Water Quality Control Commission

Hearing on New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Petition

to Deploy A Piscicide in the Upper West Fork Gila River Drainage

September 12, 2002

Technical Testimony

by Ann McCampbell, MD

My name is Ann McCampbell. I am a medical doctor interested in
environmental health. I am also Chair of the Multiple Chemical
Sensitivities Task Force of New Mexico.

I am testifying against this petition because the proposed application
of Fintrol to the upper West Fork Gila River drainage poses an undue
risk to health and the environment. There is no assurance that the
chemicals in this product will not harm humans and wildlife or
contaminate downstream waterways. To the contrary, there are many
indications that the deployment of Fintrol will adversely impact the
environment and many nontarget species. In addition, there are extensive
data gaps regarding the toxicity and environmental fate of the active
ingredient, antimycin A.

There are at least 6 chemicals proposed for use in this project. Fintrol
concentrate contains antimycin A, acetone, and soy lipids. Fintrol
diluent, with which the concentrate is mixed, contains diethyl
phthalate, nonoxyl-9, and acetone. Potassium permanganate, and possibly
a fluoroscent dye, would also be deployed.

ANTIMYCIN A

Antimycin A is a highly toxic pesticide and poison. It is not an
antibiotic (Exhibit 1) or a pharmaceutical agent. Although antimycin A
is derived from bacteria, it has more in common with cyanide than
penicillin. Like cyanide, antimycin A blocks electron transport in
mitochondria causing cellular anoxia.

Fintrol concentrate carries the highest acute toxicity rating given by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Toxicity Category I. The
label contains the warning "DANGER POISON" next to a skull and
crossbones. Under "hazards to humans and domestic animals" it says this
product is "FATAL IF SWALLOWED" and "MAY BE FATAL IF ABSORBED THROUGH
THE SKIN".

According to its Material Safety Data Sheet (Exhibit 2), the oral LD 50
of antimycin A in rats is 30 mg/kg, that is, it takes 30 mg/kg of
ingested antimycin A to kill half the test animals. According to an EPA
Chemical Profile (Exhibit 3), the LD 50 for guinea pigs is even lower at
an extraordinary 1.8 mg/kg. Pesticides with an oral LD 50 less than 50
mg/kg meet the criteria for EPA Toxicity Category I. To put this in
perspective, pesticides in the other three EPA toxicity categories have
much higher oral LD 50 values. The oral LD 50 for Category II pesticides
is 50-500 mg/kg, for Category III pesticides it is 500-5000 mg/kg, and
is greater than 5000 mg/kg for Category IV pesticides (1).

The Hazards Information section of the Material Safety Data Sheet
(Exhibit 2) states that routes of entry for antimycin A include the
skin, inhalation, and ingestion. The ingestion hazard rating is "highly
toxic". Antimycin A is also noted to be an eye, skin and respiratory
irritant. Target organs include eyes, skin, respiratory tract,
cardiovascular system, nervous system, kidneys, and possibly fetus.
Inhalation of vapors or aerosol can irritate the eyes, nose, and
respiratory tract. Direct contact with skin or eyes can produce severe
irritation. And systemic intake can produce a decrease in blood
pressure, nausea, light headedness, dizziness, excitement,
incoordination, weakness, loss of coordinated speech and drowsiness.
Medical conditions said to be aggravated by antimycin A exposure are
pre-existing eye, skin, respiratory, kidney, nervous system or
cardiovascular ailments.

A University of California at Santa Cruz Laboratory Standard Operating
Procedure guide on antimycin A (Exhibit 4) states that this material is
considered a Particularly Hazardous Substance by the CAL OSHA Lab
Standard. It also says that antimycin A is "highly toxic" and "may be
fatal if swallowed, absorbed through skin, or inhaled". It notes that
"respiratory distress, impaired reflexes, incoordination, and terminal
symptoms consistent with CNS (central nervous system) depression have
been reported in experimental animals poisoned by the oral or parenteral
route."

ToxNet Hazardous Substance Databank Information on antimycin A, which
includes data from PoisonDex (Exhibit 5), states that respiratory
distress, incoordination, impaired reflexes, and CNS (central nervous
system) depression have occurred in animals. It further notes that *the
minimum lethal human exposure level is unknown*.

Besides its extreme acute toxicity, ToxNet also states that antimycin A
is an experimental MUTAGEN. The NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances (RTECS) (Exhibit 6) also includes "mutation data" on
antimycin A. And there are 36 references regarding antimycin on the
ToxNet Environmental Mutagen Information Center (EMIC) web page (2). At
least one study describes antimycin-induced DNA fragmentation and strand
breaks (Exhibit 7).

Perhaps most importantly, there is a disturbing lack of knowledge about
the full range of toxicity of antimycin A. Fintrol was initially
registered in 1977 (3) before the EPA adopted more stringent
registration requirements. In a 1987 EPA Chemical Profile on Antimycin A
(Exhibit 3) data was "not found" in most categories evaluated \-- from
physical and chemical properties to health hazards \-- despite a search
of 15 data sources.

In addition, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation recently
rejected the registration of Fintrol in that state because of
insufficient data regarding its toxicity and environmental fate (Exhibit
8). There are as well concerns among fish managers that Fintrol may lose
its federal EPA registration (Exhibits 1 & 9).

There are numerous tests on Fintrol and antimycin that have not been
done, let alone passed. In particular, there is little known about
antimycin's breakdown products, including their toxicity and
persistence, nor is there currently a chemical analytical method capable
of measuring antimycin in deployment concentrations (Exhibit 1).

