Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (7502P)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460-0001

Comments on Proposed /Risk Mitigation Decision for Nine Rodenticides
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955

Dear Ms. Sherman and Ms. Parsons:
(and others, To Whom It May Concern:)

The purpose of this letter is fivefold.

I. First and foremost, Audubon of Kansas requests that the Environmental Protection Agency include Rozol Pocket Gopher Bait as used for control of prairie dogs in some states under 24 (c) “Special Local Need” in the Rodenticide Risk Mitigation proposal.

II. Second, Audubon of Kansas requests that EPA suspend and revoke approval of Rozol previously allowed under 24 (c) “Special Local Need” in the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming and any other state where it has been allowed for control of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs.

III. Third, we are requesting that prior to approval of Rozol Gopher Bait for continued use for controlling prairie dogs in the field, that EPA (1) conduct appropriate studies to document the effects of secondary poisoning on non-target species, especially raptors. It is already well established that Rozol does have significant and deleterious effects to non-target mammals and it is likely to be similar with raptors; (2) collaborate with State and Federal Fish and Wildlife experts and other stakeholders to conduct and oversee extensive laboratory and controlled field studies to establish if Rozol can be used for this purpose without posing a hazard to protected species and species of conservation concern; and (3) collaborate with State and Federal Fish and Wildlife experts and with other stakeholders to determine if Rozol can (and will) safely be used in a practical manner that will be followed by all likely applicators without resulting in secondary poising of other wildlife; and (4) determine and establish that alternative toxicants presenting lower risks of secondary poisoning to wildlife species of conservation concern are not available, practical and cost effective.

IV. Forth, we are requesting that EPA reform the 24 (c) “Special Local Need” registration process to provide more federal interagency oversight to protect the public interest in wildlife resources and environmental protection so that manufacturers of products like Rozol cannot continue to usurp State and Federal laws protecting fish and wildlife by use of toxicants with known or suspect adverse impacts on natural resources without sufficient safety studies demonstrating effects of toxicant use. The 24 (c) exemption used by Rozol proponents creates a travesty of the concept of “local needs” when States are being cleared for use of this toxicant that is documented to have adverse affects to species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 7 of the ESA requires that EPA consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ascertain the impacts on listed species of Rozol use for prairie dog control. EPA has not provided documentation that Section 7 consultation for this type of use has occurred. Further, there are less harmful alternatives that do exist and are practical for use.

V. Fifth, we are requesting that EPA investigate the misrepresentation of registration restrictions by manufacturers and their distributors (as appears to be the case with the promotion of Rozol sales and use), and conduct field investigations to determine if label restrictions are being observed by users or are being routinely ignored (as appears to be the case with the application of Rozol for prairie dog control).
In the context of the above listed requests, Audubon of Kansas:

REQUESTS EPA REVIEW OF ROZOL AND SAFETY STUDIES
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in several letters to EPA and state agencies considering Rozol, and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (in a letter dated January 18, 2006 attached in pdf form as “Attachment 1”) have stated that additional research is required to provide the sound scientific data needed for an adequate assessment to determine the safe and appropriate use of Rozol--assuming there is any--for prairie dog control. Please consider the requests contained in all of the letters included as pdf attachments as a part of this Audubon of Kansas series of requests.

In recognition of the fact that prairie dogs are a native species, play a natural role in shortgrass prairie ecosystems, and are regarded as a “keystone” species of significance in the conservation of other associated wildlife species (including Burrowing Owls, Swift Foxes, Golden Eagles, Ferruginous Hawks and Black-footed Ferrets), approval of toxicants with high potential for secondary poisoning of non-target wildlife should not be granted, renewed or continued without consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies.

In addition to the threat of secondary poisoning of predator species, illegal surface application of Rozol and the excavation of poisoned grain from burrows by digging mammals presents a hazard of direct poisoning to other species--including rabbits, Greater and Lesser Prairie-chickens, Sharp-tailed Grouse, quail, pheasants and Wild Turkeys which are often attracted to prairie dog towns--and humans who take these game species for consumption. Fall and winter field applications of Rozol poison coincides with upland game bird, small game (rabbit) and Wild Turkey seasons. There is at least one confirmed report of Wild Turkeys killed with Rozol poisoning in Kansas.REQUESTS EPA SUSPEND AND REVOKE PREVIOUS 24 (c) SUPPLEMENTAL LABEL APPROVAL OF ROZOL

We are requesting that EPA revoke previously granted approvals and suspend allowable use of Rozol for prairie dog control, as permitted in the states of Kansas and Nebraska under 24 (c) “Special Local Need.” Based on the information available, including information from the use and misuse of Rozol in field conditions, statements of LiphaTech representatives discounting the need to observe safeguards, information presented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in letters and documents, and the importance of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs as a keystone and foundation species in the shortgrass prairie ecosystem, it appears that none of the criteria needed to justify 24 (c) “Special Local Need” approval for prairie dog control has been met in any of the states where it has been labeled.

