worksheet
in
a
narrative
review
of
one
or
more
relevant
research
reports.
The
narrative
review
must
reply
to
Section
I
and
questions
1
through
8
in
Section
II.
A
Research
Summary
Worksheet
of
relevant
treatments
should
be
provided
for
each
study
reviewed.

BACKGROUND
EPA
must
consider
whether
alternative
pest
control
measures
(
pesticide
and
non­
pesticidal,
and
their
combination)
could
be
used
successfully
instead
of
methyl
bromide
by
crop
and
circumstance
(
geographic
area.)
The
Agency
has
developed
a
list
of
possible
alternative
pest
control
regimens
for
various
crops,
which
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr
or
by
calling
1­
800­
296­
1996.

There
are
three
major
ways
you
can
provide
the
Agency
with
proof
of
your
investigative
work.
(
1)
Conduct
and
submit
your
own
research
(
2)
Cite
research
that
has
been
conducted
by
others
(
3)
Cite
research
listed
on
the
EPA
website
Whether
you
conduct
the
research
yourself
or
cite
studies
developed
by
others,
it
is
important
that
the
studies
be
conducted
in
a
scientifically
sound
manner.
The
studies
should
include
a
description
of
the
experimental
methodology
used,
such
as
application
rates,
application
intervals,
pest
pressure,
weather
conditions,
varieties
of
the
crop
used,
etc.
All
results
should
be
included,
regardless
of
outcome.
You
must
submit
copies
of
each
study
to
EPA
unless
they
are
listed
on
the
Agency
b
it
The
Agency
has
posted
many
research
studies
on
a
variety
of
crops
on
its
website
and
knows
of
more
studies
currently
in
progress.
EPA
will
add
studies
to
its
website
as
they
become
publicly
available.
You
are
encouraged
to
review
the
EPA
website
and
other
websites
for
studies
that
pertain
to
your
crop
and
geographic
area.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
3­
A.
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
In
this
worksheet,
you
should
address
why
an
alternative
pest
management
strategy
on
the
list
(
see
previous
page)
is
or
is
not
effective
for
your
conditions.
This
worksheet
contains
9
questions.
You
must
complete
one
copy
of
worksheet
3­
A
for
each
research
study
you
use
to
evaluate
a
single
methyl
bromide
alternative.
Use
additional
pages
as
need.
For
worksheet
3­
A
you
must
complete
one
worksheet
for
each
alternative,
for
each
research
study
addressed.
Please
number
the
worksheets
as
follows.
For
the
same
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
a).
For
the
same
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
b).
For
the
first
alternative,
third
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
c).
For
the
second
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
a).
For
the
second
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
b).
Section
II.
Existing
Research
Studies
on
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
1.
Is
the
study
on
EPA's
webs
Yes
No
x
1a.
If
not
on
the
EPA
website,
please
attach
a
copy.

2.
Author(
s)
or
researc
3.
Publication
and
Date
of
Pu
4.
Location
of
research
5.

6.
Was
crop
yield
measured
i
Yes
x
No
7.

8.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Discuss
how
the
results
of
the
study
apply
to
your
situation.
Would
you
expect
similar
results?
Are
there
other
factors
that
would
affect
your
adoption
of
this
tool?
Describe
the
effectiveness
of
the
alternative
in
controlling
pests
in
the
study.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Dazomet
had
the
least
herbicidal
activity
of
the
fumigants.
The
timing
for
effective
application
of
1,3­
D
is
limited
in
Michigan
by
soil
temperatures.
There
is
only
one
window
for
application
in
late
summer/
early
fall
that
allows
for
application
to
be
made,
the
product
to
be
under
tarp
for
the
appropriate
length
of
time,
and
the
product
to
dissipate
without
causing
phytotoxicity
to
new
plantings
before
planting
takes
place
in
spring.
There
are
also
concerns
about
the
increased
hazard
to
humans
by
using
dazomet
and
metham
sodium.
Historically,
methyl
bromide
is
the
only
material
that
has
been
tarped
under
MI
conditions.
1,3­
D
dazomet
and
metham­
sodium
are
being
investigated
under
tarp
in
MI
beginning
in
fall,
2002.
Name
of
alternative(
s)
in
study.
If
more
than
one
alternative,
list
the
ones
you
wish
to
discuss.
Georgia
and
South
Carolina
dazomet,
dazomet
+
chloropicrin,
metham
sodium
+
chloropicrin
Seedbed
density
and
seedling
development
were
compared
at
two
locations
among
plots
treated
with
one
of
two
rates
of
dazomet
(
tarped
or
untarped),
one
of
two
rates
of
chloropicrin(
tarped
or
untarped)
methyl
bromide
and
an
untreated
control.
High
rates
of
dazomet
and
chloropicrin
were
not
significantly
different
from
methyl
bromide
but
low
rates
and
controls
were
inferior.
A
second
study
at
North
Carolina
compared
dazomet,
metham
sodium,
1,3­
D,
dazomet
+
chloropicrin,
metham
sodium
+
chloropicrin
and
methyl
bromide.
Methyl
bromide
had
the
best
herbicidal
activity
among
the
treatments
it
appears
from
the
data
that
tarping
is
essential
for
weed
contol
efficacy.

Weed
control
is
a
primary
concern
for
Michigan
seedling
growers.
Dazomet
and
metham
sodium
have
not
proven
as
effective
as
methyl
bromide
in
controlling
weeds.
Proceedings,
Forest
and
Conservation
Nursery
Association,
1994
W.
A.
Carey
Worksheet
3­
A.
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
3
Use
additional
pages
as
needed.

Alternative:
Study:

Section
I.
Initial
Screening
on
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
1.
Are
there
any
location­
specific
restrictions
that
inhibit
the
use
of
this
alternative
on
your
site?

1a.
Full
use
permitted
X
1b.
Township
caps
1c.
Alternative
not
acceptable
in
consuming
country
1d.
Other
(
Please
describe)
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#
Worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
b).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
In
this
worksheet,
you
should
address
why
an
alternative
pest
management
strategy
on
the
list
(
see
previous
page)
is
or
is
not
effective
for
your
conditions.
This
worksheet
contains
9
questions.
You
must
complete
one
copy
of
worksheet
3­
A
for
each
research
study
you
use
to
evaluate
a
single
methyl
bromide
alternative.
Use
additional
pages
as
need.

For
worksheet
3­
A
you
must
complete
one
worksheet
for
each
alternative,
for
each
research
study
addressed
.
Please
number
the
worksheets
as
follows.
For
the
same
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
a).
For
the
same
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
b).
For
the
first
alternative,
third
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
c).
For
the
second
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
a).
For
the
second
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
b).

When
completing
Section
II,
if
you
cite
a
study
that
is
on
the
EPA
website,
you
only
need
to
complete
questions
1,
5,
and
8.

Summarize
each
of
the
research
studies
you
cite
in
the
Research
Summary
Worksheet.

If
you
prefer,
you
may
provide
the
information
requested
in
this
worksheet
in
a
narrative
review
of
one
or
more
relevant
research
reports.
The
narrative
review
must
reply
to
Section
I
and
questions
1
through
8
in
Section
II.
A
Research
Summary
Worksheet
of
relevant
treatments
should
be
provided
for
each
study
reviewed.

BACKGROUND
EPA
must
consider
whether
alternative
pest
control
measures
(
pesticide
and
non­
pesticidal,
and
their
combination)
could
be
used
successfully
instead
of
methyl
bromide
by
crop
and
circumstance
(
geographic
area.)
The
Agency
has
developed
a
list
of
possible
alternative
pest
control
regimens
for
various
crops,
which
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr
or
by
calling
1­
800­
296­
1996.

There
are
three
major
ways
you
can
provide
the
Agency
with
proof
of
your
investigative
work.
(
1)
Conduct
and
submit
your
own
research
(
2)
Cite
research
that
has
been
conducted
by
others
(
3)
Cite
research
listed
on
the
EPA
website
Whether
you
conduct
the
research
yourself
or
cite
studies
developed
by
others,
it
is
important
that
the
studies
be
conducted
in
a
scientifically
sound
manner.
The
studies
should
include
a
description
of
the
experimental
methodology
used,
such
as
application
rates,
application
intervals,
pest
pressure,
weather
conditions,
varieties
of
the
crop
used,
etc.
All
results
should
be
included,
regardless
of
outcome.
You
must
submit
copies
of
each
study
to
EPA
unless
they
are
listed
on
the
Agency
website.
The
Agency
has
posted
many
research
studies
on
a
variety
of
crops
on
its
website
and
knows
of
more
studies
currently
in
progress.
EPA
will
add
studies
to
its
website
as
they
become
publicly
available.
You
are
encouraged
to
review
the
EPA
website
and
other
websites
for
studies
that
pertain
to
your
crop
and
geographic
area.

In
addition,
EPA
acknowledges
that,
for
certain
circumstances,
some
alternatives
are
not
technically
feasible
and
therefore
no
research
has
been
conducted
(
i.
e.
solarization
may
not
be
feasible
in
Seattle).
You
should
look
at
the
list
of
alternatives
provided
by
the
Agency
and
explain
why
they
cannot
be
used
for
your
crop
and
in
your
geographic
area.

dazomet
(
Basamid
Granular)
Managing
Soilborne
Pathogens
of
White
Pine
in
a
Forest
Nursery
If
use
of
this
alternative
is
precluded
by
regulatory
restriction
for
all
users
covered
by
this
application,
the
applicant
should
not
complete
Section
II.
Section
II.
Existing
Research
Studies
on
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
1.
Is
the
study
on
EPA's
website?
Yes
No
X
1a.
If
not
on
the
EPA
website,
please
attach
a
copy.

2.
Author(
s)
or
researcher(
s)

3.
Publication
and
Date
of
Publication
4.
Location
of
research
study
5.

6.
Was
crop
yield
measured
in
the
study?
Yes
X
No
7.

8.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
b).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
S.
A.
Enebak,
M.
A.
Palmer,
R.
A.
Blanchette
Plant
Disease
74:
195­
198.
1990.

Wilson
State
Nursery,
Boscobel,
Wisconsin
Name
of
alternative(
s)
in
study.
If
more
than
one
alternative,
list
the
ones
you
wish
to
discuss.
dazomet
(
Basamid
Granular)

Describe
the
effectiveness
of
the
alternative
in
controlling
pests
in
the
study.

Dazomet
had
lower
efficacy
than
methyl
bromide
in
reducing
populations
of
Fusarium
spp.,
Rhizoctonia
spp.,
and
Pythium
spp.
Dazomet
was
ineffective
against
Rhizoctonia
spp.
Populations
of
Fusarium
spp.
were
suppressed
throughout
the
sampling
period
in
methyl
bromide
plots,
but
rose
significantly
in
dazomet
plots.

Discuss
how
the
results
of
the
study
apply
to
your
situation.
Would
you
expect
similar
results?
Are
there
other
factors
that
would
affect
your
adoption
of
this
tool?

