2 

(6) Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), reinitiate consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) on sodium cyanide and Compound 1080 when 

used for registered lethal predator control so that more threatened and endangered 

species are not harmed. 

For the reasons set forth in the attached response, EPA is denying the first five elements 

of the petition. In regards to the sixth element, EPA is granting the petition insomuch as 

the Agency plans to reinitiate consultation with FWS on these pesticides. 

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

Standard for Registration, Reregistation and Registration Review 

EPA regulates pesticides used to control predators under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The principal purpose of FIFRA is to regulate 

the sale, distribution and use of pesticides (through the registration process) while 

protecting human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects associated 

with pesticides. See generally FIFRA section 3. Under FIFRA section 3, EPA registers a 

pesticide only after conducting an extensive scientific review of the risks, and when 

appropriate, benefits of the proposed use of that pesticide to determine whether the use of 

the pesticide causes “unreasonable adverse effects” to human health or the environment. 

FIFRA §§ 2(bb) and 3(c)(5). To meet this standard, the pesticide must not pose “any 

unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and 

environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” Id. 

In order to remain registered, a pesticide must be found to continue to meet the 

“risk-benefit” standard throughout its regulatory history. The risk-benefit balance may be 

assessed at any time or during a scheduled reassessment such as the reregistration or 

registration review of the pesticide’s active ingredient. EPA is authorized to cancel 

pesticide registrations that do not comply with this standard and, in certain circumstances, 

to suspend those registrations pending the completion of cancellation proceedings. See

FIFRA §§ 3(c)(5), 4(g), 6(b)(c), 2(bb). 

Review of a pesticide under this risk-benefit standard is not simply a matter of 

determining whether there are risks of concern, but rather whether those risks are 

reasonable in light of the benefits. First, EPA typically determines whether a particular use 

of a pesticide poses a meaningful risk (often referred to as a “risk of concern”). If the use 

does pose a risk of concern, EPA takes steps to determine whether that risk may be reduced 

below the level of concern, for example, through changes to the terms and conditions of the 

registration. If the Agency determines that cost-effective changes to the terms and 

conditions of registration are appropriate, or if the risks associated with the use are not 

justified by the benefits associated with that use, the Agency will initiate appropriate 

regulatory action (cancellation) under FIFRA section 6 unless the necessary changes (if any 

are possible) are made by the registrant. If, on the other hand, the Agency determines that 
3 

the risks associated with a use are outweighed by its benefits, and no cost-effective changes 

to the terms and conditions of registration can be identified to mitigate those risks, the use 

would meet the FIFRA standard for registration. 

B. FIFRA Cancellation, Suspension and Subpart D Hearings 

In the absence of voluntary action from a registrant to cancel a pesticide, under 

FIFRA section 6, if EPA determines cancellation is warranted, it must do so through the 

issuance of a Cancellation Order after an opportunity for a hearing. The basic standard for 

cancellation is similar to the standard for registration: section 6(b) of FIFRA allows EPA to 

initiate action to cancel pesticide registrations if the Administrator determines that use of 

the pesticide may generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment (a term 

defined in section 2(bb) of FIFRA). Any adversely affected person can request a hearing 

on whether the standard for cancellation is met; registrations generally remain in effect 

until the conclusion of any cancellation proceeding. 

 Section 6(c) of FIFRA allows the Administrator to suspend a pesticide registration 

if the Administrator determines that action is necessary to prevent an “imminent hazard” (a 

term defined in section 2(l) of FIFRA) during the time required to complete a cancellation 

proceeding. Suspension under FIFRA is an interim remedy that can remain in effect only 

for the duration of a cancellation proceeding; if the Administrator determines that 

cancellation is not appropriate, suspension is no longer an available option under FIFRA 

section 6. 

 Cancellation Orders issued after an opportunity for a hearing can only be modified 

through what is termed a “subpart D proceeding”.1

 The subpart D proceeding is for the 

purpose of determining whether an earlier cancellation order (where there was an 

opportunity for a hearing) should be modified or reversed to “allow use of a pesticide at a 

site or on a pest for which registration has been finally cancelled or suspended.” See 40 

C.F.R. subpart D, § 164.130. 

C. Endangered Species Act 

Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, all federal agencies 

have responsibility to ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by that 

agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed endangered 

or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 

EPA is the federal agency authorized to regulate pesticide use through administration of 

FIFRA. Under ESA, EPA must ensure that its activities in administering FIFRA are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed, threatened or 

endangered species. 

 

1

 “Subpart D” refers to the regulations that can be found at 40 C.F.R. Part 164, Subpart D 
4 

Service regulations implementing Section 7of the ESA require that federal “action” 

agencies initiate “consultation” with the appropriate Service (in this particular case, FWS) 

on certain actions that “may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. For its 

part, the FWS concludes the consultation by issuing a Biological Opinion (BO) that 

addresses the agency action. In the BO, FWS determines whether the proposed action is 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species in question. If the FWS 

determines that a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

species, it must provide the federal agency with any available reasonable and prudent 

alternatives that the Service determines will preclude likely jeopardy yet still allow the 

proposed action to continue. 

FWS must also provide to the federal agency an “incidental take statement” which 

specifies the legal terms and conditions (known as reasonable and prudent measures or 

RPMs) under which any incidental take of individual members of a species is permitted. 

II. BACKGROUND

Sodium cyanide and Compound 1080 are both acute toxicants used for predator 

control. Sodium cyanide is registered for use to control coyotes, red foxes, gray foxes and 

wild dogs that are suspected of preying on livestock, that are suspected of preying on 

threatened or endangered species, or that are vectors of communicable diseases. 

Compound 1080 is registered for use in livestock protection collars (hereinafter 1080 LPC) 

to control coyotes that prey upon sheep or goats. 

When used to control coyotes and certain other canids, sodium cyanide is offered 

for sale or distribution in capsules, which are only to be applied by use of M-44 springloaded ejector units. Each capsule is loaded into a capsule holder, which is screwed onto 

the ejector mechanism of an M-44. The capsule holder is treated with a scent formulated to 

attract canids. When an animal tugs at the capsule holder, a spring-driven plunger ejects 

the dyed sodium cyanide powder into the animal’s mouth causing the death of the animal. 

The only Compound 1080 end use product is the 1080 LPC, which consists of two 

rubber bladders and two sets of Velcro or elastic straps. Prior to distribution of the collar, 

each of the bladders is injected with 15 ml of a 1% Compound 1080 solution. For proper 

use, LPCs are strapped to a sheep or goat such that the bladders straddle the throat area. 

Coyotes attempting to kill a collared animal are likely to puncture the reservoir and be 

fatally poisoned by Compound 1080. 

 Sodium cyanide capsules and Compound 1080 are classified as restricted use 

pesticides (RUPs). 

A. EPA 1972 Cancellation 
5 

All predator control uses of sodium cyanide and Compound 1080 were 

originally cancelled by Order in 1972. 37 Fed. Reg. 5718. The decision to cancel 

predator control uses of sodium cyanide and Compound 1080 was based in large part 

on a study on the use of predacides commissioned by the U.S. Department of Interior 

(DOI) and the Council on Environmental Quality. See Ref. 29. In his cancellation 

Order, Administrator Ruckelshaus noted the extreme toxicity of sodium cyanide and 

Compound 1080, and reports of secondary and accidental poisonings as factors 

supporting his decision. See 40 Fed. Reg. 44726, 44734 – 35 (discussing Original 

Cancellation Order). The Order was not contested, and became final after 30 days.2

B. Sodium Cyanide – Modifications of 1972 Cancellation Order 

1. 1975 Reconsideration 

In 1975, FWS3 applied for registration of M-44 Sodium Cyanide Capsules (M44) to control coyotes and certain other types of wild canids. The M-44 ejector was 

different than the previously used product, the “humane coyote getter”, which was the 

delivery mechanism considered when predator control uses of sodium cyanide were 

banned in 1972. The “humane coyote getter” used exploding gunpowder as the 

propellant, and in 1972, the Administrator concluded that it posed significant risk to 

humans. EPA treated FWS’ application as a petition for reconsideration of the earlier 

order issued by EPA in 1972 cancelling the registrations of all predator control uses of 

sodium cyanide. 40 Fed. Reg. 29755. As in other proceedings under FIFRA, the 

proponent of use bears the burden of proof in a reconsideration hearing. 40 CFR 

164.132(a). Following the presentation of evidence and an “Initial Decision” by the 

presiding officer, the Administrator makes a Final Decision on whether to modify the 

previous cancellation order. Id. 

After holding a subpart D hearing on the application, Administrative Law Judge 

(ALJ) Frederick W. Denniston, rendered an “Initial Decision” on August 29, 1975. In 

his decision, Judge Denniston found that the M-44 method for application of sodium 

cyanide is “more selective than ... some other chemical and non-chemical predator 

control methods” and in light of the data on reduced hazards to humans and greater 

selectivity, “it is likely that proposed restrictions that might be developed could be 

adopted and followed as a matter of practice by trained personnel subject to the 

supervision or control of the applicant.” 40 Fed. Reg. 44726, 44736. 

 

2 Preceding the 1972 cancellation order, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11643, which originally 

banned use of these pesticides on federal lands (2/8/72). Executive Order 11643 was revoked 

completely in 1982 by President Reagan through issuance of Executive Order 12342. 

3

 FWS was the former registrant for the product (EPA Reg. No. 6704-75) that now is EPA Reg. No. 56228-

15. The Animal Damage Control Program within DOI was transferred to the Department of Agriculture in 

1985. 
6 

Judge Denniston thereafter determined that the original cancellation order 

should be modified to allow registrations of sodium cyanide using the M-44 ejector 

unit under 26 specified conditions. 40 Fed. Reg. 44739. 

Parties appealed the Initial Decision to EPA Administrator Russell Train. 

Parties in support of the applications included the States of Wyoming and Montana as 

well as the National Wool Growers’ Association, the American National Cattlemen’s 

Association, the National Turkey Federation, and the Navajo Nation. 40 Fed. Reg. 

44726. Parties in opposition to the applications included Environmental Defense Fund, 

Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Oregon 

Environmental Council, Animal Protection Institute, Wildlife Management Institute, 

and the Humane Society of the United States. Id. Administrator Train rendered a 

“Final Decision” on September 23, 1975, agreeing that the earlier cancellation should 

be modified to allow registrations of sodium cyanide using the M-44 ejector units under 

specified conditions. Id. Administrator Train addressed the specific issues raised by 

opponents of the original use conditions recommended by Judge Denniston and 

authorized modification of the earlier cancellation order with certain revisions to the 

use conditions recommended in the initial decision. Id. 

2. 1986 Reconsideration 

In 1985, FWS petitioned EPA to modify the M-44 registration to permit control 

of wild predators on federally designated threatened or endangered species at sites 

where use of M-44 was prohibited by the 1975 order (wildlife refuges and similar 

areas). Additionally, FWS requested modification of 10 other restrictions contained in 

the 1975 order to allow for more efficient use of sodium cyanide in predator control. 

51 Fed. Reg. 9515. 

 Consistent with 40 CFR Part 164, EPA issued a “Notice of Hearing and Notice 

of Intent to Modify Order” announcing the opportunity for a hearing on the issue of 

amending the 1972 cancellation order to allow use for the protection of threatened and 

endangered species. Id. Various concerned parties filed comments and hearing 

requests. 

After receipt of the comments, parties to the proceeding entered into settlement 

discussions with EPA. Based on the settlement agreement reached by all the parties, on 

August 18, 1987, ALJ J.F. Greene recommended that the registration be modified to 

allow the proposed use of sodium cyanide using the M-44 ejector unit for the protection 

of threatened or endangered species. In her decision, the 26 use restrictions for M-44 

were modified once more.4

 

C. 1080 – Modifications of 1972 Cancellation Order 

 

4

 These 26 use restrictions are listed later in this document as amended by the EPA’s 1994 Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision (RED). 
7 

 In 1977, FWS petitioned EPA to modify the 1972 cancellation order to allow use of 

Compound 1080 in the Livestock Protection Collars (herinafter 1080 LPCs) and singledose baits. EPA held information-gathering hearings in July 1981, and Administrator 

Gorsuch determined that substantial new evidence was available to warrant reconsideration 

of the 1972 cancellation of Compound 1080 and ordered hearings scheduled pursuant to 40 

CFR Part 164 subpart D of EPA’s Rule of Practice. 46 Fed. Reg. 59622. The subpart D 

hearings considered reinstatement of Compound 1080 use in injected-carcass bait stations 

and three additional types of applications: 1080 LPCs, small "single-dose baits" intended to 

provide enough toxicant to reliably kill one coyote, and "smear posts." Id. Judge Spencer 

Nissen’s decision, published on October 22, 1982, allowed EPA to consider applications 

for Compound 1080 use in the single lethal dose baits and 1080 LPCs but denied the 

applications for use in the large bait station and “smear posts”. Id. Single lethal dose baits 

containing Compound 1080 and the 1080 LPC were never registered before 1972. 

Defenders of Wildlife et al., the State of Wyoming et al., the State of South Dakota, 

FWS, USDA, and the National Wildlife Federation filed an appeal on November 12, 1982. 

Administrator Ruckelshaus recused himself from considerations of the matter and 

designated Assistant Administrator Lee Thomas to rule on the appeal. 49 Fed. Reg. 4830. 