According to publication MF-2702 dated March 2006 entitled “Prairie Dog Management” written by Charles Lee and distributed by Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service (pdf “Attachment 9”), “Rozol Prairie Dog Bait is not a restricted-use pesticide. It is an anticoagulant bait, and small mammals will begin to die four or five days after consuming a lethal dose.” The publication further advises users to “Collect and properly dispose of any dead animals found above ground.” An April 2005 investigation of an illegal application of Rozol in Todd County, South Dakota found hundreds of dead and dying prairie dogs on the surface of the ground twenty-one days after application. Information on that incident is included on page 4 in the January 13, 2006 letter to Greg Ibach of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture from John Cochnar of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included in PDF form as “Attachment 2”. A series of five photos in PDF format of dead and dying prairie dogs at that South Dakota location, including some that had been partially eaten by predators and/or scavengers, are included with this statement as “Attachment Photos”.

Based on the fact that it has been determined in field situations that prairie dogs and other “small” mammals (including rodents, ground squirrels or rabbits) die over a period of from several days to several weeks after application of lethal doses of Rozol, it is absolutely apparent that non-target wildlife populations consisting of predators and scavenging animals are not protected from secondary poisoning. Species including Golden Eagles, Bald Eagles, Ferruginous Hawks and nearly two dozen additional species of hawks, falcons, owls and mammals including Swift Foxes, American Badgers, Coyotes, Black-footed Ferrets, weasels, skunks and other species will be exposed to dead and dying prairie dogs. It has been determined that a Bald Eagle has recently been killed from Rozol exposure in Nebraska and a second eagle has died from the misapplication of another rodenticide that incorporates anti-coagulants that act in a similar way as Rozol, that was used to kill off prairie dogs in Nebraska. Likewise, an American Badger was killed from secondary poisoning of Rozol associated with a prairie dog control program on or near the Smoky Valley Ranch operated by the Kansas Chapter of The Nature Conservancy in Logan County, Kansas during the winter of 2005-6. It was found because, contrary to most applications, searches were conducted following the campaign to control prairie dogs with Rozol. The remains of several decomposed hawks and a badger were found on private property on another ranch treated with Rozol in Logan County, Kansas during the fall and winter of 2006-7, however the cause of death could not be determined. This included a Ferruginous Hawk that I found. Scavengers had removed and/or scattered everything except a few bones and an extensive array of feathers.

It is incredibly disingenuous for promoters of 24 (c) registration of Rozol, and for regulators at either the state of federal level, to suggest that Rozol will be used according to label restrictions and that persons applying Rozol to hundreds or thousands of acres “will return to the site within 1 to 2 days after bait application, and on 1 to 2 day intervals, to collect and properly dispose of any bait or dead or dying prairie dogs that may have come to the surface.” The portion of this statement in quotation marks is from the 24 (c) Supplemental Label for the State of Nebraska, copy included in PDF form as “Attachment 3”. State regulatory agencies or EPA can readily document the fact that many county and commercial applicators do not return to the site to fulfill this responsibility. This can be accomplished by reviewing the time sheets and work records of county noxious weed (and prairie dog) control officials. According to county residents with knowledge of the procedures followed, county control agents (and the contractors they hire for supplemental work) apply Rozol and routinely do not return for weeks, if at all, and then primarily to apply poison to surviving prairie dogs in any burrow that appears to be “active” (inhabited). That delayed procedure has specifically been reported in Logan and Wallace counties in Kansas, but it is probably standard operating procedure in many other counties in Kansas--and now Nebraska. Unfortunately, there is generally no oversight regarding Rozol use and misuse at the county, state or local level--except when it is apparent to a concerned citizen who files a report.