The data gaps that were identified by California include (Exhibit 8):

1\) Acute dermal studies on the technical grade active ingredient

2\) Primary eye studies on the technical grade active ingredient

3\) Dermal irritation studies on the technical grade active ingredient

4\) Acute dermal studies on the formulated product

5\) Primary eye studies on the formulated product

6\) Dermal irritation studies on the formulated product

7\) Acute oral toxicity study on the diluent

8\) Acute dermal toxicity study on the diluent

9\) Primary eye study on the diluent

10\) Dermal irritation study on the diluent

11\) Product chemistry for Antimycin A technical

12\) Description of the manufacturing process

13\) Discussion of formation of impurities

14\) Preliminary analysis and certified limits of antimycin

15\) Enforcement analytical method for antimycin

16\) Data for hydrolysis

17\) Data for aqueous photolysis

18\) Data for anaerobic aquatic metabolism

19\) Data for aerobic aquatic metabolism

20\) Data for leaching and adsorption/desorption

21\) Data for magnitude of residue in fish

22\) Adequate fish and wildlife data

The New Mexico Department of Health also has reservations about the
safety of antimycin use. Its position as of August 13, 2002 is (Exhibit
10):

"*The New Mexico Department of Health has not yet fully evaluated the
possible adverse health effects of human exposure to antimycin used in
native fish restoration projects. We understand that, on our
recommendation, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish is
contracting with a toxicologist to conduct a study of possible health
risks before the next intended application of Fintrol (active
ingredient: antimycin). The Department of Health awaits the results of
this study in determining its opinion.*"

Barbara Malczewska-Toth, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.

Environmental Health Epidemiologist

Office of Epidemiology

New Mexico Department of Health

\(505\) 476-3028

barbarat@doh.state.nm.us

DIETHYL PHTHALATE

The EPA considers diethyl phthalate to be an endocrine disruptor.
Endocrine disruptors mimic natural hormones and have an adverse effect
on the structure or functioning of the endocrine system, which includes
the pituitary, hypothalamus, thyroid, adrenals, pancreas, thymus,
ovaries, and testes. Compounds which are toxic to the endocrine system
can cause health effects ranging from hypothyroidism and diabetes to
infertility, low sperm count, birth defects, and testicular, breast, and
prostate cancer.

There is growing scientific concern about the health impacts of human
exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals, in large part because of
their widespread presence in the environment and because their adverse
effects can often be caused by extremely minute quantities, at levels
not previously considered to be in the toxic range.

For example, a recent study found that frogs exposed during larval
development to as little as .1 part per billion (ppb) of the herbicide
atrazine developed male and female sex organs (Exhibits 11 & 12). The
authors concluded that "this widespread compound and other environmental
endocrine disruptors may be a factor in global amphibian declines".

Diethyl phthalate is a priority pollutant under the Clean Water Act. It
is also listed as a hazardous constituent under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and as a hazardous substance under
Superfund (4). The EPA may be considering the removal of diethyl
phthalate from all pesticide products (Exhibit 1).

According to a National Toxicology Program fact sheet (5), diethyl
phthalate is toxic by ingestion and inhalation and poisonous by the
intravenous route. It is an irritant of the skin, eyes, mucous membranes
and upper respiratory tract. It is a narcotic in high concentrations. It
is also listed as an experimental teratogen, which means it can cause
birth defects in developing fetuses, and it can cause other experimental
reproductive effects. Studies have shown, for example, abnormal
development of male fetuses in rats exposed to this chemical (6).

The New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services Hazardous
Substance Fact Sheet (7) notes numerous toxic effects of diethyl
phthalate. Exposure to vapors can irritate the nose and throat. Contact
can irritate the eyes and skin, and repeated exposure may damage the
nervous system. It also notes that chronic (long-term) health effects
can occur at some time after exposure to diethyl phthalate even if the
exposure levels were not high enough to make someone immediately sick.
It also warns that there is evidence that diethyl phthalate is a
teratogen in animals and that until further testing is done, this
chemical should be treated as a possible teratogen in humans. And while
those working directly with diethyl phthalate are at higher risk than
the general public, the fact sheet states that people in the community
may be exposed to diethyl phthalate in contaminated water and air and
that children and people who are already ill would be at the most risk
of developing health problems from it.

Diethyl phthalate is moderately persistent in the environment and has
moderate acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic life. According to one
source, the concentration of diethyl phthalate found in fish tissues is
expected to be somewhat higher than the average concentration found in
the water from which the fish was taken (8).

Finally, one can not be sure that the diethyl phthalate in the Fintrol
product is not contaminated with other phthalates, such as diethyl-hexyl
phthalate (DEHP), which is listed as a chemical known to the state of
California to cause cancer (California's Proposition 65 list, June 22,
2001).

NONOXYL-9

According to Philip Dickey in his publication "Troubling bubbles" (9),
nonoxyl 9 is an alkylphenol ethoxylate that can disrupt the endocrine
systems of fish, birds, and mammals. For example, nonylphenol, a
breakdown product of nonylphenol ethoxylate, can cause a reduction in
testicular size in rainbow trout and cause male trout to produce an
egg-yolk protein that is normally only produced by females. Rats
administered nonoxynol-9 in one study produced a statistically
significant, dose-related number of fetuses with both extra ribs and
slightly dilated pelvic components.

Nonylphenol ethoxylate is also noted for its slow incomplete
biodegradation. It tends to persist in the environment and
bioconcentrate. Many times the breakdown products are more toxic to
aquatic life than the original chemical. There is evidence for synergism
between nonylphenolic metabolites, indicating that the adverse effects
from a mixture of compounds may be greater than the sum of the effects
from the individual compounds. Nonylphenolic compounds have been
detected in groundwater. Alkylphenol ethoxylates have been banned in
many countries in Europe. And it is the recommendation of the author
that the use of alkylphenol ethoxylates as inert ingredients in
pesticide formulations applied to aquatic environments be discontinued.

ACETONE

Acetone is a volatile neurotoxic solvent, which can cause central
nervous system depression (Exhibit 2). It constitutes more than 50% of
the Fintrol product.

POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE

Potassium permanganate is a hazardous caustic alkali. Targets organs
include the respiratory and central nervous system, blood, and kidneys
(10). If swallowed, it can cause nausea, vomiting, gastrointestinal
irritation and burns to the mouth and throat. It may also cause severe
irritation or burns to the eye and skin. Prolonged inhalation of
potassium permanganate can cause manganism from a toxic build up of
manganese in one's body. According to one Material Safety Data Sheet
(11), potassium permanganate has also been reported to cause
reproductive toxicity in laboratory animals and states that the
ecological effects of this product have not been evaluated.

Potassium permanganate can be directly toxic to fish, even at deployment
concentrations of 1 part per million (Exhibit 13). It can also kill
algae which provides oxygen for fish (12) and kill phytoplankton and
macrophytes that fish use for food (13).

Although potassium permanganate will help neutralize the antimycin A it
comes in contact with, it does have its limitations. According to the
authors of "Limitations on Potassium Permanganate Detoxification of
Antimycin" (Exhibit 14), potassium permanganate rapidly detoxifies
antimycin to a toxicity level equivalent to about 4% of the original
concentration. From there on, the detoxification is quite slow. They
conclude that the use of antimycin-potassium permanganate systems in
fish control would probably entail undue risk in most situations
involving antimycin-sensitive fish, soft water and a need for rapid
detoxification. There will also inevitably be some uneven mixing of
potassium permanganate with antimycin A as well as other factors that
retard their chemically reacting with each other.

It is overly optimistic to think that potassium permanganate will
totally neutralize antimycin A or that deploying another toxic chemical
will return the stream to its former non-polluted condition. It also
ignores the fact that potassium permanganate will have little or no
effect on the levels of acetone and nonoxyl-9 present.

EPA REGISTRATION AND SAFETY

Those in favor of using antimycin in fish restoration projects argue
that Fintrol is an EPA registered product and therefore safe to use. But
**registration of a pesticide by the EPA does not mean it is safe**.
This cannot be stressed enough. Legal use does not equal "safe" use. EPA
has specifically stated that, "Pesticides are *not* safe. They are
produced specifically because they are toxic to something" (14). In
fact, it is against federal FIFRA law for a manufacturer to claim or
imply that its product is "safe", "harmless," or "nontoxic to humans and
pets" (15) or endorsed by the EPA (16).

*[Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)]{.underline}*

40 CFR 156.10(a)(5), Labeling Requirements for Pesticides, False or
Misleading Statements.

"... a pesticide is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading
...Examples of statements or representations in the labeling which
constitute misbranding include:

\(ix\) Claims as to the safety of the pesticide or its ingredients,
including statements such as 'safe,' 'nonpoisonous,' noninjurious,'
'harmless' or 'nontoxic to humans and pets' with or without such a
qualifying phrase as 'when used as directed';

\(v\) Any statement directly or indirectly implying that the pesticide
or device is recommended or endorsed by any agency of the Federal
Government;"

Another shortcoming of pesticide regulation is that chronic toxicity
tests are usually only done on the active ingredient rather than the
whole product and manufacturers are not required to reveal the so-called
"inert" ingredients in their products (other than to the EPA) even
though they can be more toxic than the active ingredient. Neither are
the "inert" ingredients required to be listed on pesticide product
labels. The Fintrol label names several "inert" ingredients, but not all
of them are listed (17).

Another argument by proponents for antimycin use is that it will be used
in such low concentrations that no harmful effects will occur. But this
ignores the possibility of misapplications and spills, especially of the
concentrated product (which are not uncommon with pesticides),
endocrine-disrupting effects that can occur at extremely low levels, and
the fact that the full toxicity of the individual or combination of
chemicals in Fintrol is unknown.

CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY

Some individuals are much more sensitive to toxic exposures than others.
Just as different species of fish and different fish of one species have
varying sensitivities to antimycin A, so are there likely to be huge
differences in human susceptibility to it (as well as the other
chemicals in Fintrol). A survey by the New Mexico Department of Health
found that 16% of the respondents to a statewide random population-based
survey reported that they were unusually sensitive to common chemicals,
including pesticides (Exhibit 15). The percentage of respondents who
reported being chemically sensitive were the same for those living in
rural and urban areas in all parts of the state.

The governor and several state agencies in New Mexico acknowledge that
there are New Mexicans who are chemically sensitive. The brochure on
multiple chemical sensitivities which contained the above survey
statistics was written by the Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Task Force
in collaboration with, and endorsed by, the New Mexico Departments of
Health, Environment, and Education and the Governor's Committee on
Concerns of the Handicapped. Governor Gary Johnson also proclaimed
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Awareness Week in 1998 (Exhibit 16).

Chemically sensitive people can react adversely to even minute exposures
to pesticides at levels that are many orders of magnitudes below levels
that would harm the average person. In addition, at least some
chemically sensitive people already suffer from a defect in oxygen
utilization \-- the exact toxic effect of antimycin A. This is evidenced
by high venous oxygen levels in these individuals indicating that oxygen
is not being taken up and used by body tissues. Thus, these people are
already in cellular respiratory distress. They can ill afford even the
smallest additional loss of mitochondrial function which exposure to
antimycin A could cause. Children, the elderly, pregnant women, and
those with other chronic illnesses are also more susceptible to toxic
chemicals.

Since Fintrol is a pesticide, it is likely that chemically sensitive
people would react adversely to even very low levels of exposure to it.
This could occur through consumption of or contact with downstream
water. In addition, some applicators and staff deploying Fintrol may
have some degree of chemical sensitivities and also be at increased risk
from exposure to the chemicals in this product.

MACROINVERTEBRATES

While the petition acknowledges that antimycin will have an initial
adverse impact on stream macroinvertebrates, it assumes that the
macroinvertebrate community will eventually return to its pretreatment
status. But several studies have found that while macroinvertebrate
communities frequently return, they may be altered from their original
composition (18, 19). And many unanswered questions remain regarding the
long-term effect of antimycin on macroinvertebrates.