The
study
was
conducted
at
a
nursery
in
Boscobel,
Wisconsin.
This
nursery
has
experienced
a
history
of
severe
root
disease
problems
in
eastern
white
pine
associated
with
Fusarium
spp.,
Rhizoctonia
spp.,
Pythium
spp.,
and
in
the
summer
of
2002
was
diagnosed
with
an
outbreak
of
Cylindrocladium
spp.
Converting
to
dazomet
for
all
soil
fumigation
needs
may
allow
these
pathogens
to
persist
at
high
population
levels,
risking
heavy
stock
losses
in
future
years.
We
would
expect
similar
results
in
Michigan
with
respect
to
lack
of
effective
disease
control
by
dazomet.
In
the
late
1970s,
high
rates
of
metham
sodium
were
shown
to
eliminate
mycorrhizal
fungi
in
conifer
seedling
nurseries,
resulting
in
nutrient
deficient
plants
that
took
an
excessive
amount
of
time
to
mature.
Most
experiences
in
MI
with
dazomet
have
provided
less
than
favorable
control
of
nematodes
and
weeds
(
Bird,
2002,
personal
communications).
it
is
believed
that
this
is
due
to
inadequate
soil
moisture
relationships.
This
factor
is
being
taken
into
consideration
in
the
2002
trials
in
MI.
3
Use
additional
pages
as
needed.

Alternative:
Study:

Section
I.
Initial
Screening
on
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
1.
Are
there
any
location­
specific
restrictions
that
inhibit
the
use
of
this
alternative
on
your
site?

1a.
Full
use
permitted
X
1b.
Township
caps
1c.
Alternative
not
acceptable
in
consuming
country
1d.
Other
(
Please
describe)
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#
Worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
c).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
In
this
worksheet,
you
should
address
why
an
alternative
pest
management
strategy
on
the
list
(
see
previous
page)
is
or
is
not
effective
for
your
conditions.
This
worksheet
contains
9
questions.
You
must
complete
one
copy
of
worksheet
3­
A
for
each
research
study
you
use
to
evaluate
a
single
methyl
bromide
alternative.
Use
additional
pages
as
need.

For
worksheet
3­
A
you
must
complete
one
worksheet
for
each
alternative,
for
each
research
study
addressed.
Please
number
the
worksheets
as
follows.
For
the
same
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
a).
For
the
same
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
b).
For
the
first
alternative,
third
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
c).
For
the
second
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
a).
For
the
second
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
b).

When
completing
Section
II,
if
you
cite
a
study
that
is
on
the
EPA
website,
you
only
need
to
complete
questions
1,
5,
and
8.

Summarize
each
of
the
research
studies
you
cite
in
the
Research
Summary
Worksheet.

If
you
prefer,
you
may
provide
the
information
requested
in
this
worksheet
in
a
narrative
review
of
one
or
more
relevant
research
reports.
The
narrative
review
must
reply
to
Section
I
and
questions
1
through
8
in
Section
II.
A
Research
Summary
Worksheet
of
relevant
treatments
should
be
provided
for
each
study
reviewed.

BACKGROUND
EPA
must
consider
whether
alternative
pest
control
measures
(
pesticide
and
non­
pesticidal,
and
their
combination)
could
be
used
successfully
instead
of
methyl
bromide
by
crop
and
circumstance
(
geographic
area.)
The
Agency
has
developed
a
list
of
possible
alternative
pest
control
regimens
for
various
crops,
which
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr
or
by
calling
1­
800­
296­
1996.

There
are
three
major
ways
you
can
provide
the
Agency
with
proof
of
your
investigative
work.
(
1)
Conduct
and
submit
your
own
research
(
2)
Cite
research
that
has
been
conducted
by
others
(
3)
Cite
research
listed
on
the
EPA
website
Whether
you
conduct
the
research
yourself
or
cite
studies
developed
by
others,
it
is
important
that
the
studies
be
conducted
in
a
scientifically
sound
manner.
The
studies
should
include
a
description
of
the
experimental
methodology
used,
such
as
application
rates,
application
intervals,
pest
pressure,
weather
conditions,
varieties
of
the
crop
used,
etc.
All
results
should
be
included,
regardless
of
outcome.
You
must
submit
copies
of
each
study
to
EPA
unless
they
are
listed
on
the
Agency
website.
The
Agency
has
posted
many
research
studies
on
a
variety
of
crops
on
its
website
and
knows
of
more
studies
currently
in
progress.
EPA
will
add
studies
to
its
website
as
they
become
publicly
available.
You
are
encouraged
to
review
the
EPA
website
and
other
websites
for
studies
that
pertain
to
your
crop
and
geographic
area.

In
addition,
EPA
acknowledges
that,
for
certain
circumstances,
some
alternatives
are
not
technically
feasible
and
therefore
no
research
has
been
conducted
(
i.
e.
solarization
may
not
be
feasible
in
Seattle).
You
should
look
at
the
list
of
alternatives
provided
by
the
Agency
and
explain
why
they
cannot
be
used
for
your
crop
and
in
your
geographic
area.

dazomet
(
Basamid
Granular)
Comparison
of
Three
Soil
Fumigants
in
a
Bareroot
Conifer
Nursery
If
use
of
this
alternative
is
precluded
by
regulatory
restriction
for
all
users
covered
by
this
application,
the
applicant
should
not
complete
Section
II.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#
Section
II.
Existing
Research
Studies
on
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
1.
Is
the
study
on
EPA's
website?
Yes
No
X
1a.
If
not
on
the
EPA
website,
please
attach
a
copy.

2.
Author(
s)
or
researcher(
s)

3.
Publication
and
Date
of
Publication
4.
Location
of
research
study
5.

6.
Was
crop
yield
measured
in
the
study?
Yes
X
No
7.

8.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
c).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
Sandy
J.
Campell
and
Bruce
R.
Kelpsas
Tree
Planters'
Notes
39(
4):
16­
22;
1988.

USDA
Forest
Service
Bend
Nursery,
Portland,
OR
Name
of
alternative(
s)
in
study.
If
more
than
one
alternative,
list
the
ones
you
wish
to
discuss.
dazomet
(
Basamid
granular)

Describe
the
effectiveness
of
the
alternative
in
controlling
pests
in
the
study.

This
study
examined
Fusarium
spp.
and
Pythium
spp.
fungal
populations
before
and
after
fumigation
with
methyl
bromide,
dazomet,
and
metam
sodium.
Similar
to
the
previous
study,
significant
reductions
in
fungal
populations
were
observed
in
methyl
bromide­
treated
soils.
Dazomet
and
metam
sodium
treatments
did
not
significantly
reduce
populations
of
Fusarium
spp.
Pythium
spp.
populations
were
reduced
under
all
treatments
initially,
however
dazomet
and
metam
sodium
treatments
showed
less
long­
term
control.

Discuss
how
the
results
of
the
study
apply
to
your
situation.
Would
you
expect
similar
results?
Are
there
other
factors
that
would
affect
your
adoption
of
this
tool?
Effective
weed
control
continues
to
be
a
major
issue
in
substituting
other
products
for
methyl
bromide.
Dazomet
has
poor
efficacy
against
weeds,
especially
nutsedge.
Michigan
is
conducting
research
to
look
at
the
effectiveness
of
metam
sodium
and
dazomet
in
controlling
weeds
in
nurseries,
but
no
research
is
planned
to
look
at
the
efficacy
against
diseases.
However,
we
believe
that
results
of
this
study
would
be
similar
in
Michigan.
In
this
study,
methyl
bromide
fumigation
reduced
pathogen
populations
better
than
the
alternatives
and
controlled
these
populations
longer.
The
use
of
dazomet
and
metam
sodium
increases
the
risk
of
severe
disease
outbreaks,
resulting
in
large
stock
losses
and
increased
costs.
Currently,
there
are
no
means
to
predict
outbreaks
of
soilborne
diseases
in
forest
tree
nurseries
and
to
determine
risk
levels.
However,
the
high
value
per
acre
of
forest
tree
seedling
crops
makes
the
risk
of
significant
monetary
losses
high.
In
one
major
comercial
nursery
trial
in
MI
with
metham
sodium,
weed
seed
germination
was
significantly
enhanced
(
Bird
2002,
personal
communication).
3
Use
additional
pages
as
needed.

Alternative:
Study:

Section
I.
Initial
Screening
on
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
1.
Are
there
any
location­
specific
restrictions
that
inhibit
the
use
of
this
alternative
on
your
site?

1a.
Full
use
permitted
X
1b.
Township
caps
1c.
Alternative
not
acceptable
in
consuming
country
1d.
Other
(
Please
describe)
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
3­
A(
2).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
In
this
worksheet,
you
should
address
why
an
alternative
pest
management
strategy
on
the
list
(
see
previous
page)
is
or
is
not
effective
for
your
conditions.
This
worksheet
contains
9
questions.
You
must
complete
one
copy
of
worksheet
3­
A
for
each
research
study
you
use
to
evaluate
a
single
methyl
bromide
alternative.
Use
additional
pages
as
need.

For
worksheet
3­
A
you
must
complete
one
worksheet
for
each
alternative,
for
each
research
study
addressed.
Please
number
the
worksheets
as
follows.
For
the
same
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
a).
For
the
same
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
b).
For
the
first
alternative,
third
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
c).
For
the
second
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
a).
For
the
second
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
b).

When
completing
Section
II,
if
you
cite
a
study
that
is
on
the
EPA
website,
you
only
need
to
complete
questions
1,
5,
and
8.

Summarize
each
of
the
research
studies
you
cite
in
the
Research
Summary
Worksheet.

If
you
prefer,
you
may
provide
the
information
requested
in
this
worksheet
in
a
narrative
review
of
one
or
more
relevant
research
reports.
The
narrative
review
must
reply
to
Section
I
and
questions
1
through
8
in
Section
II.
A
Research
Summary
Worksheet
of
relevant
treatments
should
be
provided
for
each
study
reviewed.

BACKGROUND
EPA
must
consider
whether
alternative
pest
control
measures
(
pesticide
and
non­
pesticidal,
and
their
combination)
could
be
used
successfully
instead
of
methyl
bromide
by
crop
and
circumstance
(
geographic
area.)
The
Agency
has
developed
a
list
of
possible
alternative
pest
control
regimens
for
various
crops,
which
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr
or
by
calling
1­
800­
296­
1996.