It is unlikely, if not impossible, to assume that dead and dying prairie dogs, ground squirrels, other small rodents and rabbits can be found and collected on a timely basis to prevent scavenging by predators (raptors or mammals). It is noteworthy that in the Todd County example of Rozol use, prairie dogs took numerous days to succumb and during that period, those prairie dogs were above ground acting much disoriented. Such behavior would increase the likelihood of depredation by other animals at a time when those prairie dogs are carrying significant body burdens of the active ingredient of Rozol. It is well established that scavengers quickly remove migratory birds killed by collisions with towers. They are often removed by foxes, coyotes and other scavengers before sunrise. Various predators and scavengers take advantage of a major attractant (such as a poisoned prairie dog colony) 24 hours a day. To suggest that prairie dogs and other small mammals poisoned with Rozol can be sufficiently removed at 1 or 2-day intervals to protect other non-target wildlife undermines the credibility of label restrictions as safeguards and increases the appearance of gullibility by EPA. In addition, Swift Foxes, Red Foxes, Black-footed Ferrets, American Badgers, weasels and many other predators can readily enter or excavate burrows to retrieve poisoned prey. Dead prairie dogs excavated from burrows but not fully consumed by the mammalian predators and scavengers may in turn become available to other mammalian and avian predators and scavengers.REQUEST FOR REFORM OF 24 (c) PROCESS

It is apparent from reviewing documents submitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission that compelling wildlife conservation concerns (including concerns for endangered species) expressed by those two agencies were effectively ignored by the Nebraska Department of Agriculture in the process leading up to approval of Rozol as a new Section 24 (c) “Special Local Need” pesticide product to control Black-tailed Prairie Dogs in Nebraska. (Copies of the letters filed by those agencies are included in PDF form as “Attachment 1”, “Attachment 2”, “Attachment 4” and “Attachment 5”.) The process employed has also abrogated the authority of EPA to provide adequate safeguards for wildlife, including species to be protected under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

As it stands now, LiphaTech and entities with which it collaborates can (and has) systematically request(ed) that state agricultural agencies register Rozol Pocket Gopher Bait as a new Section 24 (c) “Special Local Need” pesticide product for controlling Black-tailed Prairie Dogs under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) without the type of established federal review process and standards of evidence that would otherwise be required. This evasion of the established process furthers the appearance that EPA is acting as a rubber stamp for the industry rather than a neutral arbiter of information rendering sound decisions based on science. In Nebraska, proponents for approval included a representative of LiphaTech, a manufacturer with a vested economic interest, and Charles Lee of K-State Research and Extension who spearheaded approval in Kansas and has been funded during recent years by LiphaTech to study efficacy of the poison for killing prairie dogs in field trials in western Kansas. The studies have provided Mr. Lee with numerous opportunities to publish. However, questions about the methodology used in Mr. Lee’s studies, discrepancies, and efficacy rates that do not meet EPA’s minimum efficacy criterion were all raised in the text of the letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unfortunately, extensive companion studies were not conducted to determine or measure the potential detrimental impacts of the Rozol applications on other wildlife. The Kansas “Efficacy” studies were designed to measure the efficiency of killing targeted prairie dog populations, but not determine the effect on other wildlife species sharing the habitat and/or consuming poisoned prairie dogs.

Earlier 24 (c) approval of Rozol in Kansas was accomplished without any comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As expressed and detailed in the January 13, 2006 letter from Mr. Cochnar, it “appears that EPA allowed Kansas to proceed with the 24 (c) permit and label for KS-O4OOO4 due to some loopholes and technicality issues.” As a result, the floodgates have been opened to semi trucks loaded with 60 lb. buckets of Rozol treated grain totaling hundreds of thousands of pounds that have subsequently been poured on the landscape in western Kansas counties in an attempt to “eradicate” prairie dogs with or without the approval of landowners.