Assistant Administrator Thomas determined the 1080 LPC was excellent in terms of 

targeting predating coyotes. Id. He noted that some spillage of the Compound 1080 

solution was probable but determined that most of the spillage was on the lamb or goat 

wearing the 1080 LPC and the coyote, and there was virtually no exposure to non-target 

wildlife. Id. With proper handling and precautions by, or under the direction of certified 

applicators, he determined the chance of human injury was remote. Id. He affirmed 

Nissen’s “Initial Decision” with some modifications including dose limitations for the 1080 

LPC and labeling to prevent accidental mishandling of the 1080 LPC. Id. Although 

Assistant Administrator Thomas ruled that the single-dose baits were also eligible for 

registration applications, EPA has not granted a FIFRA Section 3 registration for these 

baits; however, Experimental use permits for single-dose Compound 1080 baits were 

issued during the 1980s. Id. The only current registered use for Compound 1080 is the 

1080 LPC.

D. Biological Opinions 

On April 15, 1991, EPA initiated consultation for 16 vertebrate control agents 

including sodium cyanide in M-44 spring-loaded ejectors and Compound 1080 in livestock 

protection collars. FWS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) in March 1993. Ref. 31. 

For M-44, the BO found that this registration could affect the Florida panther, gray 

wolf, grizzly bear, jaguarundi, Louisiana black bear, ocelot, San Joaquin kit fox, California 

condor, Hawaiian crow, and the Mariana crow. Id. at II-75 – II 78. However, FWS 

determined that if certain reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures5

 were adopted, 

 

5 Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) are FWS’s recommendations for modifying the proposed 

action to avoid likely jeopardy/destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. They are not binding 

orders or regulations and action agencies like EPA retain the discretion to develop their own appropriate 

"RPAs." 
8 

the registration would not jeopardize the continued existence of these species. Id. These 

included: 

• Florida panther: 

- Reasonable and prudent alternative: Prohibit the use of the chemical 

device within 20 miles of the boundary of any federal and state lands (e.g., 

National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Preserve, State Park, 

State Preserve, State Wildlife Management areas, etc.) and Indian 

Reservations that provide suitable panther habitat south of Charlotte, Glades 

and Martin Counties, Florida. 

- Reasonable and prudent measure: Prohibit the use of sodium cyanide 

(M-44s) in the geographic range of the Florida panther until after the user 

has contacted the local Fish and Wildlife Service office and that office has 

determined that there are no known panthers in the general vicinity of where 

the M-44s are going to be used. 

• Ocelot and jaguarundi: 

- Reasonable and prudent alternative: prohibit use within three miles of 

occupied habitat. 

- Reasonable and prudent measure: Prior to use of sodium cyanide in 

potential ocelot or jaguarondi habitat, conduct survey to determine if habitat 

is occupied. If habitat is unoccupied, no further restrictions are applicable. 

If habitat is occupied, prohibit use within three miles. 

• Louisiana black bear: 

- Reasonable and prudent alternative: Prohibit the use of the chemical 

device within the known occupied habitat of the Louisiana black bear. 

- Reasonable and prudent measure: Prohibit the use of sodium cyanide (M44s) in the geographic range of the Louisiana black bear until after the user 

has contacted local Fish and Wildlife Service Office and that office has 

determined that there are no known Louisiana black bears in the general 

vicinity of where the M-44s are going to be used. 

• San Joaquin kit fox: 

 - Reasonable and prudent alternative: Prohibit use of sodium cyanide M44 devices within the range of the San Joaquin kit fox. 

• California condor:

- Reasonable and prudent alternative: The use of sodium cyanide should 

be prohibited in condor occupied habitat including Ventura, Kern, Santa 

Barbara, and Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo Counties. Alternative 

control of canid predators must be considered to avoid the inadvertent 

poisoning of California condors. 

 Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) are when FWS determines that an action (or the implementation 

of the action with the RPAs set forth in a jeopardy opinion ) will likely result in the take of listed species, and 

such take will not violate section 7(a)(2) (i.e., result in likely jeopardy), the Service issues an Incidental Take 

Statement authorizing some level of take and establishes Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) to 

minimize the impact of such take. The RPMs are binding in the sense that take is only authorized if the 

person or agency responsible for the take is in compliance with the RPMs. 
9 

• Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf:

- Reasonable and prudent measure: Prohibit application of sodium 

cyanide (M-44s) in the geographic range of the gray wolf and grizzly bear 

until after the user has contacted the local Fish and Wildlife Service office 

and that office has determined that there are no known wolves or grizzly 

bears in the general vicinity where the M-44s are going to be applied. 

• Alala (Hawaiian crow) and Mariana crow: 

- Reasonable and prudent measure: Prohibit use of sodium cyanide within 

occupied habitat on Guan, Rota and the island of Hawaii. 

The BO issued non-quantifiable incidental take permits for the gray wolf and black 

bear. Incidental take was not permitted for the remaining species as listed above. Id. at II77. 

For the 1080 LPC, the BO found that this registration could affect the gray wolf and 

black bear. Id. at II-79. FWS identified specific state and county areas where 1080 LPCs 

could not be used and concluded that implementation of such a restriction would preclude 

jeopardy to both the gray wolf and the grizzly bear. Id. Incidental take was not permitted. 

E. Registration Eligibility Decisions (RED) 

 

1. Sodium Cyanide RED 

 

In 1994, EPA issued a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) pertaining to the 

use of sodium cyanide capsules in M-44 units. The 1994 RED can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/3086.pdf. EPA concluded that the M-44 did not pose 

unreasonable risks to humans or the environment if this product was used in accordance 

with the 26 use restrictions listed below and additional restrictions specific to endangered 

species at risk from M-44 use outlined in FWS’ 1993 Biological Opinion. 

1. Use of the M-44 device shall conform to all applicable Federal, State, and local laws 

and regulations. 

2. Applicators shall be subject to such other regulations and restrictions as may be 

prescribed from time-to-time by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

3. Each applicator of the M-44 device shall be trained in: (1) safe handling of the 

capsules and device, (2) proper use of the antidote kit, (3) proper placement of the 

device, and (4) necessary record keeping. 

4. M-44 devices and sodium cyanide capsules shall not be sold or transferred to, or 

entrusted to the care of any person not supervised or monitored by the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Animal Damage Control (ADC) program or any 

agency not working under an ADC cooperative agreement. 
10 

5. The M-44 device shall only be used to take wild canids: (1) suspected of preying on 

livestock or poultry; (2) suspected of preying on federally designated threatened or 

endangered species, or; (3) that are vectors of a communicable disease. 

6. The M-44 device shall not be used solely to take animals for the value of their fur. 

7. The M-44 device shall only be used on or within seven miles of a ranch unit or 

allotment where losses due to predation by wild canids are occurring or where losses 

can be reasonably expected to occur based upon recurrent prior experience of predation 

on the ranch unit or allotment. Full documentation of livestock depredation, including 

evidence that such losses were caused by wild canids, will be required before 

application of the M-44 is undertaken. This use restriction is not applicable when wild 

canids are controlled to protect federally designated threatened or endangered species 

or are vectors of a communicable disease. 

8. The M-44 device shall not be used: (1) in areas within national forests or other 

Federal lands set aside for recreational use, (2) areas where exposure to the public and 

family and pets is probable, (3) in prairie dog towns, or, (4) except for the protection of 

federally designated threatened or endangered species, in National and State Parks; 

National or State Monuments; federally designated wilderness areas; and wildlife 

refuge areas. 

9. The M-44 device shall not be used in areas where federally listed threatened or 

endangered animal species might be adversely affected. Each applicator shall be issued 

a map, prepared by or in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which 

clearly indicates such areas. 

10. One person other than the individual applicator shall have knowledge of the exact 

placement location of all M-44 devices in the field. 

11. In areas where more than one governmental agency is authorized to place M-44 

devices, the Agencies shall exchange placement information and other relevant facts to 

ensure that the maximum number of M-44's allowed is not exceeded. 

12. The M-44 device shall not be placed within 200 feet of any lake, stream, or other 

body of water, provided that natural depression areas which catch and hold rainfall only 

for short periods of time shall not be considered "bodies of water" for purposes of this 

restriction. 

13. The M-44 device shall not be placed in areas where food crops are planted. 

14. The M-44 device shall be placed at least a 50-foot distance or at such a greater 

distance from any public road or pathway as may be necessary to remove it from the 

sight of persons and domestic animals using any such public road or pathway. 
11 

15. The maximum density of M-44's placed in any 100 acre pasture land areas shall not 

exceed 10; and the density in any 1 square mile of open range shall not exceed 12. 

16. No M-44 device shall be placed within 30 feet of a livestock carcass used as a draw 

station. No more than four M-44 devices shall be placed per draw station and no more 

than five draw stations shall be operated per square mile. 

17. Supervisors or applicators shall check the records, warning signs, and M-44 devices 

of each applicator at least once a year to verify that all applicable laws, regulations, and 

restrictions are being strictly followed. 

18. Each M-44 device shall be inspected at least once every week, weather permitting 

access, to check for interference or unusual conditions and shall be serviced as required. 

19. Damaged or nonfunctional M-44 devices shall be removed from the field. 

20. An M-44 device shall be removed from an area if, after 30 days, there is no sign 

that a target predator has visited the site. 

21. All persons authorized to possess and use sodium cyanide capsules and M- 44 

devices shall store such capsules and devices under lock and key. 

22. Used sodium cyanide capsules shall be disposed of by deep burial or at a proper 

landfill site. Incineration may be used instead of burial for disposal. Place the capsules 

in an incinerator or refuse hole and burn until the capsules are completely consumed. 

Capsules may be incinerated using either wood or diesel fuel. 

23. Bilingual warning signs in English and Spanish shall be used in all areas containing 

M-44 devices. All such signs shall be removed when M-44 devices are removed. Main 

entrances or commonly used access points to areas in which M-44 devices are set shall 

be posted with warning signs to alert the public to the toxic nature of the cyanide and to 

the danger to pets. Signs shall be inspected weekly to ensure their continued presence 

and ensure that they are conspicuous and legible. b. An elevated sign shall be placed 

within 25 feet of each individual M-44 device warning persons not to handle the device. 

24. Each authorized or licensed applicator shall carry an antidote kit on his person when 

placing and/or inspecting M-44 devices. The kit shall contain at least six pearls of amyl 

nitrite and instructions on their use. Each authorized or licensed applicator shall also 

carry on his person instructions for obtaining medical assistance in the event of 

accidental exposure to sodium cyanide. 

25. In all areas where the use of the M-44 device is anticipated, local medical people 

shall be notified of the intended use. This notification may be through a poison control 

center, local medical society, the Public Health Service, or directly to a doctor or 

hospital. They shall be advised of the antidotal and first-aid measures required for 
12 

treatment of cyanide poisoning. It shall be the responsibility of the supervisor to 

perform this function. 

26. Each authorized M-44 applicator shall keep records dealing with the placement of 

the device and the results of each placement. Such records shall include, but need not 

be limited to: 

 a. The number of devices placed. 

 b. The location of each device placed. 

 c. The date of each placement, as well as the date of each inspection 

 d. The number and location of devices which have been discharged and the 

 apparent reason for each discharge. 

 e. Species of animals taken. 

 f. All accidents or injuries to humans or domestic animals.

2. Compound 1080 RED

 In 1995, EPA issued a RED pertaining to the use of Compound 1080 in the LPC. 

EPA concluded that 1080 LPC use did not pose unreasonable risks to humans or the 

environment when used according to labeling directions. The 1995 RED can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/3073.pdf. FWS’s 1993 Biological Opinion regarding 

1080 LPC use determined that no further measures were necessary to protect endangered 

species.

F. Request for Comment on the Sinapu et al. Petition 

EPA published the Petition in the Federal Register on November 16, 2007, 

requesting comment on the Petition from interested persons. 72 Fed. Reg. 64623. APHIS 

WS, the registrant for the sodium cyanide and Compound 1080 products at issue in the 

petition, submitted comments as did a number of states, industry trade groups, concerned 

citizens, various non-governmental organizations, congressional representatives, and 

foreign governments. EPA received hundreds of submissions from private citizens in 

support and opposition to the claims in the Sinapu et al. Petition. Specifically, commenters 

provided information regarding benefits of using M-44s and 1080 LPCs, testimonials 

expressing their experiences and views, and incident information. Additionally, comments 

discussing both the usefulness and inadequacies of alternatives to these devices were 

provided during the comment period for EPA consideration. See www.regulations.gov 

(Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944).

III. PETITION RESPONSE

 Petitioners allege both that the proper (legal) use of the sodium cyanide M-44 

device and the 1080 LPC pose significant risks to the environment and that the pesticides 

are commonly misused, and such misuse causes additional risks to human health and/or the 

environment. As a result, Petitioners request that these pesticide registrations be cancelled 

under Section 6 of FIFRA. Petitioners also assert that continued use of these pesticides 
13 

during cancellation proceedings presents an imminent hazard, and therefore requests that 

EPA suspend use of the pesticides under Section 6(c) of FIFRA pending the requested 

cancellation proceedings. 

Petitioners also claim that the legal and illegal use of these pesticides has killed 

threatened or endangered species requiring EPA to reinitiate consultation with FWS under 

Section 7 of the ESA “or in the alternative prevent the future manufacture and distribution 

of these toxicants for the purposes of predator control.” Ref. 15 at 15. 

EPA has grouped and responded to the Petitioners’ allegations as follows: 

A. Petitioners Assert these Devices Harm Endangered Species. 

B. Petitioners Assert M-44 and 1080 LPC Use Consistent with the Label 

Restrictions Results in Significant Risk to the Environment. 