There
are
three
major
ways
you
can
provide
the
Agency
with
proof
of
your
investigative
work.
(
1)
Conduct
and
submit
your
own
research
(
2)
Cite
research
that
has
been
conducted
by
others
(
3)
Cite
research
listed
on
the
EPA
website
Whether
you
conduct
the
research
yourself
or
cite
studies
developed
by
others,
it
is
important
that
the
studies
be
conducted
in
a
scientifically
sound
manner.
The
studies
should
include
a
description
of
the
experimental
methodology
used,
such
as
application
rates,
application
intervals,
pest
pressure,
weather
conditions,
varieties
of
the
crop
used,
etc.
All
results
should
be
included,
regardless
of
outcome.
You
must
submit
copies
of
each
study
to
EPA
unless
they
are
listed
on
the
Agency
website.
The
Agency
has
posted
many
research
studies
on
a
variety
of
crops
on
its
website
and
knows
of
more
studies
currently
in
progress.
EPA
will
add
studies
to
its
website
as
they
become
publicly
available.
You
are
encouraged
to
review
the
EPA
website
and
other
websites
for
studies
that
pertain
to
your
crop
and
geographic
area.

In
addition,
EPA
acknowledges
that,
for
certain
circumstances,
some
alternatives
are
not
technically
feasible
and
therefore
no
research
has
been
conducted
(
i.
e.
solarization
may
not
be
feasible
in
Seattle).
You
should
look
at
the
list
of
alternatives
provided
by
the
Agency
and
explain
why
they
cannot
be
used
for
your
crop
and
in
your
geographic
area.

metam
sodium
Comparison
of
Three
Soil
Fumigants
in
a
Bareroot
Conifer
Nursery
Section
II.
Existing
Research
Studies
on
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
1.
Is
the
study
on
EPA's
website?
Yes
No
X
1a.
If
not
on
the
EPA
website,
please
attach
a
copy.

2.
Author(
s)
or
researcher(
s)

3.
Publication
and
Date
of
Publication
4.
Location
of
research
study
5.

6.
Was
crop
yield
measured
in
the
study?
Yes
X
No
7.

8.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
If
use
of
this
alternative
is
precluded
by
regulatory
restriction
for
all
users
covered
by
this
application,
the
applicant
should
not
complete
Section
II.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
3­
A(
2)(
a).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
Sandy
J.
Campell
and
Bruce
R.
Kelpsas
Tree
Planters'
Notes
39(
4):
16­
22;
1988.

USDA
Forest
Service
Bend
Nursery,
Portland,
OR
Name
of
alternative(
s)
in
study.
If
more
than
one
alternative,
list
the
ones
you
wish
to
discuss.
metam
sodium
Discuss
how
the
results
of
the
study
apply
to
your
situation.
Would
you
expect
similar
results?
Are
there
other
factors
that
would
affect
your
adoption
of
this
tool?

Michigan
is
conducting
research
to
look
at
the
effectiveness
of
metam
sodium
for
controlling
weeds
in
nurseries,
but
no
research
is
planned
to
look
at
the
efficacy
against
diseases.
However,
we
believe
that
results
of
this
study
would
be
similar
in
Michigan.
In
this
study,
methyl
bromide
fumigation
reduced
pathogen
populations
better
than
the
alternatives
and
controlled
these
populations
longer.
The
use
of
dazomet
and
metam
sodium
increases
the
risk
of
severe
disease
outbreaks,
resulting
in
large
stock
losses
and
increased
costs.
Athough
applications
are
made
by
trained
custom
applicators,
metam
sodium
is
a
hazardous
material
that
may
represent
a
significant
risk
to
nursery
personnel
and
persons
living
in
the
area
surrounding
the
nursery.
Under
urban
sprawl
conditions
in
western
MI,
risk
associated
with
all
soil
fumigants
has
increased
during
the
past
decade
(
Bird
2002,
personal
communication).
Describe
the
effectiveness
of
the
alternative
in
controlling
pests
in
the
study.
See
previous
discussion
on
Worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
c)
and
Research
Summary
Worksheet
3­
B(
1)(
c).
Use
additional
pages
as
needed.

Alternative:
Study:

Section
I.
Initial
Screening
on
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
1.
Are
there
any
location­
specific
restrictions
that
inhibit
the
use
of
this
alternative
on
your
site?

1a.
Full
use
permitted
x
1b.
Township
caps
1c.
Alternative
not
acceptable
in
consuming
country
1d.
Other
(
Please
describe)

Section
II.
Existing
Research
Studies
on
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
1.
Is
the
study
on
EPA's
website?
Yes
No
x
1a.
If
not
on
the
EPA
website,
please
attach
a
copy.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
3­
A(
3)(
a).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
In
this
worksheet,
you
should
address
why
an
alternative
pest
management
strategy
on
the
list
(
see
previous
page)
is
or
is
not
effective
for
your
conditions.
This
worksheet
contains
9
questions.
You
must
complete
one
copy
of
worksheet
3­
A
for
each
research
study
you
use
to
evaluate
a
single
methyl
bromide
alternative.
Use
additional
pages
as
need.

For
worksheet
3­
A
you
must
complete
one
worksheet
for
each
alternative,
for
each
research
study
addressed.
Please
number
the
worksheets
as
follows.
For
the
same
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
a).
For
the
same
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
b).
For
the
first
alternative,
third
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
c).
For
the
second
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
a).
For
the
second
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
b).

When
completing
Section
II,
if
you
cite
a
study
that
is
on
the
EPA
website,
you
only
need
to
complete
questions
1,
5,
and
8.

Summarize
each
of
the
research
studies
you
cite
in
the
Research
Summary
Worksheet.

If
you
prefer,
you
may
provide
the
information
requested
in
this
worksheet
in
a
narrative
review
of
one
or
more
relevant
research
reports.
The
narrative
review
must
reply
to
Section
I
and
questions
1
through
8
in
Section
II.
A
Research
Summary
Worksheet
of
relevant
treatments
should
be
provided
for
each
study
reviewed.

BACKGROUND
EPA
must
consider
whether
alternative
pest
control
measures
(
pesticide
and
non­
pesticidal,
and
their
combination)
could
be
used
successfully
instead
of
methyl
bromide
by
crop
and
circumstance
(
geographic
area.)
The
Agency
has
developed
a
list
of
possible
alternative
pest
control
regimens
for
various
crops,
which
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr
or
by
calling
1­
800­
296­
1996.

There
are
three
major
ways
you
can
provide
the
Agency
with
proof
of
your
investigative
work.
(
1)
Conduct
and
submit
your
own
research
(
2)
Cite
research
that
has
been
conducted
by
others
(
3)
Cite
research
listed
on
the
EPA
website
Whether
you
conduct
the
research
yourself
or
cite
studies
developed
by
others,
it
is
important
that
the
studies
be
conducted
in
a
scientifically
sound
manner.
The
studies
should
include
a
description
of
the
experimental
methodology
used,
such
as
application
rates,
application
intervals,
pest
pressure,
weather
conditions,
varieties
of
the
crop
used,
etc.
All
results
should
be
included,
regardless
of
outcome.
You
must
submit
copies
of
each
study
to
EPA
unless
they
are
listed
on
the
Agency
website.

The
Agency
has
posted
many
research
studies
on
a
variety
of
crops
on
its
website
and
knows
of
more
studies
currently
in
progress.
EPA
will
add
studies
to
its
website
as
they
become
publicly
available.
You
are
encouraged
to
review
the
EPA
website
and
other
websites
for
studies
that
pertain
to
your
crop
and
geographic
area.

In
addition,
EPA
acknowledges
that,
for
certain
circumstances,
some
alternatives
are
not
technically
feasible
and
therefore
no
research
has
been
conducted
(
i.
e.
solarization
may
not
be
feasible
in
Seattle).
You
should
look
at
the
list
of
alternatives
provided
by
the
Agency
and
explain
why
they
cannot
be
used
for
your
crop
and
in
your
geographic
area.

cover
crops
Green
Manure
Effects
on
Soilborne
Pathogens
If
use
of
this
alternative
is
precluded
by
regulatory
restriction
for
all
users
covered
by
this
application,
the
applicant
should
not
complete
Section
II.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
3­
A
(
4)(
a).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
2.
Author(
s)
or
researcher(
s)

3.
Publication
and
Date
of
Publication
4.
Location
of
research
study
5.

6.
Was
crop
yield
measured
in
the
study?
Yes
x
No
7.

8.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Jeffrey
Stone
and
Everett
M.
Hansen
Proceedings,
Northeastern
and
Intermountain
Forest
and
Conservation
Nursery
Association
1993
Oregon
Name
of
alternative(
s)
in
study.
If
more
than
one
alternative,
list
the
ones
you
wish
to
discuss.
Brassica
cover
crops,
sawdust
and
rapeseed
meal
Describe
the
effectiveness
of
the
alternative
in
controlling
pests
in
the
study.

In
this
study,
Brassica
cover
crops
did
not
reduce
populations
of
pathogenic
soil
fungi;
instead
fungal
populations
actually
increased
with
cover
crop
treatments
and
with
addition
of
rapeseed
meal.
Seedlings
from
the
Brassica
plots
were
inferior
in
quality
to
those
from
the
bare
fallow
and
fumigated
plots.
Bare
fallow
and
chemical
fumigation
with
methyl
bromide
were
statistically
equivalent
with
respect
to
conifer
seedling
quality,
seedling
mortality
and
level
of
pathogens
recovered.
The
Brassica
plus
sawdust
treatment
performed
worse
than
the
bare
fallow
and
fumigated
sites
but
better
than
the
sites
with
brassica
alone.

Discuss
how
the
results
of
the
study
apply
to
your
situation.
Would
you
expect
similar
results?
Are
there
other
factors
that
would
affect
your
adoption
of
this
tool?

Although
cover
crops
can
be
useful
for
reducing
soil
erosion
and
increasing
soil
fertility
and
organic
matter,
they
did
not
reduce
soil
pathogen
problems.
We
don't
yet
know
how
effective
they
might
be
in
reducing
weed
problems
and
nematodes.
Brassicas
have
been
tried
in
Michigan
with
mixed
results,
depending
on,
variety
and
incoropration
timing.
A
cover
crop
study
using
composts,
sudan
grass
and
clover
is
underway
for
herbaceous
perennials.
3
Use
additional
pages
as
needed.

Alternative:
Study:

Section
I.
Initial
Screening
on
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
1.
Are
there
any
location­
specific
restrictions
that
inhibit
the
use
of
this
alternative
on
your
site?

1a.
Full
use
permitted
X
1b.
Township
caps
1c.
Alternative
not
acceptable
in
consuming
country
1d.
Other
(
Please
describe)
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#
Worksheet
3­
A(
4).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
In
this
worksheet,
you
should
address
why
an
alternative
pest
management
strategy
on
the
list
(
see
previous
page)
is
or
is
not
effective
for
your
conditions.
This
worksheet
contains
9
questions.
You
must
complete
one
copy
of
worksheet
3­
A
for
each
research
study
you
use
to
evaluate
a
single
methyl
bromide
alternative.
Use
additional
pages
as
need.

For
worksheet
3­
A
you
must
complete
one
worksheet
for
each
alternative,
for
each
research
study
addressed.
Please
number
the
worksheets
as
follows.
For
the
same
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
a).
For
the
same
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
b).
For
the
first
alternative,
third
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
c).
For
the
second
alternative,
first
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
a).
For
the
second
alternative,
second
research
study,
label
the
worksheet
3­(
A)(
2)(
b).