According to a NM Department of Game and Fish study in 2001 by fisheries
biologist Steven Sanders, "the use of antimycin for fish eradication is
extensive in the USA, but its affects on benthic populations are not
well known" (19).

In a report prepared by Daniel McGuire entitled "Aquatic
Macroinvertebrate Survey of Animas, Seco and South Palomas Creeks" (20),
the author states that with respect to proposed use of Fintrol in those
creeks, "a few macroinvertebrate taxa that are particularly sensitive to
antimycin and have poor recuperative powers may suffer long-term impacts
from the (antimycin) treatment". This is also likely true for
macroinvertebrates in the upper West Fork Gila River drainage, with the
largest impact expected to occur in organisms with the longest
reproductive cycles. There may also be uniquely adapted
macroinvertebrate species that do not return at all.

AMPHIBIANS

It is well recognized that there has been a disturbing global decline in
amphibian populations in recent years and many scientists suspect that
exposures to toxic chemicals are a significant cause. Several studies
have linked pesticide exposure to adverse effects in frogs. As mentioned
above, one study found that frogs exposed to as little as .1ppb of the
herbicide atrazine developed male and female sex organs (Exhibits 11 &
12). Another study found that frogs exposed to either atrazine or a
pyrethroid insecticide, esfenvalerate, were more susceptible to
infection by a parasitic worm that caused limb deformities. (Exhibits 17
& 18). The pesticides appeared to depress the frogs' immune systems even
at the low concentrations used, which were within EPA drinking water
standards for humans. The authors concluded that "these negative impacts
may help explain pathogen-mediated amphibian declines in many regions."

In another study (Exhibit 19), frogs given trace amounts of DDT
experienced a near total collapse in their immune systems, which was
identical to their exposure to cyclophosphamide. The latter is a drug
given to humans to suppress their immune systems so they do not reject
organ transplants. The researchers found that as little as 75 ppb DDT
caused frogs' immune systems to malfunction.

In a 2002 report by Bruce Christman, "Investigations of the Status and
Distribution of Amphibians on the Ladder Ranch with Special Emphasis on
the Chiricahua Leopard Frog" (21), he expressed concern about the threat
of chytrid fungus to amphibians on the Ranch. He further noted that this
fungus has been implicated as a cause of a recent decline in a
population of Chiricahua leopard frogs in New Mexico. He then suggests
sanitation measures to help reduce the spread of chytrid fungus.

But as important at these measures are, infectious disease does not just
occur because an animal is exposed to an infectious agent. Disease only
results when an animal's immune system is unable to protect it from the
agent. This is especially true of fungal agents, which often cause
opportunistic infections in hosts with weakened immune systems.
Therefore, in order to reduce the incidence and spread of
chytridiomycosis, it is as important to avoid harming amphibian immune
systems as preventing their exposure to the chytrid fungus.

To avoid causing such harm, the environment must be kept as free of
pollutants as possible since, amphibian immune and endocrine systems are
very fragile and can be adversely impacted by even extremely low levels
of toxic chemicals. Thus, even if poisons such as antimycin/Fintrol do
not kill amphibians immediately, they may still harm them by making them
more vulnerable to serious diseases due to immune suppression, or cause
them to have developmental abnormalities or reduced fertility via
endocrine disruption.

CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Exhibit 20) has recently listed the
Chiricahua leopard frog as a threatened species. The draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) for Gila Trout Restoration in the Upper West Fork Gila
River (22) states that the Chiricahua leopard frog occurs in the
project. The draft EA further states that any Chiricahua leopard frogs
or tadpoles found would be removed prior to Fintrol application and
returned to their habitat once the stream is detoxified. Even with this
mitigation measure, individuals will undoubtedly perish, either from
exposure to the chemicals or handling stress (23). This is an
unacceptable loss for a federally listed species.

ERRORS IN THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The draft environmental assessment (EA) for this project (22) concludes
that there will little to no collateral damage to non-target species
because the amount of antimycin to which they are exposed will be well
below certain LD 50's. But the LD 50 is only a measure of acute
toxicity. And it only measures mortality, not morbidity or chronic
health effects. Therefore, any organism containing mitochondria \[i.e.,
all animals, higher plants (Exhibit 21), and eukaryocytic microorganisms
(24)\] could be sick at much lower doses. And LD 50's are only known for
a handful of possible nontarget organisms.

In addition, the LD 50 also does not measure possible chronic toxic
effects like immune, nervous system, or reproductive harm, endocrine
disruption, mutagenicity, birth defects, or carcinogenicity, issues
which have yet to be resolved regarding antimycin's toxicity. In fact,
even Dr. Stephen Wust, witness for the New Mexico Department of Game and
Fish at the Las Animas Hearing on August 14, 2002 testified that that
the carcinogenic potential of antimycin is not known (25). Further the
LD 50 of antimycin does not address the toxicity of the full Fintrol
product. Therefore, one cannot conclude that no nontarget species,
including humans, will be adversely effected by antimycin based solely
on a limited number of animal LD 50's.

Another unwarranted assumption in the draft EA is that antimycin will
only be deployed at 10 ppb. Besides the possibilities of spills,
miscalculations, and imprecise applications made with backpack sprayers,
the practice of running numerous (up to 50) deployment stations at one
time along a stream must surely amplify the concentration of antimycin
to well beyond 10 ppb as it passes by one drip station after another.
However, since the concentration of antimycin cannot be chemically
measured, actual *deployment concentrations are not known*. Spills of
undiluted Fintrol concentrate or leaks from backpack sprayers containing
only partially diluted Fintrol (leaks have occurred in previous
projects, petition Appendix C) would obviously result in environmental
contamination at much higher concentrations of antimycin than 10 ppb.