C. Petitioners Assert Environmental Release of Compound When Used 

Consistent with the Label Results in Significant Risk to the Environment 

D. Petitioners Assert Common Misuse of M-44. 

E. Petitioners Assert Common Misuse and Likely Improper Disposal of 

1080 LPC. 

F. Petitioners Assert there are few Benefits of M-44 and 1080 LPC Use. 

G. Petitioners Assert That Alternatives To Use of M-44 and 1080 LPC are 

Sufficient to Control Predation. 

H. Petitioners Assert Discrepancies Between EPA and APHIS WS Records 

of M-44 Non-target Impacts. 

I. Petitioners Assert M-44 and 1080 LPC Use Create Bioterrorism 

Concerns. 

 Use of M-44 and 1080 LPC by APHIS WS represents the largest share of use of 

these pesticides; therefore, in responding to this Petition, EPA is focusing on information 

regarding APHIS WS’ use. Because state use of these registrations is very similar to 

APHIS WS’ use, EPA believes these responses (as presented below) are applicable to state 

use as well. 

Addressing each allegation, EPA provides: 

1) a summary of the Petitioners’ claims, 

2) an overview of substantive comments related to the allegation received 

during the comment period from APHIS WS (the registrant) and other 

interested stakeholders, and 

3) EPA’s response to Petitioners’ allegation and significant related 

comments. 

A. Petitioners Assert these Devices Harm Endangered Species 

1. Petitioners’ claims
14 

Petitioners claim that the legal and illegal use of these pesticides has killed 

threatened or endangered species requiring EPA to reinitiate consultation with the FWS 

under Section 7 of the ESA “or in the alternative prevent the future manufacture and 

distribution of these toxicants for the purposes of predator control.” Ref. 15 at 1, 14 – 15, 

39. 

In support, Petitioners offer general and specific claims. One of Petitioners’ claims is 

that the use of sodium cyanide in the M-44 device has killed “California condors, gray 

wolves, and at least one grizzly bear.” Id. at 21. Petitioners also claim that: 

- Use of the M-44 could impact the lynx because it is a close relative of the bobcat, 

and bobcats have been killed by the M-44 device. Id. at 31. 

- Use of M-44 or Compound 1080 could kill wolves evidenced to be dispersing from 

Yellowstone National Park. Id. at 32. 

- The death of one grizzly bear by an M-44, especially if female, could affect the 

viability of the population. Id. at 34. 

- Although a court order prohibits M-44 use in riparian corridors along certain rivers, 

risks to condors still exist. Id. at 19. 

More specifically, Petitioners identify a number of incidents involving the alleged death 

of a threatened or endangered species from use of M-44 and 1080 LPC. 

M-44: 

- 5 specific wolf incidents tied to M-44. Id. at 32. 

- 1 grizzly poisoned by M-44 near Helmville, Montana. Id. at 34. 

- A California condor killed in 1983. Id. at 19. 

1080: 

- An illegal poisoning of a wolf using Compound 1080 in 2004. Id. at 22 

- Illegal poisonings of bald and golden eagles using Compound 1080 in the 1980s. 

Id. at 23. 

- 6 specific wolf incidents tied to Compound 1080 between 1999 and 2003. Ref. 13 at 

32. 

2. Stakeholder Comments

According to APHIS WS, it works very closely with FWS to ensure compliance 

with the ESA and to develop acceptable procedures while using M-44s and 1080 LPCs 

according to agreements and measures established to conserve threatened and endangered 

species. APHIS WS notes that this partnership typically occurs through consultations, and 

the development of Biological Assessments, Biological Opinions (BO), conferences, and 

concurrence agreements. Id. APHIS WS comments that it operates its program activities 

under the reasonable and prudent measures and alternatives identified in a 1992 BO issued 

by the FWS and under subsequent BOs issued by FWS for state programs. Id. APHIS WS 

asserts that the ESA consultation process is constantly being conducted and updated to 

ensure APHIS WS’ compliance with ESA (Id.). 
15 

APHIS WS also claims they have improved chemical accounting and tracking by 

working closely with USDA OIG. Ref. 20 at 52. APHIS WS reports having implemented 

all of OIG’s audit recommendations through strengthened management controls and 

improvement in the program’s inventory process. Id.. WS believes they have strengthened 

tracking through the implementation of their comprehensive inventory accounting system 

called Control Materials Inventory Tracking System (CMITS) for hazardous materials that 

they use in wildlife damage management. Id.. According to APHIS WS, CMITS allows 

APHIS WS to account fully for all inventories by documenting acquisition, transfer, and 

disposal of materials within all states. Id. APHIS WS claims their hazardous materials 

management system is rigorous and responsive to program needs and is accountable to OIG 

and other government wide policies and requirements Id.

Comments were also received from the New Mexico Federal Land Council stating 

that arguments related to the protection of endangered wildlife by petitioners are without 

merit and not germane to the issue at hand. See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPAHQ-OPP-2007-0944-0418). Additionally, this commenter notes that the Aleutian Canada 

goose has been delisted specifically because predation by arctic foxes has been managed by 

APHIS WS using various predation control methods including M-44. The M-44 was also 

useful in the protection of the Rocky Mountain experimental flock of whooping cranes. Id. 

This commenter states that APHIS WS carefully reviews and conducts its operations to 

meet the requirements of the ESA. Id.

 Comments were also received from the Wyoming Farm Bureau relating to potential 

impacts to several species of concern, namely wolves and swift foxes. See 

www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-0843). According to this 

comment: 

the current recovery effort for wolves in the distinct population segment 

portion of the experimental population designated area has resulted in 

wolves far in excess of required recovery numbers. The US Fish & 

Wildlife Service has proposed that wolves in this area be removed from 

ESA protection and the very limited number of wolves which were taken 

through control efforts because of livestock predation has not had a 

significant impact. Indeed, deaths of wolves by other wolves is a far 

higher number than that from the application of M-44s or 1080. Id. 

The Wyoming Farm Bureau also commented on swift foxes noting that they have 

thrived in areas where predator management devices are used. Id. The commenter 

concludes that the actions proposed by the Petitioners could result in more deaths to the 

swift fox population because of increased coyote populations. Id. 

A private citizen, D. Peay, commented that cancelling the M-44 devices will 

exacerbate the decline of Sage Grouse since there is substantial evidence that predators 
16 

have a major negative impact on grouse and other species. See www.regulations.gov 

(Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-0788). 

The Natural Resource Defense Counsel (NRDC) provided a list of endangered 

species incidents over the previous decade. See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPAHQ-OPP-2007-0944-0799). These include: 

• January 1995, Priest River, Idaho – a wolf was killed by a M-44 sodium cyanide 

cartridge. 

• May 1997, Alder, Montana – a wolf was killed by a M-44 sodium cyanide 

cartridge. 

• April 1998, Alder, Montana – a wolf was killed by a M-44 sodium cyanide 

cartridge. 

• December 1998, Powell, Wyoming – a wolf was killed by a M-44 sodium cyanide 

cartridge. 

• In Spring 2001, a wolf dispersing from Minnesota or Canada was killed in South 

Dakota by a M-44. 

• In January 2004, a wolf was poisoned with Compound 1080 near Clayton, Idaho. 

• On January 31, 2007, 2 wolves were found dead near M-44 devices that had been 

set to control depredating coyotes. Id.

 NRDC also commented on the risks that face grizzly bears from the use of M-44 

and 1080 LPC. Id. NRDC noted that grizzlies have large home ranges that include shrub 

cover, forested land and open areas. Id Home ranges are, on average, between 73 and 414 

sq. km but can be as large as 2,600 sq. km. Id. NRDC commented that except for the 

population in and around Yellowstone National Park, each grizzly bear population in the 

lower-48 states is listed as threatened under the ESA, and distribution is primarily limited 

to recovery zones. Id. According to NRDC, grizzly bears’ large spatial requirements 

increase the likelihood that a bear may happen upon an M-44. Id. NRDC also commented 

that the grizzly bears’ low distribution numbers, low reproductive rates, disappearing and 

increasingly fragmented habitat as well as high human-caused mortality have put grizzly 

bears on the brink of extinction in the lower-48 states. Id. According to NRDC, some 

recovery zone populations have dangerously low bear numbers, meaning that, literally, 

every bear is extremely significant to the health of that population and genetic exchange 

with others. Id. NRDC noted that intentional or accidental poisoning, especially if it 

involves a breeding female, can threaten viability of a grizzly bear population. Id. 

3. EPA Response

EPA is granting Petitioners’ request to reinitiate consultation; however, at this time, 

EPA does not believe the risks posed to endangered species warrant cancellation of these 

registrations. 

EPA last formally consulted with FWS regarding EPA’s registration of M-44 and 

the 1080 LPC in 1991. In its Biological Opinion (BO) for M-44, FWS contemplated the 

high probability that M-44 use could take individual wolves or grizzly bears. Ref. 31. 
17 

However, FWS did not believe that these takes would jeopardize either species. FWS 

indicated, however, that individual gray wolves or grizzly bears could be adversely affected 

by the M-44. Specifically, FWS wrote that: 

While applicators are restricted from using the M-44 in areas where a gray 

wolf or grizzly bear may be adversely affected, these two species have a 

very wide reange and thus could be inadvertently taken in areas not 

mapped and/or prior to the applicator's knowledge that the species may be 

in the control area. [FWS], therefore, anticipates that an unquantifiable 

level of incidental take may occur as a result of the use of sodium cyanide. 

Ref. 31 at II-77.

Accordingly, FWS issued an incidental take statement that included reasonable and 

prudent measures to minimize the impact of such takes that EPA has adopted as a productlabeling requirement. Although FWS contemplated the possibility of unquantifiable take 

of individual gray wolves and grizzly bears involving the use of the M-44, there have 

actually been relatively few such takes. Moreover, EPA has no reason to believe, and 

Petitioners offer no information showing, that any of those takes were inconsistent with 

label directions, applicable reasonable and prudent measures identified by FWS or FWS 

regulations applicable to experimental nonessential populations. 

The incident identified by Petitioners involving the California condor occurred well 

before EPA’s 1994 reregistration decision adding language to the M-44 label, consistent 

with FWS’ BO, to prohibit use of M-44 in condor-occupied habitat. EPA has no 

information to suggest that this language has been ineffective; there have been no reported 

takes since 1983 of the condor involving use of M-44. Petitioners provide no information 

to suggest that the label language adopted in EPA’s 1994 reregistration decision is not 

working. Moreover, as Petitioners point out, applicators may not use M-44 in certain 

riparian corridors, and thus there is an additional buffer area around the condor-occupied 

habitat to prevent takes of the condor involving use of M-44. See Ref. 15 at 19. 

Petitioners identify no incidents involving the lynx and use of M-44, and to EPA’s 

knowledge, there have been no such incidents. Moreover, according to APHIS WS it 

monitors for lynx to ensure there are no lynx in M-44 application areas and complies with 

BOs and interim policies prohibiting use in lynx-occupied habitats. Ref. 20 at 33. 

Although APHIS WS M-44 use should not result in any adverse impact to the lynx 

population, EPA will address the lynx in its consultation with FWS. 

 For the reasons noted above, EPA does not believe the use of M-44 adversely 

impacts grizzly bear, gray wolf, condor or lynx populations, or is violative of FIFRA or the 

ESA. Therefore, EPA is denying the request to cancel the M-44 registration because of 

endangered species concerns. 

For 1080 LPC use, in its 1993 Biological Opinion for 1080 LPCs, FWS allowed no 

incidental takes of the gray wolf and grizzly bear. EPA does not believe that the incidents 

identified by Petitioners are inconsistent with the FWS BO. 
18 

Petitioners identified a 2004 gray wolf Compound 1080 incident in the primary 

Petition and 6 wolf incidents from 1999-2004 in an attached letter from FWS in 

Petitioners’ 2nd Addendum. All of these incidents reportedly took place in Idaho. EPA 

believes these incidents were unrelated to registered 1080 LPC use that is the subject of the 

Petition. Based on monitoring reports submitted to EPA from APHIS WS for years 1999 

through 2004, the years involving the incidents reported, APHIS WS reported no use in 

Idaho of the 1080 LPC except in year 2000. Thus, EPA does not believe that the incidents 

in years 1999, 2003 and 2004 were the result of registered 1080 LPC use but resulted from 

illegally stockpiled or trafficked Compound 1080. With respect to the 1080 LPCs used in 

Idaho in the year 2000, there is a record of 1080 LPCs being punctured or damaged. Ref. 

20 at 24, Table 7. In addition, EPA believes that the incidents in year 2000 and the 1999, 

2003 and 2004 incidents were not the result of registered 1080 LPC use; specifically, the 

registered Compound 1080 in the LPC includes a yellow dye that allows detection of 

Compound 1080 specific to use of the 1080 LPC. EPA has no information indicating the 

presence of the dye for any of these incidents, and therefore suspects that the pesticide 

believed to cause the death of the wolves is not from registered 1080 LPC use, but rather 

the result of illegally stockpiled or trafficked Compound 1080. EPA will further 

investigate these incidents as part of its consultation with FWS. 

Similar to the above gray wolf incidents, EPA does not believe the eagle 

poisonings from the 1980s involved registered 1080 LPC use. The reports supplied by 

Petitioners indicate that the Compound 1080 involved in the eagle poisonings was illegally 

stockpiled or imported. Cancelling the 1080 LPC registration will not address Compound 

1080 illegally stockpiled or trafficked. 