We are astounded that Mr. Lee and a representative of LiphaTech made the requests for 24 (c) approval of Rozol for control of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs in Nebraska, using Mr. Lee’s Kansas experience as justification, considering that they were aware of concerns about the use and misuse of Rozol in Kansas and aware that approval in Kansas did not include appropriate review by resource agencies. Expressions of concern about potential problems and information on secondary poisoning resulting from use of Rozol in Kansas were expressed by Audubon of Kansas in a series of e-mails to Mr. Lee, and during a meeting held to discuss the issues on January 13, 2006. Others in the conservation community participated in that meeting and also expressed concern. On behalf of several Logan County ranch landowners, Mr. Randall K. Rathbun of the law firm of Depew, Gillen, Rathbun & McInteer of Wichita, presented a letter dated November 29, 2005 addressed to Ms. Andrea Wyrick (Logan County Attorney) and outlining concerns with the use (and misuse) of Rozol at the Logan County Commission meeting held on January 31, 2006 in Oakley, Kansas. As detailed in a follow-up e-mail summary of that meeting (included in the text of this letter), Mr. Rathbun and I expressed concerns to the commission and to Mr. Ted Bruesch with LiphaTech. That letter was available to Mr. Lee and LiphaTech officials prior to their January 25, 2006 appearance in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Likewise, in a letter dated to Ms. Anne Lindsay of EPA on May 5, 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested that EPA disapprove the Rozol special local needs registration for Nebraska to NDA until important data gaps can be addressed. The Service made the request out of concerns for Federal trust fish and wildlife resources. The letter was signed by the Deputy Regional Director for the Mountain-Prairie Region. The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission provided a separate letter to EPA that specifically addressed that agency’s concerns.

Unfortunately EPA did not disapprove the 24 (c) application for Rozol in Nebraska giving the appearance that EPA is willing to discount information provided by state and federal fish and wildlife experts in order to push a new toxicant into use where numerous toxicants are already allowed. A review of 24 (c) approvals in Nebraska and Kansas makes it apparent that the approval process needs review so as to ascertain whether it is being appropriately used by EPA and perhaps to be reformed to prevent the allowance of a known toxicant with documented secondary and non-target effects being slipped through this loophole where numerous prairie dog toxicant alternatives are already legal for use. In spite of requests by wildlife agencies and compelling information regarding the need for additional scientific evidence on the risks of secondary poisoning exposure to protected and non-target species and the need for adequate application safeguards, EPA has failed to disapprove any 24 (c) applications for the use of Rozol to control prairie dogs. Distribution of Rozol has been allowed as a 24 (c) special needs application even though other toxicants and methods of control are available--and those do not place numerous other imperiled species and species of special conservation concern at risk of secondary poisoning. Many of these species are attracted to Black-tailed Prairie Dog colonies because prairie dogs provide a prey base and/or special habitat.

Unfortunately, the May 5, 2006 letter from the USFWS was prophetic in reflecting the Service’s primary concern for eagles and other migratory birds that are attracted to prairie dog colonies. A Bald Eagle that died from the toxic effects of Rozol has recently been discovered in Nebraska and is under investigation.
As it is currently used, a manufacturer and a small number of collaborators (usually potential users, including persons who want to eradicate this native species) can make an application for a 24 (c) special needs use, it can progress through a state entity where most or all of the persons reviewing the application are associated with the industry and potential users making the application. As played out in Nebraska, the minority representation of wildlife and environmental protection is essentially powerless to affect the outcome and EPA was afraid to object even though numerous alternatives existed.

The floodgates for distribution and use (and misuse) of the toxicant are then opened within the state because EPA neglected to exert its authority and responsibility to consider the evidence, as well as the concerns of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other resource agencies, and disapprove the 24 (c) application in the timeframe allotted.

One exception to the above-described scenario was demonstrated by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture in March 2005. The Department reviewed Special Local Need 24 (c) registration of Rozol Pocket Gopher Bait for control of prairie dogs and (wisely) determined that the agency cannot pursue the registration requested. The reasons for this decision included the 1) Legality, 2) Efficacy, 3) Environmental Hazards, and 4) Cost. Letters from the Department dated March 23, 2005 and March 24, 2005 provide additional details and are included on page 8 and 9 of “Attachment 5”. It appears that the South Dakota Department included the cost of visiting the sites following treatment to remove dead prairie dogs, whereas others promoting the use of Rozol considering approval in other states were willing to overlook this cost (and other factors) even though it was included as a requirement. The Department also correctly concluded that “Rozol possesses a significant secondary poisoning hazard that zinc phosphide does not.” Unfortunately, the same information was not given sufficient consideration in Kansas or Nebraska.