WILDERNESS ACT

Wilderness Areas were set aside by Congress to preserve nature and
protect it from the activities of man. These are pristine places where
value is placed on native ecosystems and *all* plant and animal species,
not just game and sportfish. Specifically, the Wilderness Act defines
wilderness as an area "where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man," a land that retains its "primeval character and
influence," and a land that is to be managed to "preserve its natural
conditions" (26). The proposal to dispense poison into a wilderness \--
which will kill all fish, forever alter the macroinvertebrate community,
and potentially affect many other nontarget species \-- is inconsistent
with all of these principles.

Aldo Leopold is widely acknowledged as that father of wilderness
ecology. He stressed that all species have value and should be
protected, not just one's favorites. He said, for example, that one
cannot truly love the land if one pollutes the water and vice versa.

> "*The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal, or
> plant: 'What good is it?'* .... *If the biota, in the course of aeons,
> has built something we like but do not understand then who but a fool
> would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is
> the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."*
>
> *\--* Aldo Leopold (27)

Proponents of the upper West Fork Gila River project will probably argue
that returning native fish to wilderness areas helps restore them to
their "natural conditions" and, therefore, is desirable and acceptable.
But clearly, methods used for such restoration are *not* acceptable if
they, like Fintrol, pollute the environment, damage other species, and
have the potential to do more harm than good.

Some proponents also argue that the amount of environmental
contamination that would be caused by deploying Fintrol in the upper
West Fork Gila River drainage pales compared to other sources of water
pollution and hence is insignificant. But it is precisely because so
much of the rest of the world has become polluted with toxic chemicals
that wilderness areas must be aggressively protected. Wilderness areas
are some of the last unpolluted places on Earth. They are meant to be
safe sanctuaries for all native species, some of which have yet to be
even identified. Therefore, they must be held to the highest possible
standard when it comes to keeping them free of toxic pollutants.

FOREST MANAGEMENT OF WILDERNESS

In Chapter 2320 of the United States Forest Service Manual on Wilderness
Management, it directs agencies to manage wilderness to "preserve
natural ecological conditions" (28). It also prescribes that wilderness
areas be maintained in such a manner that "ecosystems are unaffected by
human manipulation ..." and "provide an environment where the forces of
natural selection and survival rather than human actions determine which
and what numbers of wildlife species exist". Proposing to poison
wilderness streams that will result in the significant alternation of
the aquatic community surely constitutes "human manipulation" and
violates Forest Service policy.

The Manual also instructs agencies to "provide protection for known
populations and aid recovery in areas of previous habitation of
federally listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats".
While this can be used to argue for Gila trout restoration, it equally
applies to Chiricahua leopard frog. Not only should projects such as the
one proposed not be done because it will adversely affect this species,
actions should be taken to augment its population and expand its range.

Also according to the Manual, Regional Foresters may permit dropping of
fish from aircraft for those waters where this practice was established
before the area was designated a wilderness. It is unlikely that
helicopters were used in the Gila River drainage (as proposed in the
current project) prior to the designation of the Gila Wilderness, since
the Gila Wilderness was designated in 1924 at the time when no
helicopter had flown for more than eight minutes.

ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES IN THE PETITION

Cites that it is submitted under 110.5 General Standards when the
hearing notice states that the petition is pursuant to 20.6.4.12.F.

Appendix A contains outdated Fintrol Concentrate Label. See Exhibit 22
for correct one, including Use Direction Leaflet and recommended
bioassay procedure. Fintrol Concentrate became a restricted use
pesticide on September 27, 1999 (Exhibit 23).

Fails to list rainbow-Gila hybrids under target species, even though
they are present in the project area according to the draft EA.

Extremely inadequate list of potential nontarget species, including 24
special status species which are noted in the draft EA to be
"potentially-affected by the proposed action". Also, amphibians in
general were not surveyed, which is now a requirement of the current
antimycin protocol, nor were beavers considered a potential nontarget
species even though they inhabit the water in the project area.

Fails to mention the Chiricahua leopard frog, bald eagle, southwest
willow flycatcher, spotted bat, and Arizona toad as potential nontarget
threatened or endangered species, even though they are mentioned in the
draft EA.

Fails to describe the wide array of potential environmental
consequences, and the uncertainty surrounding the ability to make such
determinations.

States live-cars will be located 100 meters below the detoxification
station, although the current protocol calls for the live-cars to be
placed 200 meters downstream.

Appendix D contains out-of-date antimycin protocol. See Exhibit 24 for
correct one.

States that speckled dace removed prior to deployment will be held in
plastic buckets, where the draft EA says they will be held in net
enclosures in off-channel aquatic habitats.

Restocking of speckled dace is planned for as soon as 5 hours after
completion of Fintrol deployment. This violates the Use Direction
Leaflet, which states that fish may be restocked only after test fish
survive for 48 hours in treated water.

Misrepresents "affected water" by not taking into account the downstream
flow of deployed chemicals past the detoxification station, those which
are not neutralized by potassium permanganate or the downstream
dissemination of potassium permanganate itself.

Pre-treatment fish survey is 7-8 years old and out-of-date. Lacks
pre-treatment surveys for water quality and other species.

States that antimycin is applied at 12 ppb, when the label states that
the correct dose for trout is 5-10 ppb.

Describes the project area as remote (15-23 miles from nearest
trailhead), yet article in Appendix C describes the trail crossing of
White creek, a short distance upstream from the barrier, to be a popular
destination for hikers and riders. Furthermore, the accompanying map
shows a trail within 1-2 kilometers paralleling the main steam of the
upper West Fork of the Gila River.

Claims antimycin removes 100% of fish in a stream, even though according
to the draft EA, the project calls for at least 2 or 3 applications of
Fintrol because a single application usually does *not* kill all the
fish.

DEFICIENCIES IN THE ANTIMYCIN DEPLOYMENT PROTOCOL

The most up-to-date New Mexico Department of Game & Fish Protocol for
Deployment of Antimycin A during Restoration of Native Fishers in Lotic
Waters is dated March, 2002. The following deficiencies or problems are
noted:

Inadequate pre-treatment surveys of the aquatic and riparian community,
i.e., lack of data

on microorganisms, reptiles, mammals, birds, plants, and other potential
nontarget

species.