Therefore, given the significant restrictions in place to prevent exposure to 

threatened or endangered species from legal or illegal use of the 1080 LPC, and APHIS 

WS’ improved tracking and storage of 1080 LPCs, EPA does not believe that the limited 

registration of 1080 LPC is violative of FIFRA or the ESA. EPA is denying the request to 

cancel the 1080 LPC registration because of endangered species concerns. 

Although EPA does not believe the M-44 or 1080 LPC registrations have 

jeopardized or are currently jeopardizing any threatened or endangered species, the Agency 

does plan to reinitiate consultation to take advantage of FWS’ expertise in light of changes 

since EPA’s 1993 consultation on these pesticides. This consultation should assure that 

any appropriate additional steps are taken to further protect endangered species from 

potential risks associated with use of the M-44 or 1080 LPC. 

B. Petitioners Assert M-44 and 1080 LPC Use Consistent with the 

Label Restrictions Results in Significant Risk to the Environment 

1. Petitioners’ Claims

According to Petitioners, APHIS WS’ predator management programs as a whole 

(e.g. traps, snares, M-44, 1080 LPC, etc.) have resulted in unintended deaths of numerous 
19 

species and domestic pets, causing unreasonable adverse effects to the environment. 

According to Petitioners, surveys indicate that between 11 and 71% of animals killed to 

prevent conflicts with humans or livestock were not involved in negative interactions and 

those data if extrapolated to all APHIS WS activites indicate that the agency over killed 1.5 

– 9.7 million animals “without cause” between 1996 and 2001. Ref. 15 at 9. 

In 2004, the Petitioners report that APHIS WS killed hundreds of non-target species 

specifically with M-44s including 19 swift foxes, 29 kit foxes, 5 bobcats, 7 ravens, 1 

marmot, 3 badgers, 96 opossums, and 117 dogs. Id at 18. Because APHIS WS works in 

rural areas, the Petitioners assert that there is little oversight to determine the accuracy of 

these numbers, and Petitioners suspect underreporting. Id. Petitioners claim that these 

non-target takes from M-44 use have negative impacts on the populations of black bears, 

mountain lions, and bobcats in many western states where these species have few 

protections and low fecundity and recruitment. Therefore, Petitioners assert that the 

survival of these species may be imperiled by a variety of threats including the lethal 

poisons: sodium cyanide and Compound 1080. Id. at 8. 

2. Stakeholder Comments

According to APHIS WS, non-target take of animals with M-44s and 1080 LPCs is 

less than 5% and 1% of total animals taken with each of these methods, respectively, which 

APHIS WS argues illustrates the overall selectivity of these methods. Ref. 20 at 27. 

APHIS WS claims that their operating procedures and policy directives, as well as product 

use restrictions, reduce the effects of predation management activities on non-target 

species. Id. 

APHIS WS claims use of M-44s during the ten-year period: October 1995 – 

September 2005 resulted in an average of 827 non-target takes annually. Id. at 17. APHIS 

WS notes that many of these non-target takes involved target species listed on the M-44 

label; however, they were considered non-target only because the applicator was not 

focusing on these species (gray fox, feral dogs, and red fox) in the particular use situations 

in which they were taken. Id. 

APHIS WS asserts that during these 10 years, four non-target animals were taken 

(three bobcats and one feral dog) with 1080 LPCs. Id. at 4. According to APHIS WS, 

although these species were not targeted with 1080 LPCs they were targeted with other 

predation management methods (e.g. traps, snares). Id. 

In addition, APHIS WS notes that secondary poisoning risk is reduced because the 

1080 LPC is selective not only for the target species, but also for target individuals while 

they are exhibiting a particular behavior (biting the throat of a goat or sheep). Id. at 22. 

APHIS WS notes that 1080 LPC use is restricted only to fenced pastures where coyote 

predation on sheep or goats has occurred. Id. The 1080 LPC, attached to the neck of a 

sheep or goat, dispenses the Compound 1080 solution when punctured by the bite of an 

attacking predator. Id. Coyotes characteristically attack sheep and goats by grabbing the 
20 

throat, whereas other predators, including dogs, typically attack the animal elsewhere on 

the body (e.g., dogs attack the flanks and mountain lions the back of the neck or skull). Id.

As a result, very few dogs and non-target animals are taken to resolve livestock 

depredations using the 1080 LPC. Id.

 Furthermore, APHIS WS asserts that the level of non-target takes for these two 

toxicants has no perceptible impact on any wildlife populations, and many of these species 

are harvested in larger numbers by sportsmen. Id. at 28. 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks commented that M-44s are very 

useful in removing problem animals and are target-animal specific. See 

www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-0411). According to this 

commenter, fourteen state predator control programs took a total of 103,255 animals with 

M-44s from 1976 through 1986, and target species (coyote, red fox, grey fox, and wild 

dog) comprised 95.3% of total animals taken. Commenters also note, when compared to 

other capture devices such as traps and snares, the M-44 is more selective for target species 

and more humane. 

In addition, Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA), provided information 

relating to records of WDA monthly usage: as few as 6 non-target species were taken by 

the M-44 in the past 4 years, including a raven, a skunk, a sheep, and three non-essential, 

experimental wolves traveling far from their designated range. See, www.regulations.gov 

(Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-0111). Considering the hundreds of devices in use, 

they state that this non-target take is minimal. 

Comments in support of the Petition provided no additional substantive information 

on this allegation. 

3. EPA Response

EPA does not believe the number of non-target animal deaths resulting from M-44 

and 1080 LPC use has been significant, especially considering the similar risks to nontargets posed by alternative predator control methods that would likely replace the use of 

M-44 and 1080 LPC. 

From 2002 until 2006, EPA is only aware of an average of approximately 780 nontarget deaths from M-44 use annually (5% of all M-44 takes). In that same time period, 

four non-target deaths resulted from LPC use (<1% of all LPC takes). 

With respect to the M-44 registration, in EPA’s 1975 decision to approve the use of 

sodium cyanide in M-44 for predator control, EPA recognized that species other than 

coyotes, red foxes, gray foxes and feral dogs are vulnerable to the M-44 device. 40 Fed. 

Reg. 44726, 44729. During the hearings, FWS submitted data showing that 88 - 95% of all 

M-44 takes were target species, and Administrator Train did not find these percentages, in 

light of the benefits from M-44 use, to be significant. Id. EPA focused on evidence 

indicating that the use of M-44 is more selective than other chemical and non-chemical 
21 

predator control methods. Id. For example, EPA reviewed testimony regarding FWS and 

Texas A&M studies indicating that the M-44 is more selective than steel traps and equally 

as selective as shooting. Id. 

Petitioners offer no new data to suggest that the non-target impacts are greater than 

those presented in the 1975 hearing for M-44. In fact, the most recent data available to 

EPA regarding M-44’s non-target impacts show approximately 5% of all M-44 takes are of 

non-target species. This percentage is at the lower end of the range of non-target effects 

contemplated by EPA in 1975 when the use was reinstated. EPA has no information to 

suggest that alternative lethal methods would be any more selective. Because Petitioners 

offer no new information suggesting greater non-target effects than those reviewed by the 

EPA Administrator when the use of sodium cyanide capsules was reinstated, EPA does not 

believe this issue warrants the requested cancellation of M-44. 

While the issues are similar with respect to the 1080 LPC, the lower volume of use 

and its high selectivity for coyotes in the act of preying upon collared sheep or goats are 

additional reasons why EPA believes the 1080 LPC does not pose significant risks to nontarget wildlife. 

C. Petitioners Assert Environmental Release of Compound When 

Used Consistent with the Label Results in Significant Risk to the 

Environment

1. Petitioners’ Claims

Petitioners appear to suggest that the proper use of the 1080 LPC results in 

environmental releases of, or exposures to, Compound 1080 that may pose significant risk. 

Ref. 15 at 22. 

According to Petitioners, 1080 LPC use has inherent problems such as spills and 

collars going missing. Id. Petitioners refer to one study where 107 collars of a total of 164 

were either inadvertently lost or punctured, while only 57 were pierced by coyotes. Id. 

Petitioners also note that coyotes can bury collars or drag them away from sheep carcasses, 

and about half of missing collars were not recovered in research studies. Id. Not all of the 

contents of the spill may be found, particularly if the carcass of the sheep or lamb is 

dragged. While some soil microorganisms can break down Compound 1080, Petitioners 

assert that conditions such as extreme cold or drought might cause Compound 1080 residue 

to persist in the soil for several weeks or months. Id. Because 1080 LPCs routinely go 

missing and spills are common, Petitioners allege this constitutes “imminent harm” to the 

environment. Id. 

 Petitioners also allege that non-target effects to scavengers resulting from 1080 LPC 

use pose a significant risk to the environment under FIFRA. According to Petitioners, the 

EPA RED found that scavengers, including threatened and endangered species, could be 

affected by Compound 1080 if those animals fed on the head or neck area of dead livestock 

that wore 1080 LPCs. Id. at 24. In addition, according to Petitioners, it is commonly 
22 

known that birds such as vultures, ravens, magpies, hawks and even mammals can flee an 

area in seconds, but since Compound 1080 takes hours to act their poisoned corpses may 

not be found readily. Id. 

 Furthermore, Petitioners assert that Compound 1080 can cause secondary 

poisonings to predators and even herbivores. Secondary non-target effects are the potential 

hazard to an animal scavenging the corpse of a target animal that has punctured the 1080 

LPC. Id. According to Petitioners, while Compound 1080 can be metabolized by animals 

that receive non-toxic doses, carrion poisoned with Compound 1080 can be toxic for 

months. Id. 

 

2. Stakeholder Comments

With respect to environmental release from proper use of the 1080 LPC, APHIS 

WS commented that the amounts released or actually available for exposure are small. For 

example, in determining the potential environmental release from 1080 LPCs, APHIS WS 

considers the maximum potential amount of Compound 1080 lost, but it is likely closer to 

half that amount because most collars only have one reservoir damaged and not all contents 

from those damaged may be lost. Ref. 20 at 22. This is especially true for punctures not 

associated with predator attacks such as from cactus or barbed wire fence; cactus spines are 

often broken off and block the contents from being drained. Id. APHIS WS’ records show 

that the average amount of 1080 LPCs damaged or lost is approximately 132 annually or 

about 6% of all 1080 LPCs used. Id. Using this data, APHIS WS estimates that 

nationwide no more than 32g of active ingredient is spilled into the environment per year. 

Id. 

Furthermore, APHIS WS notes before using any pesticide, APHIS WS personnel 

are trained in its proper and safe use. Id. at 7. APHIS WS asserts that during inspections, 

damaged collars are taken off the sheep, and the collar and any contaminated wool are 

disposed according to label directions. Id. at 22. Additionally, APHIS WS activities must 

be in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to 

pesticide applications, including certification requirements before using, transporting, 

shipping, disposing, supervising, or recommending the use of restricted use pesticides. Id. 

APHIS WS comments that it provides guidelines for storage, disposal, recordkeeping 

requirements, and the safe and effective use of pesticides in the APHIS WS program. Id. at 

7. Each 1080 LPC has a serial number, which allows for accurate recordkeeping and 

tracking of individual units. Id. at 22. 

The Wyoming Farm Bureau commented that a review by the Australian Pesticide 

and Veterinary Management Authority found Compound 1080 to be safe and effective. 

See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-0843). The comment 

included key findings from this study including that Compound 1080 does not accumulate 

in the environment; it is applied locally at relatively small rates and is readily degraded in 

soils, surface waters and by microorganisms. Id. Additionally, this study noted that most 

of the Compound 1080 ingested by animals is rapidly metabolized and/or excreted, with 

only low levels retained in the carcass. Id. 
23 

 Additional comments from David Jones, a private citizen in support of the Petition, 

references a study in New Zealand. Ref. 10; See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPAHQ-OPP-2007-0944-0738). This comment provided a summary of the study’s findings, 

which evidenced secondary poisoning to certain mammal (e.g., bats) and insect species 

vulnerable to Compound 1080 spills. Id.

Jones also referenced another New Zealand study showing that Compound 1080 

concentrations in 75-day-old carcasses were potent enough to pose a serious hazard to 

domestic dogs. Ref. 11; See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-

0738). 

3. EPA Response

EPA does not believe that use consistent with the 1080 LPC product labeling results 

in significant environmental releases of, or secondary exposures to, Compound 1080. 

In the September 1995 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for 1080 LPC, 

EPA considered the primary and secondary exposures of Compound 1080 and concluded 

that multiple factors reduce the risk associated with use of the 1080 LPCs. These factors 

include selective feeding of scavengers from wounds on the carcass rather than 

contaminated skin, surface of the head, or neck; reduced Compound 1080 toxicity to birds; 

the emetic property of the chemical; and Compound 1080’s rapid adsorption and 

degradation in soil. Moreover, the 1995 RED found that on average a relatively small 

amount of Compound 1080 spills on the ground when a collar is punctured (approximately 

113 mg). See Ref. 15 – 24. In addition to those factors listed above, EPA explained in the 

RED that risks to non-target scavenging animals from secondary exposures (e.g., from 

consumption of the killed animal or vomitus of the coyote) are minimal given studies show 

that the concentration of Compound 1080 in coyote muscle tissue, stomach content and 

vomitus is not large enough to constitute a lethal amount. Id. 