The labeling of Rozol for prairie dog control in Kansas and Nebraska involves the likely field application over a large geographic area, and LiphaTech has tried to have it considered and allowed in South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana and possibly most recently in Colorado. The geographical area involved does not constitute a special “local area” under any definition. It is questionable that inclusion of whole states and a vast region represents EPA’s intent of special local need. Given that LiphaTech has been promoting the use of Rozol though the 24 (c) process in multiple states, the evidence indicates that LiphaTech officials have been attempting to circumvent the EPA process and avoid conducting the research needed and requirements necessary for relabeling as a toxicant registered for control of prairie dogs.

In the past three years EPA has allowed 24 (c) “Special Local Need” approval of Rozol for prairie dog control in at least a three states (Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming) with a combined total area of 257,458 square miles and an acreage of nearly 165 million acres (164,773,120 acres). This is alleged “local need” area is approximately the size of France, and significantly larger than Spain, Germany and most European countries.

If Rozol is to be used in any manner for prairie dog control, Audubon of Kansas concurs with the position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which ‘strongly recommends that the Rozol label be changed to a Restricted Use Pesticide label.” This would hopefully provided more assurance that the label is properly followed with regard to application and proper carcass collection and disposal.
If EPA is not going to enforce the mandates of the 24 (c) process, then reform of the 24 (c) process should include preparation of National Environmental Policy Act documents, published in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment.

REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Audubon of Kansas requests that EPA investigate the misrepresentation of registration restrictions by manufacturers and their distributors (as appears to be the case with the promotion of Rozol sales and use), clarify the requirements so that all parties can understand the reason for the requirements, and conduct field investigations to determine if label restrictions are being observed by users or are being routinely ignored (as appears to often be the case with the application of Rozol).

A public demonstration that the manufacturer of Rozol was discounting label requirements when using Rozol to poison Black-tailed Prairie Dogs was presented at the Logan County Commission meeting in Oakley, Kansas on the afternoon of January 31, 2006. The commission meeting was devoted to the commission’s early ruling that ranch landowners in the county must eradicate prairie dogs from their land or the county would enter on to the properties and poison the colonies at the expense of the landowners. Several landowners hired Randall K. Rathbun, an attorney with Depew, Gillen, Rathbun & Mcinteer of Wichita, Kansas to represent them in their attempt to retain prairie dog colonies on their land for wildlife stewardship, ecological values and other purposes. Mr. Rathbun had prepared a letter dated November 29, 2005. (included in pdf form as “Attachment 6” and “Attachment 7”) and presented additional oral testimony.

Although the Logan County Clerk appeared to have taken only limited notes for the commission minutes, I complied extensive notes to record exact quotes on issues of importance whenever possible during the meeting. The following day I e-mailed the following summary to Mr. Rathbun and others. Please note that it details the attempt by the representative of LIPHA TECH to totally discount and undermine the label requirement that dead prairie dogs need to be removed to reduce the risk of secondary poisoning of other wildlife.

SUMMARY OF LOGAN COUNTY (KANSAS) COMMISSION MEETING:
--(BEGINNING OF E-MAIL)--
There were approximately 35 people in attendance at the Logan County Commission meeting on Tuesday, January 31, 2006. The three commissioners were at the table next to the county attorney Andrea Wyrick. The county clerk was also present. Dennis Mackley, Noxious Weed and Prairie Dog Control Director, and Ted Bruesch, Technical Support Manager for LIPHA TECH from Wisconsin also joined them at the front of the room facing the audience. It was apparent that Mackley and Bruesch were there to make the case for the county’s campaign of using Rozol to poison prairie dogs.

REGARDING ROZOL

When Randy Rathbun indicated in his opening statement that Rozol was not the most cost effective toxicant to use to control prairie dogs because the label required repeated visits to the treated area to remove dead prairie dogs, Ted Bruesch was shaking his head “no” to indicate that Mr. Rathbun was incorrect. Bruesch then said in response that “if EPA had intended us to go out and actively search for dead animals they would have said so.” “There is no requirement,” he added.

Mr. Rathbun read a section of the label suggesting that collection and ”disposal of all dead animals above ground” is required of persons using Rozol for prairie dog control. Mr. Bruesch countered that “the same thing applies to the label for d-Con” and there is no expectation by EPA that people will have to go around their homes or farmsteads picking up dead mice and rats.” (d-Con is also an “anticoagulant rodenticide” but I don’t believe it is widely or ever used for extensive control of wildlife populations in the landscape where they would be exposed after death to significant numbers of protected wildlife.)