When
completing
Section
II,
if
you
cite
a
study
that
is
on
the
EPA
website,
you
only
need
to
complete
questions
1,
5,
and
8.

Summarize
each
of
the
research
studies
you
cite
in
the
Research
Summary
Worksheet.

If
you
prefer,
you
may
provide
the
information
requested
in
this
worksheet
in
a
narrative
review
of
one
or
more
relevant
research
reports.
The
narrative
review
must
reply
to
Section
I
and
questions
1
through
8
in
Section
II.
A
Research
Summary
Worksheet
of
relevant
treatments
should
be
provided
for
each
study
reviewed.

BACKGROUND
EPA
must
consider
whether
alternative
pest
control
measures
(
pesticide
and
non­
pesticidal,
and
their
combination)
could
be
used
successfully
instead
of
methyl
bromide
by
crop
and
circumstance
(
geographic
area.)
The
Agency
has
developed
a
list
of
possible
alternative
pest
control
regimens
for
various
crops,
which
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr
or
by
calling
1­
800­
296­
1996.

There
are
three
major
ways
you
can
provide
the
Agency
with
proof
of
your
investigative
work.
(
1)
Conduct
and
submit
your
own
research
(
2)
Cite
research
that
has
been
conducted
by
others
(
3)
Cite
research
listed
on
the
EPA
website
Whether
you
conduct
the
research
yourself
or
cite
studies
developed
by
others,
it
is
important
that
the
studies
be
conducted
in
a
scientifically
sound
manner.
The
studies
should
include
a
description
of
the
experimental
methodology
used,
such
as
application
rates,
application
intervals,
pest
pressure,
weather
conditions,
varieties
of
the
crop
used,
etc.
All
results
should
be
included,
regardless
of
outcome.
You
must
submit
copies
of
each
study
to
EPA
unless
they
are
listed
on
the
Agency
website.
The
Agency
has
posted
many
research
studies
on
a
variety
of
crops
on
its
website
and
knows
of
more
studies
currently
in
progress.
EPA
will
add
studies
to
its
website
as
they
become
publicly
available.
You
are
encouraged
to
review
the
EPA
website
and
other
websites
for
studies
that
pertain
to
your
crop
and
geographic
area.

In
addition,
EPA
acknowledges
that,
for
certain
circumstances,
some
alternatives
are
not
technically
feasible
and
therefore
no
research
has
been
conducted
(
i.
e.
solarization
may
not
be
feasible
in
Seattle).
You
should
look
at
the
list
of
alternatives
provided
by
the
Agency
and
explain
why
they
cannot
be
used
for
your
crop
and
in
your
geographic
area.

biofumigation
Meeting
Resource
Management
Goals
Through
Sustainable
Forest
Seedling
Production
Using
Alternative
Treatment
Strategies
If
use
of
this
alternative
is
precluded
by
regulatory
restriction
for
all
users
covered
by
this
application,
the
applicant
should
not
complete
Section
II.
Section
II.
Existing
Research
Studies
on
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
1.
Is
the
study
on
EPA's
website?
Yes
X
No
1a.
If
not
on
the
EPA
website,
please
attach
a
copy.

2.
Author(
s)
or
researcher(
s)

3.
Publication
and
Date
of
Publication
4.
Location
of
research
study
5.

6.
Was
crop
yield
measured
in
the
study?
Yes
No
X
7.

8.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
3­
A(
4).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
Will
Littke
Name
of
alternative(
s)
in
study.
If
more
than
one
alternative,
list
the
ones
you
wish
to
discuss.
biofumigation
Describe
the
effectiveness
of
the
alternative
in
controlling
pests
in
the
study.
Weyerhaeuser
Forestry
Research
in
Washington
has
looked
at
biological
control
of
soilborne
nursery
pathogens
through
the
use
of
soil
amendments
and
seed
treatments.
Overall
results
have
been
mixed
and
the
author
concludes
that
considerable
research
will
be
needed
before
biological
controls
meet
the
efficacy
of
chemical
treatments.

Discuss
how
the
results
of
the
study
apply
to
your
situation.
Would
you
expect
similar
results?
Are
there
other
factors
that
would
affect
your
adoption
of
this
tool?

In
addition
to
disease
problems,
nematodes
need
to
be
controlled.
Exporting
ornamentals
requires
soybean
cyst
nematode­
free
certification,
presenting
an
additional
burden
to
the
industry
that
is
losing
methyl
bromide.
Part
of
the
research
being
conducted
at
Michigan
State
University
involves
screening
two
nematode
biological
control
agents
for
use
as
methyl
bromide
alternatives
in
nursery
production
systems.
Further
research
needs
to
be
conducted
in
this
area
before
we
can
successfully
substitute
biocontrols
for
methyl
bromide.
Alternative:
Study:

Col.
A:
Treatment
Number
Col.
B:
Treatment
Col.
C:
Rate
Col.
D,
F,
H,
J,
L,
N:
Interval
Cols.
E,
G,
I,
K,
M,
O:
Rating
for
Interval:

Control
of
Pests
1
and
2
(
Cols.
D
­
I
and
Cols.
J
­
O):

Col.
J:
Yield
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
%
weed
cover
weed
numbers
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
1
Methyl
bromide+
115
lb/
ac
chloropic.
235lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
29c
~
7
mo.
8.5c
2
dazomet,
no
tarp
300lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
95a
~
7
mo.
101.5a
3
dazomet,
tarped
300
lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
65b
~
7
mo.
79.3ab
4
dazomet,
no
tarp
150
lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
95a
~
7
mo.
82.8ab
5
dazomet,
tarped
150
lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
70b
~
7
mo.
81.8ab
6
dazomet,
tarped
+
115
lb/
ac.
chloropic.
150
lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
46c
~
7
mo.
55abc
7
control
0
~
6
mo.
100a
~
7
mo.
91.8a
Comments:
%
of
ground
covered
by
weeds
on
April
12,
1994
lsd=
16.22
lsd=
44.21
number
of
weeds
in
four
square
foot
frame
on
May
10,
1994.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
a).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Research
Summary
Table
dazomet
Chemical
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
Provide
one
summary
table
for
each
study
being
described.

Provide
a
summary
table
of
research
information
that
will
allow
us
compare
the
impact
of
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen
on
such
things
as
pest
control,
yield
or
quality
of
the
commodity
being
treated,
or
protected.

Ideally,
a
research
study
should
directly
compare
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen.

List
the
treatment
number
from
the
research
study
you
are
citing.

List
what
type
of
pest
control
method
was
used.

Enter
the
pounds
or
gallons
of
a
chemical
used,
days
of
solarization,
etc.

Enter
the
interval
after
treatment
that
the
rating
was
taken.
Enter
the
interval
(
days,
weeks
or
months)
in
the
column
heading
or
in
the
comments
section.
In
the
comments
describe
the
rating
scale
(
e.
g.
0
to
100
where
100
is
complete
control).

Use
these
columns
to
describe
the
level
of
control
provided
for
a
specific
pest
and
the
time
interval
at
which
the
rating
was
taken.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
may
have
looked
at
nematode
population
in
the
soil
pre­
treatment,
3
weeks
after
treatment,
and
6
weeks
after
treatment.
In
this
example,
type
over
the
words
"
Rating
Interval
1"
with
"
pre­
treatment",
type
over
"
Rating
Interval
2"
with
"
3
weeks",
and
type
over
"
Rating
Interval
3"
with
"
6
weeks."
If
you
are
completing
the
printed
version,
please
define
Rating
Interval
in
the
comments
below.

For
the
target
pest(
s)
in
the
study
list
the
pest
or
pest
species
being
rated
in
the
column
header
or
the
comments
section.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
in
tomatoes
may
have
looked
at
sting
nematode
and
stunt
nematode.
Enter
sting
nematode
for
pest
1
in
the
Col
F
header
below
and
stunt
nematode
for
pest
2
in
the
Col.
L
header
below.
In
the
comments
section
describe
the
rating
system
used
(
0
to
100
scale
where
0
is
no
control,
number
of
nematodes
per
gram
of
soil,
number
of
colony
forming
units
per
gram
of
soil,

etc.).
Enter
the
marketable
yield
of
the
crop
or
commodity
and
specify
the
units
(
lbs./
acre,
tons)
in
the
column
header
or
comments
section.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Treatment
Number
Treatment
Rate
(
lbs.
or
gals.
ai
per
area)
Yield
(
units/
area)
Alternative:
Study:

Col.
A:
Treatment
Number
Col.
B:
Treatment
Col.
C:
Rate
Col.
D,
F,
H,
J,
L,
N:

Interval
Cols.
E,
G,
I,
K,
M,
O:

Rating
for
Interval:

Control
of
Pests
1
and
2
(
Cols.
D
­
I
and
Cols.
J
­

O):
Col.
J:
Yield
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
Fusarium
spp.
Rhizoctonia
spp.
Pythium
spp.

Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
3
Rating
for
1
untreated
0
pre­
trt
1420
4
weeks
550
6
mo.
670
pre­
trt
12
4
weeks
11
6
mo.
10
pre­
trt
2
4
weeks
2
6
mo.
1
390,298
2
methyl
bromide
(
67%
MB)
232
lbs
pre­
trt
990
4
weeks
33
6
mo.
7
pre­
trt
10
4
weeks
3
6
mo.
4
pre­
trt
7
4
weeks
0
6
mo.
0
1,254,528
3
dazomet
247
lbs
pre­
trt
1490
4
weeks
220
6
mo.
760
pre­
trt
9
4
weeks
11
6
mo.
9
pre­
trt
5
4
weeks
3
6
mo.
0
673,642
Comments:
Ratings
are
for
colony­
forming
units
per
gram
of
dry
soil.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
b).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Research
Summary
Table
dazomet
(
Basamid
Granular)
Managing
Soilborne
Pathogens
of
White
Pine
in
a
Forest
Nursery
Provide
one
summary
table
for
each
study
being
described.

Provide
a
summary
table
of
research
information
that
will
allow
us
compare
the
impact
of
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen
on
such
things
as
pest
control,
yield
or
quality
of
the
commodity
being
treated,
or
protected.
Ideally,
a
research
study
should
directly
compare
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen.

List
the
treatment
number
from
the
research
study
you
are
citing.

List
what
type
of
pest
control
method
was
used.

Enter
the
pounds
or
gallons
of
a
chemical
used,
days
of
solarization,
etc.

Enter
the
interval
after
treatment
that
the
rating
was
taken.
Enter
the
interval
(
days,
weeks
or
months)
in
the
column
heading
or
in
the
comments
section.
In
the
comments
describe
the
rating
scale
(
e.
g.
0
to
100
where
100
is
complete
control).