 In the 1995 RED, EPA concluded that any concerns for risk to wildlife from 

Compound 1080 were addressed when applicators follow environmental hazard statements, 

special use and disposal restrictions, and endangered species protection statements that are 

required to be placed on the label. Petitioners offer no data supporting a different 

conclusion today. 

In fact, more recent data from APHIS WS supports EPA’s conclusion that, not only 

is use of the 1080 LPC very limited but accidental spills from 1080 LPC incidental 

punctures are rare. See Ref. 20 at 23-24. In addition, this supports EPA’s RED conclusion 

that considering the small amount of Compound 1080 in a collar, such spills incidental to 

proper use are not expected to have any significant impact on the environment. 

As to the New Zealand studies cited by Jones, EPA acknowledges that Compound 

1080 is an extremely toxic compound. However, the New Zealand studies do not have 

much relevance to the current limited use pattern in the United States. The use pattern in 
24 

New Zealand, which includes aerial bait drops, is very different than 1080 LPC use in the 

United States, and these differences will likely affect the amount of Compound 1080 that is 

available for secondary poisoning. EPA reregistered the 1080 LPC use in the U.S. because 

data showed that such use would minimize the opportunity for non-target exposure to 

Compound 1080. EPA’s 1995 RED on Compound 1080 confirms this, and EPA is not 

aware of, and Petitioners have not identified, any secondary poisoning deaths from legal 

uses of the 1080 LPC. 

D. Petitioners Assert Common Misuse of M-44 

The Petitioners assert that because so many misuse incidents have occurred, APHIS 

WS’ mishandling of M-44 is a common and widespread practice across space and time 

under FIFRA, and this widespread misuse poses significant risks to the human health and 

the environment. Ref. 15 at 1. According to the Petitioners, APHIS WS, on a number of 

occasions, failed to follow FIFRA use restrictions for M-44s. Petitioners support the claim 

by referencing incidents alleging unauthorized placements of M-44s on private property 

and unauthorized placements of M-44 in a recreational area. Id. Responses to these 

assertions are addressed separately below. 
25 

Private Property Misplacements

1. Petitioners’ Claims

The Petitioners refer to several incidents where they allege that APHIS WS illegally 

placed M-44s on private property without an owner’s permission. Specifically, Petitioners 

identify two incidents occurring in the 1990s: 

• An incident that occurred on March 3, 1999 in Crawford, Colorado. Paul Wright, 

while irrigating his farm with his three-year old daughter, witnessed his dog’s death 

after it had triggered an M-44 illegally placed on Mr. Wright’s private property Id. 

at 20. A lawsuit was filed in February 2000 in federal court and the matter settled 

in 2001 when USDA paid the Wrights $9500. Id. 

• In 1994 in Oregon, Petitioners assert Amanda Wood Kingsley was exposed to 

sodium cyanide after her dog triggered an M-44 on her private property. Petitioners 

claim APHIS WS illegally placed the device there without her knowledge or 

permission. Id. 

2. Stakeholder Comments

APHIS WS acknowledges that applicators have previously trespassed on private 

property but does not believe the potential for future inadvertent trespass incidents rise to 

the level of presenting any significant environmental effects. Ref. 20 at 37. APHIS WS 

asserts that operational predator damage management activities are conducted pursuant to 

agreements with landowners, permits or other necessary authorities and within guidelines 

established around APHIS WS policies and directives. Id. at 9. Landowners who request 

assistance from APHIS WS typically provide APHIS WS representatives with very specific 

information, not only about the property boundaries of their own land but about the 

boundaries of adjacent lands as well. Id. 

In addition, APHIS WS notes that the Agency has responded to misplacement 

incidents by 1) emphasizing to employees that all “apparent” property entrances are to be 

posted with bilingual signs indicating the presence of M-44 on the property, and 2) 

implementing a formal agreement consisting of a signed form for property lessees 

requesting M-44 use that both reminds lessees of their obligation to notify their 

landowners, and holds them responsible if any harm results to an uninformed landowner. 

Id. at 41. 

APHIS WS also provided more information on the Crawford, Colorado incident 

that Petitioners reference. According to APHIS WS, an employee following incorrect 

property boundary information provided by a ranch foreman, inadvertently placed two M44s on an adjacent landowner’s property. Id at 44. APHIS WS asserts that the action 

resulted in a warning letter from the Colorado Department of Agriculture, and the 

employee received a letter of warning from APHIS WS. This incident partly led to the 

revised procedures noted in the preceding paragraph. Id. 
26 

In addition, Predator Defense provided additional information on the Crawford, 

Colorado incident. See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0851). 

According to Predator Defense, in March of 1999, Paul Wright, his 3-year-old daughter 

and dog Bob, were surveying an irrigation ditch in Crawford, Colorado, when the dog 

pulled an M-44. Predator Defense noted that the Wright family later discovered that the 

APHIS WS agent had planted 2 M-44s on their property. Id. According to Predator 

Defense, a state investigation found that the APHIS WS agent had not only trespassed but 

also broken a suite of federal rules regulating M-44's. Id. 

3. EPA Response

EPA believes that private property misplacements of M-44s rarely occur and 

measures short of cancellation, such as the measures described by APHIS WS should 

reduce, and appear to have reduced, the likelihood of such misplacements. 

First, evidence indicates that past private property misplacements are exceptionally 

rare considering the total number of M-44s placed. For example, annually, approximately 

30,000 M-44s fire per year; Petitioners cite 10 dog deaths occurring over a twelve-year 

period, and only two of these dog deaths were allegedly from M-44 property misplacement. 

(1994 – 2006). Ref. 20 page 18; Ref. 15 page 19 – 20. Considering the high number of M44s applied annually relative to the number of property misplacements identified, EPA 

does not believe there is evidence of a common practice of APHIS WS misplacement. 

Second, APHIS WS has taken corrective action to prevent potential future 

incidents. Since these incidents, APHIS WS reports (EPA has verified these reports) having 

improved its training to certified applicators on obtaining accurate property boundaries, and 

posting signs on all apparent public and private property entrances. Ref. 20 at 41. APHIS 

WS also requires all individuals leasing private land to sign a form agreeing to notify the 

landowners of M-44 use on their property. Id at 41. Since APHIS WS has implemented 

this increased training and now requires a lessee agreement, EPA is not aware of any 

additional incidents from private property misplacement. 

Recreational area misplacements

1. Petitioners’ claims

The Petitioners refer to several incidents where they allege that APHIS WS misused M44s on recreational lands. Specifically, Petitioners identify four incidents: 

• Petitioners allege APHIS WS illegally placed several M-44s in the Gila National 

Forest. Ref. 15 at 19. The Petitioners claim the New Mexico Department of 

Agriculture fined APHIS WS $1000 and suspended the license of the trapper and 

his supervisor. Id. 

• In addition, the Petitioners claim in December 1999, that two bird dogs were killed 

by M-44s during a bird-hunting trip in New Mexico on state lands. Id. at 20. 
27 

• Additionally, Petitioners allege in April 2006, a two-year-old German shepherd was 

killed by an M-44 at a rock quarry in Utah. Id. 

• Finally, Petitioners claim on February 21, 2006, Samuel Pollock’s dog triggered an 

M-44 near Bruff reservoir, which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Id. 

2. Stakeholder Comments

APHIS WS clarified the two New Mexico incidents involving M-44 application on 

recreational land. According to APHIS WS, the two dogs allegedly killed on a bird-hunting 

trip on New Mexico State lands were in fact killed on private lands. Id. Additionally, 

APHIS WS comments that the individual owner of the dogs was trespassing, and APHIS 

WS was in compliance with all of the 26 use restrictions. Id. 

 Predator Defense commented that in 2006, in a rock quarry west of Fillmore Utah, 

Max, a German shepherd dog belonging to Sharyn Aquiar was killed by an M-44. See 

www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0851). According to Aquiar and her 

husband, Tony, who both frequent the area, no sodium cyanide warning signs were posted 

as required by law, both at road intersections near the area or within 25 feet of the actual 

traps themselves. Id. In addition, Predator Defense commented that just a month before 

Max's death, another Utah dog was killed by an M-44 that was set on federal lands near 

Vernal, Utah. Samuel Pollock, whose Labrador retriever died, reported seeing a USDA 

warning sign posted on an entry road, but insisted there was no warning sign near the trap 

itself. Id. 

3. EPA Response

EPA believes that APHIS WS’ alleged misplacement of M-44s in recreational areas 

is rare, and that measures short of cancellation such as APHIS WS’ meeting quarterly with 

land management agencies should minimize the likelihood of such misplacements in the 

future. 

Use Restriction #8 on the M-44 label prohibits M-44 use in areas within National 

Forests or other Federal lands set aside for recreational use. Even assuming the four 

incidents identified by Petitioners are in fact misplacements, (which is in question given 

APHIS WS’ comments) such misplacements are few considering the large amount of M44s that fire annually (approximately 30,000). EPA also notes that it is unlikely that 

misplacement of devices on recreational lands resulting in accidental death of pets or 

exposure to humans would go unreported, and therefore EPA does not suspect additional 

unreported incidents. 

For public lands, there are several ways APHIS WS currently identifies recreational 

areas. First, all areas with “recreation” in the title are considered areas set aside for 

recreation. Ref. 18 at 1. Second, APHIS WS maintains a National Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which 

sets forth a formal process for coordination. Id. Each year, APHIS WS state programs, 
28 

which conduct activities on BLM land, meet with their BLM counterpart to discuss planned 

wildlife damage control for that year. During these annual meetings, BLM notifies APHIS 

WS of any areas deemed recreational or recreational events close to or overlapping with 

APHIS WS M-44 use. Id. APHIS WS then avoids all M-44 use in the identified 

recreational areas or in areas during recreational events. Id. To ensure the success of this 

process and that recreational areas and events are avoided, APHIS WS has incorporated 

this process into its standard operating procedures, as described in its National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. Id. 

Although APHIS WS has taken significant steps to prevent placement in 

recreational areas, there may nonetheless be potential exposure to individuals in areas not 

identified as recreational. In such cases, there are a number of existing label restrictions 

intended to prevent unwarranted exposure to people and pets. These include: restriction 14 

requiring the device to be placed at least 50 feet or greater from all public roads or 

pathways to ensure that the M-44 device is not visible from the road or pathway, and 

restriction 23, requiring bilingual signs to be posted at the main entrances of commonly 

used access points to which M-44 devices are set and within 25 feet of the individual 

device to alert the public to the toxic nature of sodium cyanide and the danger to pets. 

These signs reduce the potential for exposure to people and pets even if in the rare case an 

M-44 is mistakenly placed on lands “set aside” for recreation. Moreover, many of the M44s are placed in remote areas where exposure to people and pets is unlikely. 

 For all of these reasons, EPA believes recreational misplacements are rare and are 

unlikely to pose a substantial risk to humans or the environment. EPA also does not 

believe that cancellation, at least in the first instance, is necessary or appropriate to address 

this issue. However, EPA would like to improve the M-44 label to ensure that APHIS WS 

continues to work with appropriate land management agencies to protect the public from 

sodium cyanide exposure from M-44 use on public land. Therefore, EPA intends to amend 

the M-44 label to mandate that APHIS WS meet quarterly with the appropriate land 

management agency to discuss any recreation related events scheduled in the area if there 

is ongoing M-44 use. 

E. Petitioners Assert Common Misuse and Likely Improper Disposal of 

1080 LPC 

1. Petitioners’ Claims

 

The Petitioners claim that there is a history of illegal use of 1080 LPC, and that 

EPA should ban 1080 LPC use because the potential threat to wildlife, people and pets 

constitutes an unreasonable adverse effect under FIFRA. Ref. 15 at 23. According to the 

Petitioners, in 1989, a newly hired predator control agent to the Wyoming Department of 

Agriculture found that certain individuals had hoarded Compound 1080 despite the ban. 

Id. The Petitioners claim that these individuals sold Compound 1080 to private individuals 

who used it to poison wildlife, including bald and golden eagles. Id. According to the 

Petitioners, in 1991, the FWS, and the EPA raided the offices of the Wyoming Department 
29 

of Agriculture. Id. The FWS subsequently engaged in a law enforcement action that led to 

several convictions. Id. at 23. 

The Petitioners also claim that in 2001, approximately 20 pets were poisoned by 

Compound 1080 in Grand Junction, Colorado, and the investigating police officer, David 

Palacios, who handled the poisoned animals, experienced “flu like symptoms, only 10 

times worse.” Id. The Grand Junction and Federal investigators were never able to 

apprehend the culprit. Id. 

In addition, Petitioners assert that relying on livestock producers to dispose properly 

of Compound 1080 without any oversight by certified personnel, presents potential 

problems including the theft or improper disposal that could cause intentional or 

unintentional human poisoning to occur. Id. Petitioners note livestock producers who have 

been trained by licensed applicators are expected to incinerate or bury everything that has 

come into contact with Compound 1080. Id. at 22. Those that bury the toxicant must do so 

under less than three feet of soil. Id. at 23. The burial site is supposed to be one-half mile 

from human habituation and away from water sources; no more than 10 collars can be 

buried at one site and the sites must be ten feet apart from each other. Id. The Petitioners 

point to the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report to emphasize that not even the 

federal government itself can be relied upon to maintain proper control over these 

dangerous toxicants. Id. According to Petitioners, because contamination to soil, water, 

and species from improperly stored or disposed Compound 1080 is likely, the use of 1080 

LPCs poses foreseeable imminent hazards and adverse effects to the environment under 

FIFRA. Id. at 23. 

