Attachment I





Attachment II
Fw: US Fish and Wildlife Services email

John Hebert to: Anita Pease 09/11/2012 04:17 PM

Cc: Melissa Grable

Email #1......

john

----- Message from "Dan_Mulhern@fws.gov" <Dan_Mulhern@fws.gov> on Thu,

28 Jul 2011 10:25:45 -0500 -----

|--------->

| To:|

|--------->

 

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------|

 |"Glass, Judy" <Judy.Glass@KDA.KS.GOV> 

|

 

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------|

|--------->

| cc:|

|--------->

 

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------|

 |"Mike_LeValley@fws.gov" <Mike_LeValley@fws.gov>, "Sarena_Selbo@fws.gov" 

<Sarena_Selbo@fws.gov>, "Scott_Larson@fws.gov" |

 |<Scott_Larson@fws.gov> 

|

 

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------|

|--------->

| Subject:|

|--------->

 

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------|

 |Re: Kansas Dept of Agriculture Rozol 24(c) 

|

 

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------|

Ms. Glass;

Thank you for providing the information, including the many photos, supporting 

this proposal. As we discussed on the phone, our primary concern is the 

availability of this product to non-target species, and it appears that using 

the proposed mechanical baiter may result in a reduction in this availability. 
Therefore, we believe this proposal is not likely to adversely affect any

federally-listed or proposed species, and there is no need for further 

consultation on the action.

Please keep in mind that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental 

Protection Agency are undergoing formal section 7 consultation on the 

authorization of chlorphacinone for widespread prairie dog control in the U.S. 

Our concurrence with your current proposal will not supercede any outcome of 

that consultation, nor is it an indication of the Service's position on the 

use of this product for prairie dog control.

If you have additional comments or questions please contact me again.

Dan Mulhern

US Fish and Wildlife Service

2609 Anderson Avenue

Manhattan, KS 66502

785-539-3474, ext 109
Fw: Mechanical baiting SLN Rozol Prairie Dog Bait , EPA Reg. No 7173-286

John Hebert to: Anita Pease 09/11/2012 04:22 PM

Cc: Melissa Grable

History: This message has been replied to.

Email.....#2

_________________________

John Hebert, PM7

Insecticide-Rodenticide Branch

Registration Division 

Office of Pesticide Programs

703-308-6249

From: <Erik_Orsak@fws.gov>

To: Thomas Schmit <SchmitT@liphatech.com>

Cc: Michele Brunlinger <brunlingerm@liphatech.com>, "Dale.Scott@texasagriculture.gov" 

<Dale.Scott@texasagriculture.gov>, Chuck Hathaway <HathawayC@liphatech.com>, Al Smith 

<SmithA@liphatech.com>, <Nancy_Golden@fws.gov>, <Scott_Larson@fws.gov>, Anita 

Pease/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hebert/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/27/2012 07:34 PM

Subject: Re: Mechanical baiting SLN Rozol Prairie Dog Bait, EPA Reg. No 7173-286

Mr. Schmit, 

Per your email, it is our understanding that EPA is moving forward with modification of the section 3 label 

to allow mechanical baiting of Rozol, however, due to shipments of Rozol already in transit you are 

requesting that the SLN process move forward to allow mechanical baiting in Texas in the interim. Based 

on the information you provided in your application to the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), we do 

not believe that mechanical baiting poses additional ecological risks beyond those that were considered 

during formal consultation with EPA for hand baiting of Rozol. 

In an email dated August 21, 2012, Nancy Golden in our Washington Office notified EPA (Ms. Anita 

Pease and Mr. John Herbert) that in order for their agency to be covered for "take" resulting from 

mechanical baiting they would need to either reinitiate formal consultation or modify the Section 3 label. 

Since EPA is currently pursuing the latter option and we do not anticipate that mechanical baiting will 

result in additional effects, we have no objections at this time with SLN registration of Rozol by the TDA. 

We see this as a stop-gap measure to allow mechanical baiting of Rozol until EPA has completed 

modification of the section 3 label and Liphatech has had the opportunity to modify the Rozol label 

accordingly. 

Regardless of whether Rozol is applied by hand or mechanical means, the opportunity to reduce 

ecological risks lies largely in the hands of commercial pesticide applicators. We cannot over emphasize 

the importance of applicator education in minimizing impacts to non-target wildlife. Strict adherence to 

label instructions, including careful placement of Rozol into burrows, timely retrieval of dead/moribund 

prairie dogs, and prompt reporting non-target impacts, will best achieve pest control objectives while 

minimizing impacts to the environment. 

Please let me know if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Erik Orsak