Use
these
columns
to
describe
the
level
of
control
provided
for
a
specific
pest
and
the
time
interval
at
which
the
rating
was
taken.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
may
have
looked
at
nematode
population
in
the
soil
pre­
treatment,
3
weeks
after
treatment,
and
6
weeks
after
treatment.
In
this
example,
type
over
the
words
"
Rating
Interval
1"

with
"
pre­
treatment",
type
over
"
Rating
Interval
2"
with
"
3
weeks",
and
type
over
"
Rating
Interval
3"
with
"
6
weeks."
If
you
are
completing
the
printed
version,
please
define
Rating
Interval
in
the
comments
below.

For
the
target
pest(
s)
in
the
study
list
the
pest
or
pest
species
being
rated
in
the
column
header
or
the
comments
section.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
in
tomatoes
may
have
looked
at
sting
nematode
and
stunt
nematode.
Enter
sting
nematode
for
pest
1
in
the
Col
F
header
below
and
stunt
nematode
for
pest
2
in
the
Col.
L
header
below.
In
the
comments
section
describe
the
rating
system
used
(
0
to
100
scale
where
0
is
no
control,
number
of
nematodes
per
gram
of
soil,

number
of
colony
forming
units
per
gram
of
soil,
etc.).
Yield
(
seedlings/
A)

Enter
the
marketable
yield
of
the
crop
or
commodity
and
specify
the
units
(
lbs./
acre,
tons)
in
the
column
header
or
comments
section.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Treatment
Number
Treatment
Rate
(
lbs.
or
gals.
ai
per
area)
Alternative:
Study:

Col.
A:
Treatment
Number
Col.
B:
Treatment
Col.
C:
Rate
Col.
D,
F,
H,
J,
L,
N:
Interval
Cols.
E,
G,
I,
K,
M,
O:
Rating
for
Interval:

Control
of
Pests
1
and
2
(
Cols.
D
­
I
and
Cols.
J
­
O):

Col.
J:
Yield
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Fusarium
spp.
Pythium
spp.

Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
1
untreated
0
pre­
trt
843
post­
trt
1160
pre­
sow
311
pre­
trt
85
post­
trt
29
pre­
sow
85
15
2
methyl
bromide
(
67%
MB)
235
lbs
pre­
trt
1126
post­
trt
22
pre­
sow
0
pre­
trt
98
post­
trt
0
pre­
sow
2
28
3
metam
sodium
109
gals
pre­
trt
554
post­
trt
483
pre­
sow
616
pre­
trt
63
post­
trt
3
pre­
sow
31
31
4
dazomet
350
lbs
pre­
trt
543
post­
trt
615
pre­
sow
332
pre­
trt
73
p
ost­
trt
2
pre­
sow
34
28
Comments:
Ratings
are
for
propagules
per
gram
of
overdry
soil.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
c).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Research
Summary
Table
dazomet
(
Basamid
Granular)

Use
these
columns
to
describe
the
level
of
control
provided
for
a
specific
pest
and
the
time
interval
at
which
the
rating
was
taken.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
may
have
looked
at
nematode
population
in
the
soil
pre­
treatment,
3
weeks
after
treatment,
and
6
weeks
after
treatment.
In
this
example,
type
over
the
words
"
Rating
Interval
1"
with
"

pretreatment
type
over
"
Rating
Interval
2"
with
"
3
weeks",
and
type
over
"
Rating
Interval
3"
with
"
6
weeks."
If
you
are
completing
the
printed
version,
please
define
Rating
Interval
in
the
comments
below.

For
the
target
pest(
s)
in
the
study
list
the
pest
or
pest
species
being
rated
in
the
column
header
or
the
comments
section.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
in
tomatoes
may
have
looked
at
sting
nematode
and
stunt
nematode.
Enter
sting
nematode
for
pest
1
in
the
Col
F
header
below
and
stunt
nematode
for
pest
2
in
the
Col.
L
header
below.
In
the
comments
section
describe
the
rating
system
used
(
0
to
100
scale
where
0
is
no
control,
number
of
nematodes
per
gram
of
soil,
number
of
colony
formin
units
per
gram
of
soil,
etc.)

Provide
one
summary
table
for
each
study
being
described.

Provide
a
summary
table
of
research
information
that
will
allow
us
compare
the
impact
of
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen
on
such
things
as
pest
control,
yield
or
quality
of
the
commodity
being
treated,
or
protected.
Ideally,
a
research
study
should
directly
compare
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen.

List
the
treatment
number
from
the
research
study
you
are
citing.

List
what
type
of
pest
control
method
was
used.
Yield
seedlings/
ft2
Comparison
of
Three
Soil
Fumigants
in
a
Bareroot
Conifer
Nursery
Enter
the
marketable
yield
of
the
crop
or
commodity
and
specify
the
units
(
lbs./
acre,
tons)
in
the
column
header
or
comments
section.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Treatment
Number
Treatment
Rate
(
lbs.
or
gals.
ai
per
area)

Enter
the
pounds
or
gallons
of
a
chemical
used,
days
of
solarization,
etc.

Enter
the
interval
after
treatment
that
the
rating
was
taken.
Enter
the
interval
(
days,
weeks
or
months)
in
the
column
heading
or
in
the
comments
section.
In
the
comments
describe
the
rating
scale
(
e.
g.
0
to
100
where
100
is
complete
control).
Alternative:
Study:

Col.
A:
Treatment
Number
Col.
B:
Treatment
Col.
C:
Rate
Col.
D,
F,
H,
J,
L,
N:
Interval
Cols.
E,
G,
I,
K,
M,
O:
Rating
for
Interval:

Control
of
Pests
1
and
2
(
Cols.
D
­
I
and
Cols.
J
­
O):

Col.
J:
Yield
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
%
weed
cover
weed
numbers
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
1
Methyl
bromide+
115
lb/
ac
chloropic.
235lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
29c
~
7
mo.
8.5c
2
metham­
sodium,
tarped
400
lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
36c
~
7
mo.
28.5c
3
metham­
sodium,
no
tarp
400
lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
90a
~
7
mo.
35.2bc
4
metham
sodium,
tarped
+
115
lb/
ac
chlorop
400/
lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
38c
~
7
mo.
17.3c
5
control
0
~
6
mo.
100a
~
7
mo.
91.8a
Comments:
%
of
ground
covered
by
weeds
on
April
12,
1994
lsd=
16.22
lsd=
44.21
number
of
weeds
in
four
square
foot
frame
on
May
10,
1994.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Worksheet
3­
A(
2)(
b).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Research
Summary
Table
metham­
sodium
chemical
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
Provide
one
summary
table
for
each
study
being
described.

Provide
a
summary
table
of
research
information
that
will
allow
us
compare
the
impact
of
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen
on
such
things
as
pest
control,
yield
or
quality
of
the
commodity
being
treated,
or
protected.
Ideally,
a
research
study
should
directly
compare
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen.

List
the
treatment
number
from
the
research
study
you
are
citing.

List
what
type
of
pest
control
method
was
used.

Enter
the
pounds
or
gallons
of
a
chemical
used,
days
of
solarization,
etc.

Enter
the
interval
after
treatment
that
the
rating
was
taken.
Enter
the
interval
(
days,
weeks
or
months)
in
the
column
heading
or
in
the
comments
section.
In
the
comments
describe
the
rating
scale
(
e.
g.
0
to
100
where
100
is
complete
control).

Use
these
columns
to
describe
the
level
of
control
provided
for
a
specific
pest
and
the
time
interval
at
which
the
rating
was
taken.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
may
have
looked
at
nematode
population
in
the
soil
pre­
treatment,
3
weeks
after
treatment,
and
6
weeks
after
treatment.
In
this
example,
type
over
the
words
"
Rating
Interval
1"
with
"
pre­
treatment",
type
over
"
Rating
Interv
2"
with
"
3
weeks",
and
type
over
"
Rating
Interval
3"
with
"
6
weeks."
If
you
are
completing
the
printed
version,
please
define
Rating
Interval
in
the
comments
below.

For
the
target
pest(
s)
in
the
study
list
the
pest
or
pest
species
being
rated
in
the
column
header
or
the
comments
section.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
in
tomatoes
may
have
looked
at
sting
nematode
and
stunt
nematode.
Enter
sting
nematode
for
pest
1
in
the
Col
F
header
below
and
stunt
nematode
for
pest
2
in
the
Col.
L
header
below.
In
the
comments
section
describe
the
rating
system
used
(
0
to
100
scale
where
0
is
no
control,
number
of
nematodes
per
gram
of
soil,
number
of
colony
forming
units
per
gram
of
soil,
etc.).

Enter
the
marketable
yield
of
the
crop
or
commodity
and
specify
the
units
(
lbs./
acre,
tons)
in
the
column
header
or
comments
section.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Treatment
Number
Treatment
Rate
(
lbs.
or
gals.
ai
per
area)
Yield
(
units/
area)
Alternative:
Study:

Col.
A:
Treatment
Number
Col.
B:
Treatment
Col.
C:
Rate
Col.
D,
F,
H,
J,
L,
N:
Interval
Cols.
E,
G,
I,
K,
M,
O:
Rating
for
Interval:

Control
of
Pests
1
and
2
(
Cols.
D
­
I
and
Cols.
J
­
O):

Col.
J:
Yield
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
%
weed
cover
weed
numbers
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
1
Methyl
bromide+
115
lb/
ac
chloropic.
235lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
29c
~
7
mo.
8.5c
2
metham­
sodium,
tarped
400
lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
36c
~
7
mo.
28.5c
3
metham­
sodium,
no
tarp
400
lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
90a
~
7
mo.
35.2bc
4
metham
sodium,
tarped
+
115
lb/
ac
chlorop
400/
lb/
ac
~
6
mo.
38c
~
7
mo.
17.3c
5
control
0
~
6
mo.
100a
~
7
mo.
91.8a
Comments:
%
of
ground
covered
by
weeds
on
April
12,
1994
lsd=
16.22
lsd=
44.21
number
of
weeds
in
four
square
foot
frame
on
May
10,
1994.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Worksheet
3­
A(
2)(
b).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Research
Summary
Table
metham­
sodium
chemical
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
Provide
one
summary
table
for
each
study
being
described.

Provide
a
summary
table
of
research
information
that
will
allow
us
compare
the
impact
of
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen
on
such
things
as
pest
control,
yield
or
quality
of
the
commodity
being
treated,
or
protected.
Ideally,
a
research
study
should
directly
compare
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen.

List
the
treatment
number
from
the
research
study
you
are
citing.

List
what
type
of
pest
control
method
was
used.

Enter
the
pounds
or
gallons
of
a
chemical
used,
days
of
solarization,
etc.

Enter
the
interval
after
treatment
that
the
rating
was
taken.
Enter
the
interval
(
days,
weeks
or
months)
in
the
column
heading
or
in
the
comments
section.
In
the
comments
describe
the
rating
scale
(
e.
g.
0
to
100
where
100
is
complete
control).