2. Stakeholder Comments

APHIS WS comments that it provides guidelines for storage, disposal, 

recordkeeping requirements, and the safe and effective use of pesticides in the APHIS WS 

program. Ref. 20 at 7. APHIS WS activities must be in compliance with all federal, state, 

and local laws and regulations pertaining to pesticide applications, including certification 

requirements before using, transporting, shipping, disposing, supervising, or recommending 

the use of restricted use pesticides. Id. APHIS WS notes before using any pesticide, 

APHIS WS personnel are trained in its proper and safe use. Id. 

 APHIS WS describes its accountability and oversight of pesticides, which includes 

use of the computer based Controlled Materials Inventory Tracking System (CMITS) to 

track inventories, including acquisition, transfers, and disposal of materials such as the M44 and LPC. Id. at 1. APHIS WS commented that it has worked closely with the OIG to 

refine the accountability process and has implemented management directives that ensure 

compliance through quarterly and annual inventories and reporting. Id. Additionally, 

APHIS WS’ Management Information System (MIS) is a computerized database system 

used to record and track pesticide application, animals taken, and other activities. Id. This 

system allows tracking of the number of LPCs applied, punctured by predators and other 

causes, damaged for other reasons, and lost. Id. 
30 

 APHIS WS also describes its directive, APHIS WS Directive 2.465 (1/2/08), 

“Accountability and Oversight of Hazardous Materials,” which directs the review of 

inventories by various levels of management, including State, Regional, and Headquarters 

personnel. Id. at 15. APHIS WS reported that users of hazardous materials must conduct 

and reconcile the quarterly physical inventory. Id. Also, according to APHIS WS, at least 

one annual physical inventory inspection is conducted by the hazardous material user and 

one reviewing official. Id. In addition, APHIS WS describes directive, APHIS WS 

Directive 2.401 (1/2/08), “Pesticide Use”, which provides guidelines for storage, disposal, 

recordkeeping requirements, and the safe and effective use of pesticides in the APHIS WS 

program. Id. at 16. The Directive’s attachment, “Standard for Storing Pesticides”, 

provides standards for the safe storage, transportation, and disposal of pesticides to ensure a 

safe worksite for employees and the public and to appropriately define a pesticide 

inventory and its contents. Id. 

Conservation Northwest commented that despite the 1080 LPC label restrictions, 

1080 LPCs continues to be misused in the U.S. and poorly monitored. See 

www.regulations.gov (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-0698). According to 

Conservation Northwest, documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) show that federal and state governments have a poor record of monitoring and 

recording the use of 1080 LPCs. Id. Commenters refer to a 1995 report by the Texas 

Center for Policy Studies concluding that the Texas Department of Agriculture had 

consistently failed to enforce use restrictions for 1080 LPCs and did not conduct mandatory 

inspections of LPC users. Id. In addition, Conservation Northwest allege that EPA reports 

indicate that more than twice as many collars have been lost and damaged than were 

punctured by coyotes in a number of states were the 1080 LPCs are used. Id. 

Predator Defense provided supplemental information regarding a 1989 Wyoming 

incident mentioned by the Petitioners. See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQOPP-2007-0851). According to Predator Defense, in 1990, FWS conducted an 

investigation now referred to as the “Wyoming Sting” that uncovered evidence that the 

illegal trade of Compound 1080 was common among APHIS WS agents. Id. FWS agents 

placed an ad in Wyoming Woolgrower magazine for a covert company offering “the 

private approach” to predator control. Id. One of the owners listed was Nick Koustralakos, 

the cover name of special agent Don McKenna. Id. Some ranchers invited McKenna’s 

“company” to visit them and see what could be done about “those damn government 

crows.” Id. During these visits, McKenna was shown a dozen dead eagles that had been 

poisoned by ranchers and he was told of 50 more such poisonings. Id. According to 

Predator Defense, the Wyoming Department of Agriculture official responsible for 

certifying individuals to use restricted poisoning sold illegal raw poisons from safes at the 

State lab to McKenna. Id. FWS raided the Wyoming Department of Agriculture in 1991, 

and the reverberations are still being felt. According to Predator Defense, there is a 

widespread belief by FWS special agents that a black market for Compound 1080 still 

exists. Id. 

Additional comments were received from D.C. Jones, a private citizen, referring to 

citation describing a 1080 LPC use study. Ref. 3. According to Mr. Jones: 
31 

As an example of apparent bias that should concern the EPA, refer to a 

paper titled, Efficacy of Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars 

for Killing Coyotes that Attack Sheep by G. Connolly and R. Burns of 

APHIS, which was included in the Proceedings of the Fourteenth 

Vertebrate Pest Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska,1990. This paper 

concludes The LP Collar is a safe, effective, and selective technique 

for removing coyotes that attack sheep.” The word selective implies 

that only target animals are killed... The experiment in question was 

conducted in the late 1970's under an EPA permit and with EPA 

funding. Collars were placed on 68 sheep on ranches located in 

Montana and Idaho. According to the researchers, coyotes punctured 

32 of the 68 collars, and an additional eight collars were punctured on 

fences, thorns or brush. Additionally two collars were lost, apparently 

"carried away or cached by coyotes". The first field trial ended early 

"because the collars leaked so badly". (The authors state that leakage 

was significantly reduced in later collars, but no data is presented.) 

The researchers stated that all coyotes that punctured collars 

"probably" died, even though only three dead coyotes were ever 

located. Even though APHIS [WS] was unable to locate and examine 

roughly 90% of the coyotes they believe were killed, the authors state 

emphatically that the collars were both safe and selective. This raises a 

number of questions that the EPA should examine. How did the 

researchers determine that scavengers such as foxes, magpies, ravens, 

and eagles were not exposed to 1080 if the poisoned coyote carcasses 

themselves were never located? What were the environmental impacts 

from the 1080 that spilled from the eight collars that were punctured 

accidentally? What happened to the toxins in the two collars that were 

never located? Were these two collars just "lost" or could they have 

been stolen or otherwise subverted? (Compound 1080 is reported to 

have significant value on the "black market" for illegal wildlife 

control, and recently some observers have suggested that it may pose a 

terrorism risk). See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP2007-0738). 

 3. EPA Response

EPA is not aware of any 1080 LPC poisonings other than the Petitioners’ two cited 

incidents, which do not seem to have involved registered 1080 LPC use, but involved 

illegally stockpiled or trafficked Compound 1080. However, even assuming those 

incidents involved the registered 1080 LPC use, EPA believes APHIS WS’ reported recent 

improvement of its tracking and storage systems in response to the OIG audit has reduced 

the likelihood that individuals will be able to obtain Compound 1080 illegally from APHIS 

WS. The Agency does not believe that past or potential illegal Compound 1080 poisonings 

are likely to be more than isolated events. EPA also generally believes it is more 

appropriate, in the first instance, to address isolated illegal acts through appropriate 
32 

enforcement action and education rather than cancellation of the 1080 LPC registered 

under FIFRA. 

In addition, EPA does not believe that relying on livestock producers to dispose 

properly of Compound 1080 presents a significant risk of exposure to Compound 1080. 

EPA finds no evidence of incidents arising from improper disposal, and the Petitioners do 

not identify any incidents that have occurred from these causes. In the absence of 

supporting evidence, the speculative possibility of ranchers or applicators improperly 

disposing of livestock protection collars does not warrant cancellation of the registration. 

Moreover, the use of 1080 LPCs is very limited nationwide. Considering such use, EPA 

believes that it is unlikely that environmental contamination from Compound 1080 is likely 

to be a significant problem in the future. 

F. Petitioners Assert there are few Benefits of M-44 and 1080 LPC Use 

1. Petitioners’ Claims

The Petitioners claim that the risks of using M-44 and 1080 LPC far exceed the 

derived benefits. According to the Petitioners, APHIS WS kills a small portion of 

predators with M-44 and 1080 LPC. Of the 101,225 mammalian carnivores killed in 2004, 

11,872 were killed with M-44s and 45 were killed with 1080 LPCs. The total killed by M44s and 1080 LPCs were 12% and 0.04% respectively. Ref. 15 at 1. Because of these 

statistics, the Petitioners assert that benefits to livestock producers of using these toxicants 

are low, while the risks and costs to people and wildlife (including endangered wildlife) are 

high. Id. 

Second, Petitioners claim predators kill only a fraction of the nation’s livestock and 

many more livestock die unintentionally from weather problems or health problems. Id. at 

25. According to the Petitioners, mammalian carnivores killed 0.18% of the total U.S. 

cattle production in 2005 and 3% of the sheep production in 2004. Id. The Petitioners 

assert in comparison, nearly 4% of cattle and 5% of sheep died from non-predator causes 

(illness, dehydration, falling on their backs or other causes). Id. 

Third, the Petitioners claim that the U.S. sheep industry has been in dramatic 

decline over the past 20 years and fluctuations in the sheep industry are tied to labor and 

hay prices, not predation on livestock by coyotes and other carnivores. Id. at 25 – 26. The 

Petitioners note that the number of sheep and lambs in Colorado has decreased to 360,000 

in 2004 compared with 690,000 in 1984 from a high of 840,000 in 1890. Id. at 26. 

Petitioners assert that even APHIS WS admits, “the sheep and wool market had declined 

making it uneconomical to raise sheep" Id. 

Fourth, the Petitioners argue large-scale predator eradications are biologically 

expensive, inherently non-selective, and are not effective and therefore provide no benefits. 

Id. at 27. According to the Petitioners, one study found no correlation between the 

numbers of coyotes killed and the number of lambs lost. Id. The Petitioners argue that 

lethal predator controls are socially and biologically expensive and do little to benefit the 
33 

sheep industry. Id. The Petitioners argue that traps, snares and poison bates often attract 

younger coyotes, not the older ones that are usually implicated in livestock depredations. 

Id. at 9. Petitioners also note that several biologists have expressed their skepticism about 

the current course and efficacy of lethal predator controls that involve millions of dollars 

and tens of millions of animals. Id. Petitioners claim that APHIS WS’ approach to 

predator control is blanket, indiscriminate and wasteful, and relies on lethal methods that 

do not even pretend to capture the “single offending animal.” Id. Petitioners further claim 

that APHIS WS kills many animals that were never involved in livestock conflicts. Id. 

Fifth, Petitioners note when humans exploit coyote populations, these canids adapt 

by utilizing various breeding strategies such as producing more pups or increasing the 

number of females that breed in a population; thus underscoring the need for APHIS WS to 

use more non-lethal controls. Id. at 35. The Petitioners cite many unanticipated 

consequences from coyote control. Id. 

• Where coyotes have been controlled, ingress of coyotes from outside the control 

area will replace killed coyotes and the ratio of males to females will increase. 

After control actions, there may be an initial decrease in coyote population 

density, but the density may then promptly increase by the ingress of solitary 

coyotes or infusion from neighboring packs. Id.

• Coyote control may result in the reproductive release of reproductively 

suppressed females, as follows: in unexploited coyote populations, coyotes have 

tight social networks in which only the alpha pair of coyotes breed. Subordinate 

individuals in the pack do not breed likely due to the type of behavioralphysiological suppression found in other mammals showing such reproductive 

skew. With exploitation, this reproductive repression disintegrates, and more 

coyotes within a social group will consequently breed. Id.

• Knowlton et al. found that unexploited populations of coyotes tend to have older 

family structures characterized by lower reproductive rates than exploited 

populations. The latter group is likely to be characterized by younger adult 

members and larger numbers of breeding members with increased litter sizes. 

Id.

• Coyote control can result in a smaller group size, which increases the amount of 

food per coyote and decreased intra-species competition. This increased ration 

of food per coyote leads to higher litter survival rates, as the increase in the 

availability of food improves conditions of breeding females. Pups 

consequently enjoy increased birth weights and increased survival rates. Id.

• Other researches found low yearling reproduction, low litter size and high pup 

mortality on their study site, where they describe exploitations levels as light. 

An increased rate of pup survival increases the need for more food for pups, 

which may alter coyote forage and predation patterns. Id.

 Sixth, the Petitioners assert that the EPA’s analysis must also consider socioeconomic benefits when doing its risk benefits analysis. Id. at 27. The Petitioners stress 

that the definition of cost benefit and socio-economic analysis is entirely different. Id. The 

former refers to the value of the ratio of costs to benefits, while the latter refers to the 
34 

effects to society, for example what benefit society derives when the federal government 

kills predators in a specific region. Id. 

The benefits the Petitioners want the EPA to consider include ecosystem services 

including pure air, clean water, intact soils and healthy plant communities. Id. The 

Petitioners claim that APHIS WS has done little to benefit ecosystem health; instead 

APHIS WS contributes to habitat dysfunction because it kills so many species, especially 

top-level carnivores, and thus increases prey species. Id. at 9. The Petitioners claim 

without carnivores in their habitats, ecosystems can fail to function and the number of 

species in those ecosystems can decline. Id. 

According to Petitioners, coyotes play a keystone role in the ecosystem they inhabit 

from preventing mesopredators (housecats, skunks, raccoons) from killing ground-nesting 

squirrels, to creating species richness and diversity, to protecting kit fox from red foxes. Id. 

at 34-35. Moreover, Petitioners claim the destruction of coyote territories, through killing 

programs may make endangered species and other sensitive species more vulnerable to 

disease or to other predators. Id. at 35. 