Mr. Bruesch further stated that if a user “finds one, (they are) duty bound to pick it up.” However, there is “no requirement to make trips and pick up” dead prairie dogs. This statement is contrary to the label and goes against criteria used by EPA when evaluating these special local needs. If there is no presumption that searches for dead prairie dogs will be undertaken, that fact would be important information for EPA to recognize. We believe that EPA might make a different decision if it is known that use of Rozol will result in a significant percentage of poisoned prairie dogs left above ground to be consumed by non-target wildlife. It is extremely important for EPA to weigh in on this aspect and provide direction whether label restrictions are meant to be followed or whether restriction can be followed in convenient as portrayed at this meeting. We believe the County Commissioners were definitely left with the latter impression.

One of the county officials indicated that, “We have been using Rozol because it is the easiest and the cheapest to use.” A commissioner said that, “The Nature Conservancy spent $20,000 this year on Rozol.” A member of the audience then added that, “Rob Manes, he says Rozol is what they want.”
Mr. Bruesch said that the “Nature Conservancy is looking for and picking up dead animals.” He then added that “I have to go back to our regulatory guys....” and “try to get answers out of EPA” in Washington, DC.

Gene Bertrand, a Logan County rancher who has incorporated managed prairie dog shooting (and conservation) into his ranching operation, said that he used Rozol a number of years ago and they had dead prairie dogs all over the surface. “Dead dogs were everywhere’” he said. He added that they rode two horses across an adjacent CRP-type field (a field planted to native grass) and in that direct ride across the field they came across two dead Coyotes. “Another died by the water tank." he added.

Commissioner Carl Uhrich said that the company has sold enough Rozol in Logan County to treat between 200,000 and 300,000 burrows. He said that K-State (Charles Lee) said we (Logan County) had more prairie dogs than any other county in the state.” Charles Lee’s paper (prepared for the Kansas Chapter of The Nature Conservancy) was also used as a reference by Mr. Uhrich to indicate that Rozol was best.
The county attorney suggested that Thomas County and Cheyenne County have dealt with their prairie dog problem effectively by doing comprehensive eradication programs, and that now they don’t have to go back and do it again (at least not to any great extent).

I don’t have it in my notes, but somebody indicated that Bob Bolen, the noxious weed and prairie dog control agent in Wallace County, doesn’t find dead prairie dogs on the surface, it was stated that he simply “poisons a prairie dog colony and goes back a month later” to see if it has done the job. Commissioner Dennis Mackley said he has only ever found “one” dead prairie dog. There was some mixed discussion and I had the impression that he doesn’t normally go back and look for any.

After the meeting, I asked Ted Bruesch for a business card (included in PDF form as “Attachment 8”). Responding to the paragraph that I read to the commission from the USFWS letter to the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, he asked me if I had seen the company’s rebuttal letter addressed to the director of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. He said that the USFWS had “FABRICATED” many of their claims regarding Rozol, and he indicated that the letter from LiphaTech exposes their folly.
--(END OF E-MAIL)—

We have seen the Fish and Wildlife Service letter along with the LiphaTech letter as well as an additional Fish and Wildlife Service letter (included as “Attachment 5”) responding to the LiphaTech letter. The folly appears to be with the LIPHA TECH belief that Rozol doesn’t present secondary hazards to non-target animals. It does and the company tries hard to downplay that which is understandable given their vested interest. What is not acceptable is EPA unwillingness to examine this issue and stop blindly allowing the product to be used under the 24 (c) process.

Further Evidence of Disregard for Label Restrictions
Further evidence of disregard for label restrictions by certain Rozol applicators and county officials mandating prairie dog eradication is revealed by two recent incidents that were brought to the attention of the Kansas Department of Agriculture and area newspapers.

Rozol is being used by county officials in Logan County Kansas as part of their duel strategy to eradicate Black-tailed Prairie Dogs and to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from proceeding with consideration of an experimental reintroduction of the endangered Black-footed Ferret. We are providing, with permission, a series of news articles and an editorial from the Hays Daily News to illustrate that the county officials are willing to resort to mandating application of Rozol on private land--without the permission of the landowners. Commercial agents hired by the Logan County, and a county commissioner himself, have applied Rozol on top of the ground in violation of the label.