Use
these
columns
to
describe
the
level
of
control
provided
for
a
specific
pest
and
the
time
interval
at
which
the
rating
was
taken.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
may
have
looked
at
nematode
population
in
the
soil
pre­
treatment,
3
weeks
after
treatment,
and
6
weeks
after
treatment.
In
this
example,
type
over
the
words
"
Rating
Interval
1"
with
"
pre­
treatment",
type
over
"
Rating
Interv
2"
with
"
3
weeks",
and
type
over
"
Rating
Interval
3"
with
"
6
weeks."
If
you
are
completing
the
printed
version,
please
define
Rating
Interval
in
the
comments
below.

For
the
target
pest(
s)
in
the
study
list
the
pest
or
pest
species
being
rated
in
the
column
header
or
the
comments
section.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
in
tomatoes
may
have
looked
at
sting
nematode
and
stunt
nematode.
Enter
sting
nematode
for
pest
1
in
the
Col
F
header
below
and
stunt
nematode
for
pest
2
in
the
Col.
L
header
below.
In
the
comments
section
describe
the
rating
system
used
(
0
to
100
scale
where
0
is
no
control,
number
of
nematodes
per
gram
of
soil,
number
of
colony
forming
units
per
gram
of
soil,
etc.).

Enter
the
marketable
yield
of
the
crop
or
commodity
and
specify
the
units
(
lbs./
acre,
tons)
in
the
column
header
or
comments
section.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Treatment
Number
Treatment
Rate
(
lbs.
or
gals.
ai
per
area)
Yield
(
units/
area)
Alternative:
Study:

Col.
A:
Treatment
Number
Col.
B:
Treatment
Col.
C:
Rate
Col.
D,
F,
H,
J,
L,
N:

Interval
Cols.
E,
G,
I,
K,
M,
O:

Rating
for
Interval:

Control
of
Pests
1
and
2
(
Cols.
D
­
I
and
Cols.
J
­

O):
Col.
J:
Yield
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
Fusarium
spp.
Rhizoctonia
spp.
Pythium
spp.

Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
1
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
2
Interval
3
Rating
for
Interval
3
Interval
1
Rating
for
Interval
2
Rating
for
Interval
3
Rating
for
1
untreated
0
pre­
trt
1420
4
weeks
550
6
mo.
670
pre­
trt
12
4
weeks
11
6
mo.
10
pre­
trt
2
4
weeks
2
6
mo.
1
390,298
2
methyl
bromide
(
67%
MB)
232
lbs
pre­
trt
990
4
weeks
33
6
mo.
7
pre­
trt
10
4
weeks
3
6
mo.
4
pre­
trt
7
4
weeks
0
6
mo.
0
1,254,528
3
dazomet
247
lbs
pre­
trt
1490
4
weeks
220
6
mo.
760
pre­
trt
9
4
weeks
11
6
mo.
9
pre­
trt
5
4
weeks
3
6
mo.
0
673,642
Comments:
Ratings
are
for
colony­
forming
units
per
gram
of
dry
soil.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Worksheet
3­
A(
1)(
b).
Alternatives
­
Technical
Feasibility
of
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

dazomet
(
Basamid
Granular)

Research
Summary
Table
Managing
Soilborne
Pathogens
of
White
Pine
in
a
Forest
Nursery
Provide
one
summary
table
for
each
study
being
described.

Provide
a
summary
table
of
research
information
that
will
allow
us
compare
the
impact
of
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen
on
such
things
as
pest
control,
yield
or
quality
of
the
commodity
being
treated,
or
protected.
Ideally,
a
research
study
should
directly
compare
methyl
bromide
and
the
alternative
regimen.

List
the
treatment
number
from
the
research
study
you
are
citing.

List
what
type
of
pest
control
method
was
used.

Enter
the
pounds
or
gallons
of
a
chemical
used,
days
of
solarization,
etc.

Enter
the
interval
after
treatment
that
the
rating
was
taken.
Enter
the
interval
(
days,
weeks
or
months)
in
the
column
heading
or
in
the
comments
section.
In
the
comments
describe
the
rating
scale
(
e.
g.
0
to
100
where
100
is
complete
control).

Use
these
columns
to
describe
the
level
of
control
provided
for
a
specific
pest
and
the
time
interval
at
which
the
rating
was
taken.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
may
have
looked
at
nematode
population
in
the
soil
pre­
treatment,
3
weeks
after
treatment,
and
6
weeks
after
treatment.
In
this
example,
type
over
the
words
"
Rating
Interval
1"
with
"
pre­
treatment",
type
over
"
Rating
Interval
2"
with
"
3
weeks",
and
type
over
"
Rating
Interval
3"
with
"
6
weeks."
If
you
are
completing
the
printed
version,
please
define
Rating
Interval
in
the
comments
below.

For
the
target
pest(
s)
in
the
study
list
the
pest
or
pest
species
being
rated
in
the
column
header
or
the
comments
section.
For
example,
a
study
for
nematode
control
in
tomatoes
may
have
looked
at
sting
nematode
and
stunt
nematode.
Enter
sting
nematode
for
pest
1
in
the
Col
F
header
below
and
stunt
nematode
for
pest
2
in
the
Col.
L
header
below.
In
the
comments
section
describe
the
rating
system
used
(
0
to
100
scale
where
0
is
no
control,
number
of
nematodes
per
gram
of
soil,

number
of
colony
forming
units
per
gram
of
soil,
etc.).
Yield
(
seedlings/
A)

Enter
the
marketable
yield
of
the
crop
or
commodity
and
specify
the
units
(
lbs./
acre,
tons)
in
the
column
header
or
comments
section.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Treatment
Number
Treatment
Rate
(
lbs.
or
gals.
ai
per
area)
Col.
B:
Target
Pests
Col.
C:
Active
Ingredients
Col.
D:
Formulation
Col.
E,
F,
G:
Application
Rate
Col.
H,
I,
J:
Prices
and
Costs
Col.
K:
Area
Treated
Col.
L:
#
of
Applications
per
Year
Col.
M:
Cost
per
Area
in
2001
Dollars
Non­
chemical
Control
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
lbs.
ai
per
Area
per
Application
Units
of
product
per
Area
per
Application
Product
Unit
(
e.
g.,
lbs.,

gals)

metham
sodium
plant
pathogenic
fungi
42%
318.75
75
gals
$
4.00
1500.00
1
1
$
1,800.00
nematodes
$
0.00
weeds
$
0.00
$
0.00
Sodium
methyldithiocarbamate
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
Non­
Chemical
Pest
Control
Target
Pests
Description
Cost/
area
Total
$
1,800.00
Comments:

If
you
do
not
have
the
quantitative
data
for
additional
crops
grown
on
the
same
land,
please
indicate
so
in
the
comment
section.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Use
one
row
for
each
active
ingredient
(
ai).
For
example,
if
a
product
contains
2
ai's
use
2
rows
for
that
product.
Once
a
row
is
completed
for
a
given
product,
then
only
Col.

B
(
if
applicable),
C,
and
E
need
to
be
completed
for
additional
rows
regarding
the
same
product.

Enter
the
number
of
applications
in
a
fumigation
cycle
comparable
to
methyl
bromide
for
this
alternative
pest
control
regimen.
Since
this
number
is
an
average,
it
does
not
need
to
be
a
whole
number.

Enter
the
formulation
or
the
%
of
active
ingredient.
Cost
per
Area
(
2001$)

Price
per
Unit
of
the
Product
Cost
of
Applying
Pesticide
per
Area
Col.
A:
Name
of
Product
and
Non­
chemical
Control
If
someone
other
than
the
applicant
previously
benefited
from
the
application
of
methyl
bromide
in
the
fumigation
cycle
and
you
do
not
have
the
quantitative
data
for
the
crops
grown
on
the
same
land,
please
indicate
so
in
the
comments
section
below.

Target
Pests
Active
Ingredients
(
ai)
in
Product
Other
Costs
per
Application
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
3­
B(
1).
Alternatives
­
Pest
Control
Regimen
Costs
for
Alternative:
dazomet
(
Basamid
granular)

Enter
the
area
receiving
at
least
one
application
of
the
pesticide.

If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
for
this
table
should
reflect
a
representative
user.

Enter
all
alternatives
and
non­
chemical
pest
control
that
would
replace
one
treatment
of
methyl
bromide
throughout
the
fumigation
cycle.
See
the
Fumigation
Cycle
Worksheet
for
a
comprehensive
definition
of
the
fumigation
cycle.
If
multiple
crops
are
grown
during
the
interval
between
fumigations
(
e.
g.
tomatoes
followed
by
peppers
in
a
single
growing
season,
or
strawberries
followed
by
lettuce
over
2
or
3
years)
include
all
of
the
pesticides
that
replace
methyl
bromide
for
the
entire
interval.
Do
not
include
pesticides
that
are
used
along
with
methyl
bromide­­
enter
only
the
additional
pest
control
if
methyl
bromide
were
not
available.

Be
as
specific
as
possible
regarding
the
species
or
classes
of
pests
controlled
by
the
active
ingredient
or
pesticide
product.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Name
of
Product
As
a
cross
check,
EPA
is
requesting
both
the
amount
of
active
ingredient
in
Col.
E
and
product
applied
per
area
in
Col.
F.
Indicate
the
unit
of
the
product
in
Col.
G.

Use
2001
prices
and
costs.
If
the
product
is
custom
applied
you
may
enter
the
total
cost
in
the
last
column
(
Col.
M)
and
override
the
formula.
If
a
pesticide
is
applied
by
the
user,
enter
the
price
of
the
product
in
Col.
H
and
the
cost
of
applying
it
in
Col.
I.
Enter
any
other
costs
associated
with
applying
this
product
in
Col.
J,
specifying
what
they
are
in
the
comments
section
at
the
bottom
of
this
sheet.

Enter
the
cost
per
area
in
2001
dollars.
Col.
M
will
be
calculated
automatically
using
the
data
you
have
entered
for
a
chemical
pest
control,
or,
the
formula
in
Col.
M
can
be
overridden
if
the
cost
per
area
is
known
because
the
product
was
custom
applied.
Area
Treated
at
Least
Once
Enter
data
near
the
bottom
of
the
form.
Identify
the
control
in
Col.
A.
Enter
the
target
pests
in
Col.
B.
Describe
the
non­
chemical
pest
control
Col.
B­
L.
Enter
the
costs
in
Col.
M
in
2001
dollars.
#
of
Applications
per
Year
Application
Rate
Formulation
of
Product
Col.
B:
Target
Pests
Col.
C:
Active
Ingredients
Col.
D:
Formulation
Col.
E,
F,
G:
Application
Rate
Col.
H,
I,
J:
Prices
and
Costs
Col.
K:
Area
Treated
Col.
L:
#
of
Applications
per
Year
Col.
M:
Cost
per
Area
in
2001
Dollars
Non­
chemical
Control
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
lbs.
ai
per
Area
per
Application
Units
of
product
per
Area
per
Application
Product
Unit
(
e.
g.,
lbs.,

gals)

metham
sodium
plant
pathogenic
fungi
42%
318.75
75
gals
$
4.00
1500.00
1
1
$
1,800.00
nematodes
$
0.00
weeds
$
0.00
$
0.00
Sodium
methyldithiocarbamate
$
0.00
$
0.00
Non­
Chemical
Pest
Control
Target
Pests
Description
Cost/
area
Total
$
1,800.00
Comments:

If
you
do
not
have
the
quantitative
data
for
additional
crops
grown
on
the
same
land,
please
indicate
so
in
the
comment
section.
For
EPA
Use
Only
Worksheet
3­
B(
2).
Alternatives
­
Pest
Control
Regimen
Costs
for
Alternative:
dazomet
(
Basamid
granular)

If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
for
this
table
should
reflect
a
representative
user.