No pre-treatment chemical analysis of the water (except pH), such as
assessment of iron

levels which can affect antimycin efficacy.

No post-treatment monitoring of water \-- for at least acetone,
manganese, diethyl

phthalate and nonoxyl-9, and possibly sodium fluorescein.

No post-treatment monitoring of amphibians.

No post-treatment monitoring for organisms not included in the
pre-treatment surveys.

Insufficient downstream monitoring in general.

No requirement to measure stream pH and temperature immediately before
deployment.

No established method to convert "cfs" stream flow into "acre-feet"
(required to

follow Fintrol label).

Only lists the use of gloves and eyewear for protective equipment when
the MSDS

requires a full-face respirator with an organic vapor cartridge.

Lacks protocol for disposal of dead fish.

Backpack spraying is mentioned but there is no protocol for its use,
including the

> concentration to be used, how and when it is to be applied, the
> equipment to be used including nozzle size and adjustment, wind
> precautions, and adequate personal protective equipment.

No method to determine whether excessive antimycin has been deployed.

No method to determine whether fish dying downstream of the potassium
permanganate

station are dying from unneutralized antimycin or excess potassium

permanganate.

No requirement for there to be at least one person continuously
monitoring each

antimycin drip station.

VIOLATIONS OF LAWS, STANDARDS, OR AGREEMENTS

The currently proposed project violates the following laws and
standards:

[Endangered Species Act (ESA)]{.underline}: The petition does not
contain a Section 7 consultation or "biological opinion" from the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service regarding the presence of the federally-listed
Chiricahua leopard frog in the project area. Nor has a permit been
obtained for an "incidental taking"of this species. The issuance of such
a permit must await the designation of "critical habitat" and creation
of a "recovery plan" for the Chiricahua leopard frog. Neither of these
has been done and is not likely to be completed for several years.

[The Wilderness Act]{.underline}: As above, deploying poison in a
wilderness area is inconsistent with the Act's legal mandate to preserve
wilderness areas in a condition that is "untrammeled" by man.

[The Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act
(FIFRA)]{.underline}: The proposed application of Fintrol violates FIFRA
for not complying with label instructions. This includes allowing
wildlife to drink treated water, deploying concentrations greater than
label recommendations, restocking fish in less than 48 hours following
deployment, and not complying with the label definition of "treated"
waters. It would also be a violation if fingerling trout are not used in
the live-car assays.

[The Federal Clean Water Act]{.underline}: Deployment of Fintrol into
the upper West Fork Gila River drainage constitutes a point source
discharge pollutant into navigable waters of the U.S. and, therefore,
requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit prior to deployment (Exhibit 25). Failure of the EPA to supply
one does not protect the applicator from liability under the Federal
Clean Water Act and lawsuits brought by private entities (Exhibit 26).

[Section 20.6.4.12.F of the New Mexico Standards for Interstate and
Intrastate Surface Waters]{.underline}: This section requires
post-treatment water monitoring by anyone granted a permit by the Water
Quality Control Commission to apply a piscicide in New Mexico waters
(Exhibit 27). Such monitoring is not included in the project proposal.

[National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act]{.underline}: A "wild" river, as
defined by the national wild and scenic rivers system, is "a river or
section of river that is free of impoundments and generally inaccessible
except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and
*waters unpolluted*" (29). In a 1999 settlement agreement with the
Center for Biological Diversity and Amigos Bravos, the Gila National
Forest agreed to protect forest rivers, including the West Fork of the
Gila River, while they undergo further study regarding their eligibility
for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts. Contaminating
this river with a poison would pollute its waters and violate the
settlement agreement.

BIOLOGICAL SANITY OR INSANITY?

In 1975, George Becker, a professor of zoology at the University of
Wisconsin at Stevens Point, wrote an article entitled "Fish
Toxification: Biological Sanity or Insanity?" (Exhibit 28). He expressed
concern about potential adverse effects on nontarget organisms,
especially threatened and endangered species, the fact that some creeks
appeared sterile many years after a fish toxicant was applied, and the
general lack of knowledge about the full range of potential
environmental consequences resulting from the use of fish toxicants.

To address some of these concerns the Governor of Wisconsin convened a
Study Committee on the Use of Toxicants for Fish Management. In its 1972
"Policy Statement on the Use of Toxicants in Management of Aquatic
Resources", it states that pre-operational surveys of sufficient scope
and duration must be conducted at carefully selected stations to yield
baseline data on kinds of abundance of *aquatic flora, aquatic
invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, waterfowl, and mammals*". It
also calls for the "scientific documentation of short and long term
detrimental effects to nontarget species (of fish toxicants). This would
include sublethal effects such as sterilization and decreased ability to
survive stress," as well as a "detailed investigation of the harmful
effects of toxicant degradation products ... '. It is inexcusable that
after 30 years of antimycin use, neither comprehensive pre- and
post-deployment surveys nor adequate toxilogical research have been or
are being done.

CONCLUSION

This petition proposes to put toxic chemicals into the upper West Fork
Gila River drainage, despite the fact that not all the ingredients in
the Fintrol product are known, the toxicity of the individual chemicals
is significant, much toxicity data for antimycin A is lacking, and the
toxicity and environmental fate of using these chemicals in combination
is unknown. Common usage does not substitute for scientific evaluation.
Many pesticides, such as DDT and chlordane, were once widely used until
they were studied more thoroughly. Only then were they found to be more
hazardous than originally thought and taken off the market.

It is wishful thinking to think that the chemicals in Fintrol can be
controlled. Even the NM Department of Game and Fish admits that they
have experienced unintentional fish kills in excess of four miles below
an antimycin treatment (30). There is bound to be damage to non-target
plants, animals, and microorganisms, both in the treatment area and
downstream, even if the chemicals are deployed as planned. There is also
an unacceptably high risk of accidents, spills, and misapplications.