The series of articles include an editorial dated September 17, 2006; news articles dated November 21, 2006; November 30, 2006; and March 30, 2007. A $2,800 fine was imposed on the Wyoming-based exterminators who were acting on behalf of the county on November 18, 2006. In spite of knowledge of this violation and the regulations, a county commissioner was reported and acknowledged that he applied Rozol on the surface of the ground adjacent to a neighbor's land that has prairie dogs on March 26, 2007. (included in pdf form as “News 1, News 2, News 3 & News 4”)

In addition to the above, rural ranch landowner Lillian Becker of Russell Springs (Logan County), Kansas stated in a personal conversation with me in February 2006 that a nearby landowner indicated that he doesn't have time to mess with trying to put Rozol into prairie dog burrows. He used his “grain planter.” Although this is not surprising, this came as a new dimension of threat regarding Rozol use and misuse. The primary “justification” and label restriction of Rozol promotion has been that it is to be applied in the burrows and that procedure (advocates contend) will largely eliminate much of the threat of primary poisoning to migratory birds. This type of application makes Rozol a threat for both primary and secondary poisoning of other wildlife. Rozol on the surface is likely to kill Prairie-chickens and many other grain eating birds. Some of the grain-eating birds that occur in the area (Pheasants, Prairie-chickens, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Quail and Wild Turkeys) are game birds and subject to human consumption. Rozol is usually applied to wheat grain and that makes the poison even more of a threat to birds than Zinc Phosophide because these birds generally prefer wheat to oats. Many of the hunting seasons for game birds are in process when Rozol use is allowed and application as described by the above landowner could allow a conduit to human consumption.

It is conceivable that thousands of acres, if not tens of thousands of acres, are poisoned with Rozol hastily applied or spilled on the surface of the ground. It is highly likely that most areas poisoned are never checked at all, or in a timely and frequent manner, to remove dead and dying animals. It is virtually impossible for public officials to know how and when Rozol is applied on private land, and if there is any follow up to remove dead prairie dogs from the surface. Because of this and the threat of secondary poisoning of wildlife, approval of Rozol as a prairie dog poison should be withdrawn until techniques for application and studies are conducted to ascertain and eliminate the effects to non-target species.

CONSERVATION SUMMARY
The Environmental Protection Agency should exercise its responsibility and authority to be supportive of the conservation responsibilities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Trust fish and wildlife resources and the conservation missions of the States. Recent failures to disapprove 24 (c) Special Local Need labeling of Rozol for prairie dog control appears to undermine those responsibilities by neglect or defiance. Because of this inaction, combined with the threat to Bald Eagles and other listed species, EPA may be in violation of Section 7 consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Eleven states in the historic range of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog developed Conservation and Management Plans in an attempt to reduce the prospect that the species would be listed as a threatened species. The plan for Kansas, completed and published in July, 2002 listed threats to the species, including poisoning which was rated as a moderate threat. The ink was barely dry before another toxicant was unwisely promoted, and then approved under 24 (c) special local need by the Kansas Department of Agriculture with the apparent concurrence of the Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/layout/set/print/other_services/research_publications/conservation_plans
Widespread use of Rozol for prairie dog control will continue to undermine objectives developed by dozens of agencies, universities and organizations in the development of the Kansas’ Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan of October, 2005. That publication, under the lead title of A FUTURE FOR KANSAS WILDLIFE can be viewed on line at http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/other_services/wildlife_conservation_plan. Of the eleven Shortgrass Prairie Habitat Species of Greatest Conservation Need (top Tier ranking), six are wholly or significantly dependent on the existence of prairie dogs for habitat or prey

Similar planning strategies have articulated the need for conservation of these same species in other Great Plains states. Recovery efforts for a number of species will be hampered or severely threatened by the use of Rozol in the landscape. If Rozol remains and/or becomes widely used for prairie dog control, recovery of Black-footed Ferrets in the wild will become increasingly unlikely in the states where it is used.

We are looking forward to EPA becoming a partner in the conservation of Great Plains wildlife and providing support and leadership in the agency’s areas of expertise. In terms of partnerships in this specific area of stewardship, nothing reflects the spirit of potential opportunities more than the letter of November 2005 (included as “Attachment 10”) signed by five ranch families and addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Sincerely,
Ron Klataske, Executive Director
Audubon of Kansas, Inc.

Back to Rozol
Back to Main Page