Additionally, the Petitioners note that people have complex perceptions about 

wildlife. Id. at 5. Petitioners claim that according to DOI, those values translate into 

hundreds of billions of dollars annually through the spending of wildlife watchers, anglers 

and hunters. Id. at 25. The Petitioners argue in contrast that the sheep industry benefits 

only a handful of people. Id. The Petitioners argue ranching is “a drop in the bucket” 

compared to funds spent on wildlife watching in Colorado. Id. at 28. According to 

Petitioners, DOI and FWS reported that in the U.S. in 2001, 13 million people hunted, 34.1 

million fished, and 66.1 million people were wildlife watchers. Id. In their Colorado 

specific report, FWS found that wildlife watchers spent $624 million, and hunters and 

anglers participated greatly in Colorado’s economy. Id. Moreover, the Petitioners assert 

that Colorado cannot begin to compare its wildlife watching with that of Wyoming or 

Montana, which benefit from having a suite of native carnivores. Id. In contrast, the 

Petitioners claim APHIS WS spent $101,460,740 killing wildlife, which the Petitioners’ 

claim is a contradiction of values. Id. 

2. Stakeholder Comments

APHIS WS notes that on average, nearly one-fifth (19%) of all coyotes taken by 

APHIS WS nationally each year were taken with M-44s. Ref. 20 at 19. APHIS WS writes 

that the value of M-44s in states where it is registered and in situations where predation 

management is essential, is not measured by the percentage or number of coyotes taken, 

but the effectiveness in resolving depredation problems. Id. According to APHIS WS, the 

Petitioners are incorrect when they claim that a “low” percentage of coyotes taken by M44s indicate its lesser value. Id. Importance is related to the degree to which the tool can be 

incorporated into the overall IPM approach: its selectivity, safety, and effectiveness in 

particular circumstances. Id. Therefore, APHIS WS believes that the M-44 and 1080 LPC 

are effective methods and important for use by APHIS WS personnel. Id. 
35 

According to APHIS WS, predation is a large problem for livestock operations. 

APHIS WS notes that according to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, in 

2004, predators killed 29,800 sheep and 155,000 goats worth $18 million and $16 million 

respectively. Id. at 47. In 2005, predators killed 197,000 head of cattle valued at $55 

million. Id. at 48. These losses occurred despite predation management efforts being 

conducted by APHIS WS, or the sheep producer. Predations rates would have been much 

higher had predation management not been conducted. Id. at 47. 

 

APHIS WS asserts that the sheep and cattle industries are still important economic 

industries that benefit many Americans. Id. at 45. APHIS WS lists three main operations 

that benefit from the use of 1080 LPCs and M-44s. These include sheep and lamb; goat; 

and range beef cattle and calf operations. Id. Although the number of sheep operations has 

declined over the last 20 years, the industry has been quite constant since 1998. Id. at 47. 

Sheep operations are still quite important in the US. The industry is locally and regionally 

significant in many parts of the country. Id. The cattle and calf industry is also still very 

important in the US. Over the previous 20 years, the number of individual cattle and calves 

has only decreased by 8%. Id. at 48. 

APHIS WS also notes that certain individual livestock producers suffer 

disproportionately higher losses than what is reflected in industry-wide averages and 

maintaining the availability of adequate management tools is a more serious issue for those 

producers. Id. at 49.

APHIS WS claims there is considerable evidence that predation damage 

management including the use of M-44s and 1080 LPCs to protect livestock is both 

effective in preventing livestock predation and cost effective. Id. According to APHIS 

WS, a detailed economic analysis of APHIS WS’ predator damage management program 

was conducted by USDA in the APHIS WS programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). Id. APHIS WS asserts that in 1997, USDA concluded that benefits, in 

terms of avoided sheep and lamb losses plus price benefits to consumers was 2.4 times the 

cost of providing APHIS WS predation management services for sheep protection in the 16 

Western states. Id. APHIS WS claims that sheep and lamb losses are generally lower 

where predation management is applied. Id. at 50. 

According to APHIS WS, total take (combined APHIS WS take and harvest by 

sportsmen) is estimated to be less than 25% of the coyote population, which is less than 

half of the take level determined to be sustainable for coyote populations. Id. at 26. 

APHIS WS NEPA analyses have found that cumulative coyote take in predation damage 

management programs by APHIS WS and the public along with sport harvest and other 

known take has not affected this species’ population at the statewide or local level (e.g., 

APHIS WS 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007). Id. 

 

APHIS WS recognizes that native wildlife, including predators, have positive 

values to society and the environment. Id. at 51. APHIS WS environmental assessments 

have concluded that the cumulative take of predators by APHIS WS and others has not 

significantly affected any population, thus “ecosystem services” provided by predator 
36 

populations have not been significantly impacted by APHIS WS. Id. APHIS WS believes 

that aesthetic appreciation is not impacted by these devices either. Id. at 37. APHIS WS 

notes that its predation damage management activities occur on a relatively limited portion 

of the total area in any state (generally less than 10% of the land acreage in a state), and the 

portion of various predator species’ populations removed through APHIS WS activities is a 

low percentage, usually less than 5%. Id. at 36. According to APHIS WS, opportunities to 

view, hear, or see evidence of predators would still be available over the vast majority of 

land areas of the states since APHIS WS conducts predation management on a small 

proportion of land area, and often on private property where the public would not typically 

be present or interact with wildlife. Id. APHIS WS also commented that in localized areas 

where APHIS WS removes some portion of the predator population, dispersal of predators 

from adjacent areas typically contributes to repopulation of the area within a few weeks to 

a year, depending on the level of predator removal and predator population levels in nearby 

areas. Id. 

In addition, according to APHIS WS, most of the species potentially affected by 

APHIS WS predation management activities are relatively abundant, but are not commonly 

observed because many of these species are secretive and nocturnal. Id. at 36. APHIS WS 

notes that opportunities for observing or hearing certain predator species in some localized 

areas could be temporarily reduced because of APHIS WS predator damage management, 

but because there is already a low likelihood of seeing a predator, this temporary local 

reduction in public viewing opportunity would not likely be noticeable in most cases. Id. 

The impact of APHIS WS predation management on overall predator populations is 

minimal. Id. 

The Montana Stockgrowers State Grazing District commented that the Petitioners 

misrepresented the economic impacts predators have on the livestock industry. See 

www.regulations.gov (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-0359). According to this 

commenter: 

In Montana in 2005, coyotes accounted for losses to sheep and lambs 

equaling 10,100 head. In 2006, those losses increased to 11,500 head. 

The value of that livestock is $745,000, in each of those years. The 

petitioners state, “Predators kill only a fraction of the nation’s 

livestock. In Montana, 11,000 head of animals and nearly a million 

dollars a year is a significant economic impact to our industry. Without 

the use of M-44’s and Compound 1080, those losses have the potential 

to become much higher. Our organizations dispute the claim, “Despite 

decades of predator control, which has resulted in more than 5 million

deaths of predators in the last six decades, lethal predator controls do 

not benefit sheep growers.” For livestock producers, experience 

shows, without predator controls, the losses would be much greater. Id. 

The West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture commented that according to the trained 

professionals that administer the program in West Virginia, these devices are responsible 

for greater than 70% of the coyotes taken each year throughout the state, and their use is 
37 

imperative. See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-0135). These 

commenters stated that the elimination of these compounds would lead to a decrease in 

capacity of the predator management program to serve farmers and ranchers in exactly 

those areas where help is needed the most. Id. These commenters also referred to data 

gathered in West Virginia by the West Virginia University Cooperative Extension Service 

indicating that greater than 50% of the sheep and lamb producers who have left the 

business did so because of the hardships created by coyote predation. Id. 

 

3. EPA Response

EPA believes that the uses of M-44 and 1080 LPC have significant benefits. 

Predation is typically variable and depends on a variety of factors including terrain, 

vegetation, pasture location and size, flock size, predator abundance, prevalence of the 

predator’s natural prey, choice of prey control measures, and the uniqueness of each 

livestock operation. Some alternative predation management methods do not work well in 

some regions of the country (e.g., where terrain or weather makes trapping difficult). See 

Ref. 30 (describing EPA’s full qualitative benefits and alternative analysis). 

Livestock prematurely die from many causes; however, predation accounts for a 

significant portion of premature livestock losses. In the U.S., sheep and goats are subject to 

predation by mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, dogs, bobcats, lynxes, bears and to a lesser 

extent, foxes, eagles, ravens and vultures. Sheep are especially vulnerable to predation 

because they have no effective means of protecting themselves. In 2004, out of an 

estimated 6.1 million sheep and lambs, approximately 66,300 sheep and 157,800 lambs 

were lost to predators. Id. Those numbers represents 37.3% of reported sheep and lamb 

deaths for that year. Id. Coyotes and dogs, respectively, accounted for 51.7% and 22.7% 

of the reported sheep and lamb losses to predators. Id. Cattle suffer relatively lower rates 

of predation than sheep as they are larger and better able to defend themselves. However, 

given the number of U.S. cattle relative to the combined number of sheep and goats, the 

absolute number of cattle lost to coyote predation is similar to losses in sheep and of much 

greater value. Losses of cattle to coyotes were valued at $43.9 million in 2005. Id. 

Although Petitioners are correct in their assertion that more sheep, goats and cattle 

die from causes other than predators, EPA finds these losses irrelevant to this benefits 

assessment. The impact of cancelling M-44s and LPCs would be the added cost of sheep, 

goat and calf loss that could have been avoided or reduced if the producer would have had 

access to either of these predacides in a predation management program. 

Market forces may have played a larger role in the U.S. sheep industry’s decline 

than predators; however, the sheep and goat industry is still an important part of the United 

States economy. Dozens of products are derived from sheep with the most common being 

meat, wool, and dairy products. In addition to the value of meat, wool and dairy products, 

sheep and goat production engender other benefits to the U.S. economy. For example, one 

2008 study estimated the total economic impact of the sheep industry associated with 

supply chain, incomes received by employees, expenditures on goods and services 

provided to consumers and the “ripple effect” in a community. Ref. 17. The study found 
38 

that for every $1.00 of lamb produced resulted in an additional $1.80 to the local economy. 

Id. Furthermore, for every 25 jobs created in the sheep industry, 10 jobs are created in 

associated industries. Id. Dairy goats have proven to be a vital industry with an estimated 

one million head of dairy goats in the U.S. producing 50 million kg of milk annually. Ref. 

16. 

 

EPA believes M-44s and 1080 LPCs are effective in reducing predation on 

livestock. In one study, 86% of sheep producers sampled in Oregon found that taking 

coyotes with M-44s provided at least some alleviation from predation. Guthrey and 

Beasom (1978) found that in terms of capture/pull rates, M-44s were the third most 

effective predatory control. Ref. 6. The two alternatives found most effective were leg 

hold traps and cable snares. Comments submitted to the Agency also indicate that while 

some livestock producers do not use M-44s or 1080 LPCs, others consider them essential to 

the viability of their operations. Furthermore, M-44s are not the only predation 

management methods used on an operation. Producers rely on a variety of predator control 

techniques, which include lethal and nonlethal methods. When predation is high, many 

producers have found the M-44 device to be effective and convenient, especially when 

aerial hunting is impractical due to heavy plant cover or when freezing conditions preclude 

traps and snares. 

EPA does agree with Petitioners that although the M-44 ejector is very specific to 

canids, it cannot discriminate between coyotes that prey on sheep, goats and cattle and 

those that do not. However, with the exception of denning, hunting, and LPCs, alternative 

lethal control methods (trapping, snaring, e.g.) are less selective than M-44s in terms of 

taking non-target species. Traps and snares are more likely than M-44s to affect species 

other than canids. The EPA also believes that if M-44s and 1080 LPCs were cancelled, 

producers would likely rely more heavily on traps and snares than non-lethal alternatives. 

EPA does not believe that the numbers of coyotes taken with M-44 and 1080 LPC 

have a large enough impact on coyote populations to alter breeding strategies or other 

behaviors, except in localized situations. M-44 use only results in 19% of all coyote takes 

by APHIS and 1080 LPC use results in less than 1% of all of APHIS WS’ reported coyote 

take. These percentages are relatively low considering the large amount of coyote takes 

from private hunting. Considering the small amount of coyote deaths caused by M-44s and 

1080 LPCs, EPA does not believe that continued M-44 and 1080 LPC use will affect 

coyote populations significantly enough to result in coyotes changing their breeding 

strategy (e.g. increased litter size). Since ranchers will pursue the use of other lethal 

alternatives for predator control, if M-44 and 1080 LPC were not available, the EPA 

believes the requested cancellation would not have any impact on coyote population. 

EPA recognizes the benefits of wildlife but does not believe that the use of M-44s 

and 1080 LPCs significantly affect ecological benefits such as clean air or water or 

economic benefits resulting from recreational activities such as wildlife watching, angling 

and hunting. An average of only 5% of takes with M-44s are non-target species. The 

remainder of all M-44 takes are coyotes, red foxes, gray foxes, and feral dogs. These target 

species are abundant in the environment. Small fractions of their population are apparently 
39 

taken with either M-44 or LPCs, the latter of which takes coyotes almost exclusively. 

Therefore, EPA does not find that the use of these pesticides has an impact on target or 

non-target species sufficient to affect ecosystem services or wildlife recreation. 