Once toxic chemicals are put into the environment they tend to have a
life of their own. They can spread far and wide. They do not just go
away. They travel, break down to other toxic compounds, and can pollute
air, food, water, and land distances from where they originated. For
example the herbicide 2,4-D has been found in rainwater in Canada at
levels that could harm plants (31) and pesticides applied in Africa can
be detected in Florida.

Regrettably, the fish management community has a long history of using
many kinds of toxic chemicals to kill fish. This includes *toxaphene*
and *endrin* (32), cancer-causing pesticides on the "Dirty Dozen" list
of persistent organic pollutants currently being considered for an
international ban (33), *cyanide* (32), which is used in human
executions, *pentachlorophenol* (32), a highly toxic, persistent, and
cancer-causing wood preservative, and a variety of other insecticidal
nerve poisons (32), including *DDT*. Unfortunately, using yet another
poison, especially one with as many unknown toxic effects as antimycin,
just repeats these past mistakes rather than learning from them.

The significant loss native fish populations is yet another signal that
the environment has been seriously degraded. It does not make sense to
further degrade the environment with toxic chemicals in an effort to
restore the Gila trout. We need to find a win-win solution where the
entire ecosystem, as well as native fish, are nurtured and protected.
Less-toxic fish restoration techniques, even if more expensive and labor
intensive, must be researched, developed, and utilized.

In the meantime, less toxic steps can be taken to help protect Gila
trout in the upper West Fork Gila drainage. These include removing as
many non-native fish as possible with nets or electrofishing (especially
during low flow times) and stocking with Gila trout. This would give
Gila trout a competitive edge over non-native trout. Even though the
result would not be a 100% population of "pure" Gila trout, it would
substantially increase the population size and range of this endangered
species and help preserve historic Gila trout genes.

The use of Fintrol is ill-advised in almost all circumstances, but the
proposal to use it in the upper West Fork Gila River drainage is
particularly unacceptable due to its deployment the Gila Wilderness and
the probable harm it would cause the federally-listed Chiricahua leopard
frog.

Ann McCampbell, MD

11 Esquila Rd, Santa Fe, NM 87508

\(505\) 466-3622, (505) 466-2690 Fax

<DrAnnMcC@aol.com>

[REFERENCES]{.underline}:

1\) Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 /
Rules and

Regulations, p. 64765.

2\) Environmental Mutagen Information Center, Antimycin,
[http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/d?./temp/\~AAAN4aqFY:0:BODY]{.underline}

3\) <http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/cgi-bin/epa/mkrep3.pl>

4\) Environmental Defense Scorecard,
[http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/regulation.tcl?eft_substance_id=84%2d66%2d2](http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/regulation.tcl?eft_substance_id=84-66-2)

5\) National Toxicology Program Chemical Repository, Diethyl Phthalate,
[http://ntp-db.niehs.nih.gov/NTP_Reports/NTP_Chem_H&S/NTP_Chem8?Radian84-66-2.txt]{.underline}

6\) Personal communication with Gary Timm, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, February 13, 2002.

7\) New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services Hazardous
Substance Fact Sheet on Diethyl Phthalate, July 1996.

8\) Information provided through EcoGopher of the University of Virginia
Office of Recycling and Environmental Information,
<http://www.familyjeweler.com/fortweb/DiethylPhthalateEPA.htm>

9\) Dickey P, Washington Toxics Coalition, "Troubling Bubbles, the Case
for Replacing Alkylphenol Ethoxylate Surfactants," July 1997.

10\) ProSciTech, Material Safety Data Sheet, Potassium Permanganate, Oct
1998, [www.proscitech.com.au/msds/c364.pdf]{.underline}

11\) Bacharach, Inc. MSDS No: 4099-1456 Material Safety Data Sheet,
Potassium Permanaganate, 3-13-97,
[www.bacharac-inc.com/PDF/MSDS/40991456.pdf]{.underline}

12\) Mississippi State University Extension Service, MSU Cares,
"Potassium Permanganate For Fish Ponds",
[http://www.msucares.com/pubs/is1265.htm]{.underline}

13\) Erik L Johnson, DVM, "Potassium Permanganate: The Perfect Salt
Supplement?", <http://www.arborman.com/potperm1.htm>

14\) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, "Citizens Guide to
Pesticides," Washington, DC.

15\) 40 CFR 156.10(5) (ix)

16\) 40 CFR 156.10(5) (v)

17\) Personal communication with Jay Shrider, California Department of
Pesticide Regulation, Medical Toxicology Branch, February 4, 2002.

18\) Minckly WL, Mihalick P, J Ariz-Nev Acad Sci 16 (3): 79-82, 1981.

19\) Sanders, SA, "Macrobenthic Analysis for South Ponil Creek in Colfax
County New Mexico," NM Department of Game and Fish, Fisheries Management
Division, December 5, 2001.

20\) DL McGuire, "Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Survey Animas, Seco, and
South Palomas Creeks, Sierra County, NM, March, 1999.

21\) BL Christman, "Investigations of the Status and Distribution of
Amphibians on the Ladder Ranch with Special Emphasis on the Chiricahua
Leopard Frog *(Rana chiricahuensis)*, January 20, 2002.

22\) Blue Earth Ecological Consultants, Inc., Environmental Assessment
for Gila Trout Restoration in the Upper West Work Gila River Catron
County, New Mexico, prepared for the Gila National Forest Wilderness
Ranger District, May 19, 2002.

23\) Environmental Assessment, Restoration of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout
in the Animas Creek Watershed on the Gila National Forest and Ladder
Ranch, February 20, 2002, p.24.

24\) Microorganisms,
<http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/microbio.html>

25\) Water Quality Control Commission Hearing on New Mexico Department
of Game and Fish petition to deploy a piscicide in Animas Creek
watershed, August 14, 2002, testimony of Dr. Stephen Wust, transcript of
proceedings, p. 98.