Col.
A:
Name
of
Product
and
Non­
chemical
Control
Enter
all
alternatives
and
non­
chemical
pest
control
that
would
replace
one
treatment
of
methyl
bromide
throughout
the
fumigation
cycle.
See
the
Fumigation
Cycle
Worksheet
If
someone
other
than
the
applicant
previously
benefited
from
the
application
of
methyl
bromide
in
the
fumigation
cycle
and
you
do
not
have
the
quantitative
data
for
the
crops
Be
as
specific
as
possible
regarding
the
species
or
classes
of
pests
controlled
by
the
active
ingredient
or
pesticide
product.

Use
one
row
for
each
active
ingredient
(
ai).
For
example,
if
a
product
contains
2
ai's
use
2
rows
for
that
product.
Once
a
row
is
completed
for
a
given
product,
then
only
Col.

Enter
the
formulation
or
the
%
of
active
ingredient.

As
a
cross
check,
EPA
is
requesting
both
the
amount
of
active
ingredient
in
Col.
E
and
product
applied
per
area
in
Col.
F.
Indicate
the
unit
of
the
product
in
Col.
G.

Use
2001
prices
and
costs.
If
the
product
is
custom
applied
you
may
enter
the
total
cost
in
the
last
column
(
Col.
M)
and
override
the
formula.
If
a
pesticide
is
applied
by
the
Enter
the
area
receiving
at
least
one
application
of
the
pesticide.

Enter
the
number
of
applications
in
a
fumigation
cycle
comparable
to
methyl
bromide
for
this
alternative
pest
control
regimen.
Since
this
number
is
an
average,
it
does
not
need
to
be
a
whole
number.

Enter
the
cost
per
area
in
2001
dollars.
Col.
M
will
be
calculated
automatically
using
the
data
you
have
entered
for
a
chemical
pest
control,
or,
the
formula
in
Col.
M
can
be
overridden
if
the
cost
per
area
is
known
because
the
product
was
custom
applied.
Cost
per
Area
(
2001$)

Enter
data
near
the
bottom
of
the
form.
Identify
the
control
in
Col.
A.
Enter
the
target
pests
in
Col.
B.
Describe
the
non­
chemical
pest
control
Col.
B­
L.
Enter
the
costs
in
Col.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

Name
of
Product
Target
Pests
Active
Ingredients
(
ai)
in
Product
Formulation
of
Product
Application
Rate
Price
per
Unit
of
the
Product
Area
Treated
at
Least
Once
#
of
Applications
per
Year
Cost
of
Applying
Pesticide
per
Area
Other
Costs
per
Application
Col.
B:
Target
Pests
Col.
C:
Active
Ingredients
Col.
D:
Formulation
Col.
E,
F,
G:
Application
Rate
Col.
H,
I,
J,
M:
Prices
and
Costs
Col.
K:
Area
Treated
Col.
L:
#
of
Applications
per
Year
Col.
M:
Cost
per
Area
in
2001
Dollars
Non­
chemical
Control
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
lbs.
ai
per
Area
per
Application
Units
of
product
per
Area
per
Application
Product
Unit
(
e.
g.,
lbs.,

gals)

Product
X
Pest
Y,
Pest
Z
Chemical
D,

Chemical
F
90%
Chemical
D,

10%
Chemical
F
250
278
lbs
$
10.00
$
20.00
0
25
1
$
2,800.00
Product
U
Pest
V,
Pest
Y
Chemical
C
100%
150
200
gal
$
5.00
$
20.00
10
25
2
$
2,060.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
Non­
Chemical
Pest
Control
Target
Pests
Description
Cost/
area
Control
P
Pest
J,
Pest
K
$
500.00
Total
$
5,360.00
Comments:

If
you
do
not
have
the
quantitative
data
for
additional
crops
grown
on
the
same
land,
please
indicate
so
in
the
comment
section.

OMB
Control
#
Enter
the
cost
per
area
in
2001
dollars.
Col.
M
will
be
calculated
automatically
using
the
data
you
have
entered
for
a
chemical
pest
control,
or,
the
formula
in
Col.
M
can
be
overridden
if
the
cost
per
area
is
known
because
the
product
was
custom
applied
Area
Treated
at
Least
Once
Enter
data
near
the
bottom
of
the
form.
Identify
the
control
in
Col.
A.
Enter
the
target
pests
in
Col.
B.
Describe
the
non­
chemical
pest
control
Col.
B­
L.
Enter
the
costs
in
Col.
M
in
2001
dollars.
#
of
Applications
per
Year
Application
Rate
Formulation
of
Product
Target
Pests
Active
Ingredients
(
ai)
in
Product
Worksheet
3­
B.
Alternatives
­
Pest
Control
Regimen
Costs
for
Alternative:
Product
X
Enter
the
area
receiving
at
least
one
application
of
the
pesticide.

If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
for
this
table
should
reflect
a
representative
user.

Enter
all
alternatives
and
non­
chemical
pest
control
that
would
replace
one
treatment
of
methyl
bromide
throughout
the
fumigation
cycle.
See
the
Fumigation
Cycle
Worksheet
for
a
comprehensive
definition
of
the
fumigation
cycle.
If
multiple
crops
are
grown
Be
as
specific
as
possible
regarding
the
species
or
classes
of
pests
controlled
by
the
active
ingredient
or
pesticide
product.

Col.
A:
Name
of
Product
and
Non­
chemical
Control
If
someone
other
than
the
applicant
previously
benefited
from
the
application
of
methyl
bromide
in
the
fumigation
cycle
and
you
do
not
have
the
quantitative
data
for
the
crops
grown
on
the
same
land,
please
indicate
so
in
the
comments
section
below.

As
a
cross
check,
EPA
is
requesting
both
the
amount
of
active
ingredient
in
Col.
E
and
product
applied
per
area
in
Col.
F.
Indicate
the
unit
of
the
product
in
Col.
G.

Use
2001
prices
and
costs.
If
the
product
is
custom
applied
you
may
enter
the
total
cost
in
the
last
column
(
Col.
M)
and
override
the
formula.
If
a
pesticide
is
applied
by
the
user,
enter
the
price
of
the
product
in
Col.
H
and
the
cost
of
applying
it
in
Name
of
Product
Price
per
Unit
of
the
Product
Cost
of
Applying
Pesticide
per
Area
Other
Costs
per
Application
per
area
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Control
P
is
done
2
times
per
year
according
to
____
methods.

Use
one
row
for
each
active
ingredient
(
ai).
For
example,
if
a
product
contains
2
ai's
use
2
rows
for
that
product.
Once
a
row
is
completed
for
a
given
product,
then
only
Col.

B
(
if
applicable),
C,
and
E
need
to
be
completed
for
additional
rows
regardin
Enter
the
number
of
applications
in
a
fumigation
cycle
comparable
to
methyl
bromide
for
this
alternative
pest
control
regimen.
Since
this
number
is
an
average,
it
does
not
need
to
be
a
whole
number.

Enter
the
formulation
or
the
%
of
active
ingredient.
Cost
per
Area
(
2001$)

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Col.
B:
Price
Factors
Col.
C:
Unit
of
Crop/
Commodity
Col.
D:
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
Col.
E:
Price
Col.
F:
Gross
Revenue
A
B
C
D
E
F
Crop/
Commodity
Price
Factors
(
grade,
time,
market)
Unit
of
Crop/
Commodity
(
e.
g.,
pounds,
bushels)
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
(
Units
per
area)
Price
(
per
unit
of
crop/
commodity)
Revenue
(
per
area)
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
Total
Revenue
$
0.00
Comments:

OMB
Control
#
Worksheet
3­
C.
Alternatives
­
Crop/
Commodity
Yield
and
Gross
Revenue
for
Alternativ
[
Insert
name
of
alternative]

If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
for
this
table
should
reflect
a
representative
user.

In
the
electronic
version,
revenue
is
automatically
calculated
below
using
the
data
you
entered
for
yield
and
price.
If
revenue
is
not
equal
to
yield
times
price,
you
may
override
the
formula
and
enter
a
different
revenue
amount.
Please
explain
why
this
revenue
amount
is
different
in
the
comment
section
b
l
Enter
the
unit
of
measurement
for
your
crop/
commodity.

Enter
all
crops/
commodities
that
can
be
grown/
treated
during
the
same
interval
of
time
comprising
a
methyl
bromide
fumigation
cycle.
Please
discuss
changes
in
crop
cycles
resulting
from
alternative
use
in
the
comments.
See
the
Fumigation
Cycle
Worksheet
for
a
comprehensive
definition
of
the
fumigation
cycle.

Enter
in
Col.
B
any
factors
that
determine
prices
(
e.
g.,
grade,
time,
market).
If
you
received
different
prices
for
your
crop/
commodity
as
a
result
of
quality,
grade,
market
(
e.
g.,
fresh
or
processing),
timing
of
harvest,
etc.,
you
may
itemize
by
using
more
than
one
row.
Itemize
or
aggregate
these
factors
to
the
extent
appropriate
in
making
the
case
that
the
use
of
alternatives
affects
these
price
factors.

Enter
the
number
of
units
of
crop/
commodity
produced
per
area
for
that
price
factor
identified.

Enter
the
average
2001
prices
received
by
the
users
for
that
crop/
commodity
and
price
factor.

The
purpose
of
this
worksheet
is
to
identify
the
gross
revenue
for
units
(
crop,
commodity,
structure)
when
using
an
alternative
compared
to
gross
revenue
when
using
methyl
bromide.

Postharvest
and
structural
users
may
modify
this
form
to
accommodate
differences
in
operations
when
providing
gross
revenue
data.

Col.
A:
Crop/
Commodity
If
someone
other
than
the
applicant
benefits
from
the
application
of
methyl
bromide
in
the
fumigation
cycle
and
you
do
not
have
the
quantitative
data
for
the
crops
grown
on
the
same
land,
please
indicate
so
in
the
comments
section
below.

