# 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......

j ohn

----- 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 an y 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