26\) The Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577, 88^th^ Congress, S. 4,
September 3, 1964, <http://www.fs.fed.us/outernet/htnf/wildacta.htm>

27\) Leopold, Aldo: *Round River*, Oxford University Press, New York,
1993, pp. 145-146,
<http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/chrisj/leopold-quotes.html>

28\) Forest Service Manual, Washington, Title 2300 -- Recreation,
Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, WO Amendment 2300-90-2,
Effective 6/21/90, Chapter 2320, Wilderness Management,
<http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/policy/fs_manual_policy.cfm>

29\) CFR Title 16 Chapter 28 Section 1273(b)(1).

30\) NM Department of Game and Fish, Reintroduction of Rio Grande
Cutthroat Trout (*Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis*) into Waters of
Costilla #1 Creek in Colorado and New Mexico, Draft Environmental
Assessment, May 14, 2002, p. 29.

31\) Organic Gardening, "The Latest Organic News About Pesticides,
Growth Hormones, and Genetic Engineering," September/October 1999, p.
16.

32\) Lennon RE, Junn JB, Schnick RA , Burress RM, "Reclamation of ponds,
lakes, and streams with fish toxicants: a review," FAO Technical
Fisheries Paper No. 100, 1971.

33\) Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide
Programs, <http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/pops.htm>

[EXHIBITS]{.underline}:

1\) BJ Finlayson, et. al, "Assessment of Antimycin A Use in Fisheries
and Its Potential for Reregistration," Fisheries, Vol. 27 No. 6, June
2002, www.fisheries.org

2\) Aquabiotics Corporation, Material Safety Data Sheet on Antimycin A
in Acetone

3\) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Profile on Antimycin A (1987)

4\) University of California at Santa Cruz "Laboratory Standard
Operating Procedure for Antimycin A"

5\) ToxNet Hazardous Substance Databank information on Antimycin A

6\) NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) Re:
Antimycin A

7\) Abstract of "Role of caspases (ICE/CED 3 proteases) in DNA damage
and cell death in response to a mitochondrial inhibitor, antimycin A,"
GP Kaushal, N Ueda, and SV Shah, 1997

8\) Letter from Steven Rhodes, California Department of Pesticide
Regulation, to Nicholas Romeo, President of Aquabiotics Corporation,
regarding the proposed denial of application for registration of Fintrol
Concentrate, EPA Reg. No. 39096-2, December 3, 2001

9\) TD Hubert and LJ Schmidt, U.S. Geological Survey, La Crosse,
Wisconsin, "Antimycin A Use in Fisheries: Issues Concerning EPA
Reregistration," March 9, 2001

10\) Email from Dr. Barbara Malczewska-Toth of the New Mexico Department
of Health to Ann McCampbell regarding the department's position on the
use of antimycin for fish restoration, 8/13/02

11\) Abstract of "Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to
the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses," Hayes TB,
et. al, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Issue 8, 5476-5480, April
16, 2002

12\) Randolph Schmid, Associated Press, "Commonly used pesticide blamed
for mutations in frogs," April 16, 2002

13\) Abstract of "Histological and Hematological Evaluation of Potassium
Permanganate Exposure in Channel Catfish," Darwish AM, et. al, Journal
of Aquatic Animal Health (2002): Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 134-144

14\) Abstract of "Limitations on potassium permanganate detoxification
of antimycin," Engstrom-Heg R, Colesante RT, N Y Fish Game J, 26(2),
1979, 132-141

15\) Multiple Chemical Sensitivities brochure

16\) State of New Mexico, Executive Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
Proclamation of "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Awareness Week," Governor
Gary Johnson, May 5, 1998

17\) Abstract of "Synergism between trematode infection and pesticide
exposure: A link to amphibian limb deformities in nature," Kiesecker JM,
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Issue 15, 9900-9904, July 12, 2002

18\) Stentor Danielson, National Geographic News, "Pesticides, Parasite
May Cause Frog Deformities," July 9, 2002

19\) Martin Mittelstaedt, Toronto Globe and Mail, "Study finds DDT may
spur disease," April 24, 2002

20\) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, News Release, "Chiricahua leopard
frog listed as a threatened species," June 13, 2002

21\) Abstract of "Increased Sensitivity of Photosynthesis to Antimycin A
Induced by Inactivation of the Chloroplast *ndh*B Gene. Evidence for a
Participation of the NADH-Dehydrogenase Complex to Cyclic Electron Flow
around Photosystem I," Thierry J, et. al, Plant Physiology, April 2001,
Vol. 125, pp. 1919-1929

22\) Aquabiotics Corporation, Fintrol Concentrate (EPA \# 39096-2)
label, use direction leaflet, and bioassay procedure

23\) Email from Elizabeth Higgins, NM Department of Agriculture, to Ann
McCampbell on the registration history of Fintrol in New Mexico, 3/27/02

24\) New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Protocol for Deployment of
Antimycin A During Restoration of Native Fisheries in Lotic Waters,
amended March 2002.

25\) Decision by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
Headwaters, Inc.

vs.Talent Irrigation District case, March 12, 2001

26\) Letter from Craig M. Wilson, Chief Counsel, Office of Chief
Counsel, California State Water Resources Control Board to Celeste
Cantu, Executive Director, SWRCB, Re: Aquatic Pesticides, April 8, 2002

27\) Section 20.6.4.12.F (Toxic Pollutants) of the New Mexico Standards
for Interstate

and Intrastate Surface Waters

28\) George Becker, "Fish Toxification: Biological Sanity or Insanity?",
Eschmeyer,

editor. Rehabilitation of fish populations with toxicants: a symposium.
North Central

Division, American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 4, Bethesda,
Maryland,

1975, pp. 41-53

29\) Water Quality Control Comission Hearing on the NM Department of
Game and Fish petition to deploy a piscicide in the upper West fork Gila
River drainage, September 12, 2002, written technical testimony of Ann
McCampbell, MD