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Col.
A:
Operation
or
Cost
Item
Col.
B:
Custom
Operation
Cost
Col.
C,
D,
E:
Costs
per
Area
Col.
F:
Typical
Equipment
Used
A
B
C
D
E
F
Material
Cost
per
Area
Labor
Cost
per
Area
Total
Cost
per
Area
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
Total
Custom
per
Area
$
0.00
User
Total
per
area
$
0.00
Comments:

OMB
Control
#

Area
is
defined
below
as
follows
for
each
user:
acres
for
growers,
cubic
feet
for
post­
harvest
operations,
and
square
feet
for
structural
applications.

If
a
consortium
is
submitting
this
application,
the
data
for
this
table
should
reflect
a
representative
user
.

Enter
in
Col.
C
and
D,
material
and
labor
costs
per
area
that
change
for
operations
done
by
user.
The
total
cost
per
area
is
calculated
automatically
from
the
values
you
enter
in
Cols.
C
and
D.
Typical
Equipment
Used
Operation
Done
by
User
[
Insert
name
of
alternative]

Worksheet
3­
D.
Alternatives
­
Changes
in
Other
Costs
for
Alternative:

Custom
Operation
Cost
per
Area
Operation
or
Cost
Item
Enter
data
only
for
costs
(
other
than
the
cost
of
alternative
pest
control)
that
change
as
a
result
of
using
the
alternatives
instead
of
methyl
bromide.
Enter
the
whole
cost,
not
just
the
incremental
changes.
Enter
the
cost
in
Col.
B
for
custom
operation
costs,
or
in
Col.
C
and
D
for
operations
done
by
user.

Identify
changes
in
the
typical
equipment
used
by
the
user
as
a
result
of
not
using
methyl
bromide.
Please
be
specific
such
as
tractor
horsepower.
No
cost
data
are
required
in
this
column.

Identify
the
operations
or
cost
items
that
change
as
a
result
of
not
using
methyl
bromide.

Enter
custom
operation
costs
that
change
in
Col.
B.
1.
Name
of
study:

2.
Researcher(
s):

3.
Your
test
is
planned
for:

4.
Location:

5.
Name
of
alternative
to
be
tested:

6.
Yes
No
x
7.

OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Michigan
2002­
2004
Professor
of
Weed
Science,
Michigan
State
University
Telone
II,
Telone
C­
17,
Telone
C­
35,
Metham
sodium,
Metham
sodium/
Telone
combinations,
idomethane
Methyl
Bromide
Alternatives
Research­
Education
for
Herbaceous
Perennials,
Woody
Ornamentals
and
Vegetables
in
Michigan,
New
York,
and
Rhode
Island
George
Bird,
Professor
of
Nematology,
Haddish
Melakeberhan,
Associate
Professor
of
Nematology,
and
Bernard
Zandstra
Please
describe
future
plans
to
test
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide.
(
All
available
methyl
bromide
alternatives
from
the
alternatives
list
should
have
been
tested
or
have
future
tests
planned.)
There
is
no
need
to
complete
a
separate
worksheet
for
future
research
plans
for
each
alternative
­
you
may
use
this
worksheet
to
describe
all
future
research
plans.

George
Abawi,
Professor
of
Plant
Pathology,
Cornell
University,
and
Nathaniel
Mitkowski,
Assistant
Professor
of
Plant
Pathology,
Univ.
of
Rhode
Island
Will
crop
yield
be
measured
in
the
study?
Halosulfuron,
Flumioxazin,
Sulfentrazone,
Carfentrazone
;
Cover
crop
and
composting
study,
Additional
trials
associated
with
the
UDSA
project
are
being
done
with
organic
acids.

Screen
two
nematode
biological
control
agents
for
use
as
methyl
bromide
alternatives
in
nursery
production
systems.

If
additional
testing
is
not
planned,
please
explain
why.
(
For
example,
the
available
alternatives
have
been
tested
and
found
unsuitable,
an
alternative
has
been
identified
but
is
not
yet
registered
for
this
crop,
available
alternatives
are
too
expensive
for
this
crop,
etc.)
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
4.
Alternatives
­
Future
Research
Plans
1.

1a.
Check
all
methods
you
will
use
Nothing
X
Tarpaulin
(
high
density
polyethylene)

Virtually
impermeable
film
(
VIF)

Cultural
practices
(
please
specify)

1b.
Will
you
use
other
pesticides
to
reduce
use
of
methyl
bromide?
Yes
x
No
If
yes
please
specify.

1c.
Other
non­
chemical
methods:
(
please
specify):

2.
Yes
No
x
If
yes,
how
many
pounds?
lbs.

3.
Yes
No
x
If
yes,
how
many
pounds?
lbs.

4.

$

5.

6.

When
do
you
expect
these
to
occur?

7.

0­
10
acres
10­
25
acres
25­
50
acres
50­
100
acres
100­
200
acres
200­
400
acres
over
400
acres
Worksheet
5.
Additional
Information
(
continued)
Worksheet
5.
Additional
Information
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

3
2
2
6
additional
herbicide
registrations
may
occur
after
research
has
been
completed.
A
better
selection
of
herbicides
registered
for
ornamentals;
government­
sponsored
low
interest
loans
for
plugculture
retractible
roof
green
house
systems.
Soil
quality
research
designed
for
systems
to
qualify
growers
for
EQIP
resources.
Identify
what
factors
would
allow
you
to
stop
or
reduce
your
use
of
methyl
bromide
(
e.
g.
registration
of
particular
pesticide;
completion
of
research
plan;
capital
outlay).
What
is
the
cumulative
amount
spent
to
date
by
the
user
or
consortium
on
research
to
develop
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
(
beginning
in
1992)?
Do
you
anticipate
that
you
will
have
any
methyl
bromide
in
storage
on
January
1,
2005?

**
Research
in
this
area
just
started
in
Michigan
in
2002.
Amount
listed
is
for
a
project
across
several
commodities
and
states
(
New
York
and
Rhode
Island)
How
will
you
minimize
your
use
and/
or
emissions
of
methyl
bromide?

Do
you
have
access
to
recycled
methyl
bromide?
Telone
2
213,000
**

2
0
Range
of
acres
farmed
by
growers
included
in
this
application?
(
insert
number
of
users
in
each
category)
Other
investments,
if
any,
made
to
reduce
your
reliance
on
methyl
bromide.
Describe
each
investment
and
its
associated
cost.
A
system
of
growing
that
involves
using
plug
culture
in
retractible­
roof
greenhouses
allows
seedlings
to
be
grown
without
methyl
bromide;
costs
run
about
$
500,000/
acre.
Seedlings
can
be
grown
for
a
maximum
of
2
years
with
this
system­­
still
need
methyl
bromide
for
transplants,
which
grow
another
3­
5
years
in
the
field.

For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#
8.

4
0
­
5,000
sq.
ft.
5,001
­
10,000
sq.
ft.
10,001
­
20,000
sq.
ft.
20,001
­
40,000
sq.
ft.
1
40,001
­
80,000
sq.
ft.
3
80,001
­
160,000
sq.
ft.
9
over
160,000
sq.
ft.

I
certify
that
all
information
contained
in
this
document
is
factual
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge.

Signature
Date
Print
Name
Title
Mgr.

Signature
Date
Print
Name
Title
Manager
OMB
Control
#
2060­
0482
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
Public
reporting
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
324
hours
per
response
and
assumes
a
large
portion
of
applications
will
be
submitted
by
consortia
on
behalf
of
many
individual
users
of
methyl
bromide.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
current
OMB
control
number.
Robin
R.
Rosenbaum
Pesticide
Registration
9/
9/
2002
Robin
R.
Rosenbaum
Pesticide
Registration
9/
9/
2002
Range
of
square
feet
of
the
area
to
which
applicants
included
in
this
application
will
apply
methyl
bromide?
(
insert
number
of
users
in
each
category)

Information
in
this
application
may
be
aggregated
with
information
from
other
applications
and
used
by
the
United
States
government
to
justify
claims
in
the
national
nomination
package
that
a
particular
use
of
methyl
bromide
be
considered
"
critical"
and
authorized
for
an
exemption
beyond
the
2005
phaseout.
Use
of
aggregate
data
will
be
crucial
to
making
compelling
arguments
in
favor
of
critical
use
exemptions.
By
signing
below,
you
agree
not
to
assert
any
claim
of
confidentiality
that
would
affect
the
disclosure
by
EPA
of
aggregate
information
based
in
part
on
information
contained
in
this
application.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Pounds
of
Methyl
Bromide
Requested
2005
20,160
5.
Area
Treated
with
Methyl
Bromide
2005
84
acres
units
6.
If
methyl
bromide
is
requested
for
additional
years,
reason
for
request:

2006
20,160
lbs.
Area
Treated
84
acres
units
2007
20,160
lbs.
Area
Treated
84
acres
units
Not
Technically
Feasible
Not
Economically
Feasible
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Name
of
Applicant:
Michigan
Seedling
Growers
Association
For
EPA
Use
Only
ID#

Worksheet
6.
Application
Summary
This
worksheet
will
be
posted
on
the
web
to
notify
the
public
of
requests
for
critical
use
exemptions
beyond
the
2005
phase
out
for
methyl
bromide.
Therefore,
this
worksheet
cannot
be
claimed
as
CBI.

More
time
is
needed
for
the
development
of
safe
and
effective
alternatives
for
nurseries.
Ongoing
research
and
field
trials
require
additional
time
to
generate
effective
results.

MIchigan
Evergreen
and
deciduous
tree
seedlings
Location:

Crop:
results
up
to
now
have
been
poor
under
MI
conditions
Results
under
MI
nursery
conditions
have
been
poor
Not
possible
due
to
site
limitations.

Currently
used
by
Michigan
growers.
Not
able
to
effectively
control
all
soil­
born
fungal
diseases,
nematodes
or
weeds.

Currently
used
by
Michigan
growers.
Not
able
to
effectively
control
all
soil­
born
fungal
diseases,
nematodes
or
weeds.

No
herbicidal
activity;
difficulties
with
effective
application
due
to
soil
temperature
requirements
for
treatment;
phytotoxicity
to
crops;

hazard
to
human
health.
Reasons
Not
effective
in
Michigan
climate.

Currently
used
by
Michigan
growers.
Not
able
to
effectively
control
all
soil­
born
fungal
diseases,
nematodes
or
weeds.

solarization
crop
rotation/
fallowing
Potential
Alternatives
Telone
II
(
1,3­
dichloropropene)
Currently
used
by
Michigan
growers.
Not
able
to
effectively
control
all
soil­
born
fungal
diseases,
nematodes
or
weeds.

Place
an
"
X"
in
the
column(
s)
labeled
"
Not
Technically
Feasible"
and/
or
"
Not
Economically
Feasible"
where
appropriate.
Use
the
"
Reasons"
column
to
describe
why
the
potential
alternative
is
not
feasible.

physical
removal/
sanitation
flooding
and
water
management
general
IPM
plowing
and
tillage
Basamid
metam­
sodium