While the benefits of predator control may be overstated by some, the Agency does 

not agree that predator control programs generally have no benefits. More important, EPA 

finds compelling the comments by supporters of the M-44s and 1080 LPCs that, in certain 

targeted circumstances, the M-44 and the 1080 LPC are effective in reducing livestock 

predation and provide significant benefits to ranchers in such circumstances. 

G. Petitioners Assert That Alternatives To Use of M-44 and 1080 LPC are 

Sufficient to Control Predation 

1. Petitioners’ claims

According to the Petitioners, non-lethal methods of predator control can be very 

effective in reducing livestock losses and therefore the use of M-44 and 1080 LPC have 

little benefit. Moreover, the Petitioners assert that there are few economic incentives to use 

non-lethal controls because the producers enjoy highly subsidized lethal predator controls. 

Ref. 15 at 30. 

According to the Petitioners, by failing to assist livestock growers with alternative 

non-lethal controls, APHIS WS is perpetuating the necessity of its lethal program and the 

subsequent unsafe use of toxicants. Id. The Petitioners claim that in Marin County, 

California, commissioners stopped their appropriations to APHIS WS and instead invested 

$40,000 per year in non-lethal alternatives such as fences, bells, and guard animals for 

ranchers. Id. The Petitioners claim that after five years, the ranchers experienced a 2.2% 

loss of sheep in comparison to a 5% loss under APHIS WS. Id. The Petitioners assert that 

this case study shows that long-term non-lethal controls can be more effective, safer and 

less controversial than the lethal approach. Id. 

The Petitioners list a variety of non-lethal techniques to protect livestock including 

human herders, guard animals, bonding sheep with cattle, concentrating sheep into small 

areas, bringing sheep into barns or sheds during lambing, synchronizing birthing of lambs 

with wild prey species, scaring devices, and removing livestock carcasses. Id. 

2. Stakeholders comments

APHIS WS believes that continued registration of M-44s and 1080 LPCs is critical 

to integrated pest management programs to reduce predation on livestock. Ref. 20 at 47. 

APHIS WS asserts that it applies Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM), 

which encompasses the integration and application of many approved methods for wildlife 

damage prevention, and management. Id. at 58. According to APHIS WS, their National 

Wildlife Research Center is the only research center in the world that is dedicated solely to 

research on methods to alleviate wildlife damage and about 75% of its total research 

funding has been directed toward nonlethal methods development. Id. at 9. 
40 

APHIS WS describes the methods used in IWDM fall under three categories: 

resource management, physical exclusion and wildlife management. Id. at 10. APHIS WS 

noted that Resource Management includes a variety of practices that may be used by 

agriculture producers and other resource owners to reduce their exposure to predator losses. 

Id. According to APHIS WS, resource management techniques are usually not conducted 

operationally by APHIS WS, but usually implemented by producers, and can be very 

effective. Id. APHIS WS lists resource management techniques including habitat 

management, animal husbandry techniques (e.g., use of herders, night penning, and shifting 

breeding schedule), guard animals, and modification of human behavior (e.g., eliminate 

wildlife feeding and handling, and calm irrational fears of predators attacking people). Id.

at 12. 

APHIS WS commented that physical exclusion methods restrict the access of 

wildlife to resources. Id. According to APHIS WS, these methods can provide effective 

prevention of wildlife damage in many situations. Id. APHIS WS noted that physical 

exclusion methods, though, can restrict animal travel for many species of wildlife and must 

be considered carefully. Id. Physical exclusion methods include “predator-proof” fencing 

and netting. Id. APHIS WS comments these can be effective for long-term management in 

particular situations and are mostly implemented by producers. Id. 

APHIS WS commented that Wildlife Management techniques are varied, and the 

objective of this approach is to alter the behavior of, or repel, the target species, remove 

specific individuals from the population, reduce or suppress local population densities, or 

extirpate exotic species populations in order to eliminate or reduce the potential for loss or 

damage to resources. Id. Wildlife management techniques to reduce predation include 

frightening devices (e.g., the Electronic Guard, propane cannons, pyrotechnics, harassment 

shooting, auditory stimuli such as people talking and barking dogs, bright lights, and strobe 

lights), and capture and take or relocation methods (trapping, snaring, shooting, the use of 

chemical pesticides such as the M-44, LPC, and gas cartridge, and the use of chemical 

immobilization and euthanasia drugs). Id. 

APHIS WS asserts that many nonlethal techniques are only practical for smaller 

areas, and can be effective for only short periods of time because predators habituate to 

them. Id. at 11. Nebraska WS conducted surveys in 1994 to determine the number of 

producers using different nonlethal methods and found that most livestock producers were 

using one or more methods to reduce predator losses. Id. According to APHIS WS, the 

Government Accountability Office reported that “[a]lthough nonlethal methods sometimes 

suffice, in other instances they do not effectively deter predators or may only postpone 

predation” and that in some instances, “nonlethal methods also pose problems,” such as

habituation, costliness, and low or short-lived effectiveness. Id. APHIS WS agrees that 

use of livestock guarding dogs by sheep producers has been proven effective in preventing 

at least some predation losses. Id. at 13. APHIS WS also noted that use of guard dogs is 

generally perceived as a selective form of nonlethal predator management, although guard 

dogs may also cause deaths of target and non-target animals. Id. APHIS WS referred to a 

study authored by Timm and Schmidt, who documented that guard dogs in their study 
41 

regularly killed deer fawns, and anecdotal evidence from APHIS WS personnel and 

livestock producers suggests that guard dogs sometimes kill coyote and red fox pups as 

well as deer fawns and elk calves. Id. APHIS WS also agrees with Petitioners that llamas 

have been advocated as effective livestock guarding animals, but some degree of non-target 

hazard may exist from the use of llamas for this purpose. Id. APHIS WS commented that 

llamas are sometimes carriers of paratuberculosis (Johne’s disease) which may be 

transmissible to native ungulates or domestic livestock. Id. Fencing of livestock pastures 

may inhibit big game movement, resulting in restricted migration and possibly death 

through starvation. Id. Increased husbandry practices may temporarily decrease livestock 

depredations, but could increase anxiety in the livestock, resulting in lower birth rates and 

increased abandonment of young, which then starve. Id. 

Moreover, APHIS WS asserts that their personnel are frequently contacted only 

after requesters have tried nonlethal techniques and found them to be inadequate for 

reducing damage to acceptable levels. Id. at 9. According to APHIS WS, sheep and cattle 

producers frequently implement nonlethal methods to reduce predator losses. Id. National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveys estimated that sheep producers spent $9.8 

million in 2004, and cattle producers spent $199.1 million in 2005 on non-lethal methods to 

protect their livestock from predators. Id. The most common methods included fencing, 

guard animals, night penning, and shed lambing. Id. 

APHIS WS notes that they recognize that the decision to implement lethal predator 

damage reduction activities is a serious professional responsibility. Id. APHIS WS 

comments that lethal control can foster the coexistence between people and wildlife, and 

has a legitimate role in wildlife management but that lethal control must be undertaken 

with care. Id. According to APHIS WS, they use a Decision Model to determine the 

appropriate damage management methods to implement based on several factors including 

species responsible, magnitude, geographical extent, frequency, historical damage and 

duration of the problem, status of target and non-target species, environmental conditions, 

potential biological, physical, economic, and social impacts, potential legal restrictions and 

costs of damage management options. Id. APHIS WS comments that their personnel 

consider the costs associated with implementing a particular method, but also consider 

other factors based on social and professional values, legal factors, species, and location 

and so on. Id. 

In addition, APHIS WS reviewed the Petitioners’ Marin County, California 

example, a nonlethal plan to address predation on sheep initiated in October 2000 that 

replaced the APHIS WS program that had previously operated there. Id. at 13. According 

to APHIS WS, the County-administered Plan consisted of two parts: 1) cost share funds for 

ranch facilities improvements and nonlethal predatory control alternatives and 2) 

indemnification payments for predator-caused losses of sheep. Id. APHIS WS notes that 

Marin County recognized 29 commercial sheep ranchers with 7,500 head of sheep in the 

original program. According to APHIS WS, not every livestock producer in the county 

participated. Data for this nonlethal/indemnity payment program were provided to APHIS 

WS from the Marin County Commissioner’s Office for two years: 2001 and 2002. Id. 

According to APHIS WS, the cost of a national replacement program, as proposed by the 
42 

Petitioners, was estimated, using predation trends, indemnification, participation, 

production, and reimbursements from two years of the Marin County Nonlethal Plan. Id. 

Projections of first and second year costs to conduct nonlethal, predation damage 

management programs nationwide, similar to the one conducted in Marin County, 

California, were developed for the protection of several categories of livestock. Id. 13 – 

14. According to APHIS WS, nationally, the total cost of a national livestock protection 

replacement program was determined at two different levels of predation for sheep and 

cattle. In Year 1, at a predation percentage of 1.5% for all sheep and a 1.0% predation 

percentage for all beef cattle, it would cost an estimated $300 million for a sheep and beef 

cattle protection replacement program nationwide. Id. at 14. In Year 2, at a 3.2% level of 

predation for sheep and a 1.5% level of predation for beef cattle, costs would rise to over 

$400 million annually. Id. 

Currently, according to APHIS WS, the annual cost of the livestock protection 

program conducted by APHIS WS to manage mammal predation nationwide is estimated at 

less than $20 million in Federal and Cooperative funds in 2006. Id. Thus, APHIS WS 

states that the program cost is between 5% and 10% of the estimated cost of a replacement 

program ($300 to $400 million). Id. Additionally, APHIS WS notes that the replacement 

program could include higher levels of the misuse of pesticides and other lethal methods by 

nonprofessionals and would likely not reduce predation on livestock to acceptable levels. 

Id. 

The New Mexico Federal Lands Council (NMFLC) comments that the M-44 device 

is necessary, especially in areas where vegetative cover precludes aerial hunting. See 

www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-0418). According to 

NMFLC, much of the grazing lands in New Mexico are an interspersion of grass and 

woody cover, and alternative control techniques are impractical. Id. In addition, NMFLC 

commented that the M-44 device is necessary where freezing soil conditions make foothold 

traps impractical. Id. 

The Wyoming Livestock Board comments that without these compounds, APHIS 

WS’ work would continue but with potential adverse impacts. See, www.regulations.gov 

(Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0719). According to the Livestock Board, in the absence 

of effective damage management, livestock losses to predation by coyotes could be two to 

three times more than current levels, estimated to be $16.3 million in losses to the sheep 

industry and $51 million in losses to the cattle industry. Id. They also noted that LPCs are 

valuable in removing specific depredating coyotes that have eluded removal by other 

methods. Id. The Livestock Board also described results from a National Wildlife 

Research Center economic study, which indicated that for every $1 California counties 

invest in APHIS WS they save between $6.50 and $10.00 in wildlife damage replacement 

program costs. Id. According to the Livestock Board, the National Agricultural Statistic 

Service has documented that farmers and ranchers routinely spend over $200 million a year 

on non-lethal methods, yet still suffer losses from predation. Id. 

3. EPA Response
43 

EPA does not believe either that non-lethal predator control measures are always as 

effective as lethal predator control measures or that it is likely that livestock producers 

would adopt non-lethal measures (instead of other lethal measures) if EPA were to grant 

the petition and cancel the M-44 and 1080 LPC registrations. It is worth mentioning again 

here that the petition does not ask EPA, and EPA does not have the authority, to prohibit 

non-pesticidal predator control programs or measures. 

EPA also disagrees that producers have little incentive to use non-lethal methods. 

EPA received many comments from producers who reported relying heavily on non-lethal 

methods, but who also noted that such methods can fail when predation pressures are high. 

EPA believes that non-lethal approaches can be effective in reducing predation; however, 

the effectiveness of such techniques varies with the characteristics of the livestock 

operation. A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of available alternatives to the use 

of M-44s and 1080 LPCs is presented below: 

• EPA believes guarding animals can be effective but they have certain limitations. 

Under the cover of darkness, and rough terrain, guard animals may not be able to 

attack coyotes. Moreover, guard animals such as llamas may not be able to 

distinguish between guard dogs and predating dogs. Moreover, guard animals have 

been known to attack herding dogs. In addition, the use of llamas is lower in 

southern climates because they are not adapted to hot and dry conditions and are 

susceptible to heat stress. 

• The presence of a herder is also effective but often the cost of employing a trained 

herder is often uneconomical for producers. 

• EPA has found that fencing sheep reduces predation; however, to be effective, the 

fences have to be coyote proof. The fences must not allow coyotes to go over, 

under or through them at any time. They also have to be inspected regularly in 

order to repair damaged sections or trim away vegetation that can be used by 

coyotes to bridge the fence. Maintenance costs are a major drawback for producers 

considering fencing. Fences are also impractical for large flocks, or where terrain is 

highly irregular. Fencing can also have negative ecological impacts because it can 

act as a barrier to many species and result in habitat fragmentation. 

• EPA believes sound and light devices also may deter predators especially at night. 

However, coyotes become habituated to these devices over time and eventually 

ignore them. 

• Night penning can also be effective, but it is not practical for large flocks. 

• Alternating lambing with coyote breeding times can also be effective, but EPA has 

found that a major drawback to this technique is that the estrus cycle of ewes must 

be artificially altered, and fall lambing may not be compatible with marketing 

concerns, or range and weather conditions. 
44 

EPA reviewed the Marin County study, which Petitioners cite to suggest that the 

non-lethal alternatives to M-44 and 1080 LPC are more effective for reducing predation on 

livestock nationally. Petitioners apparently did not consider the fact that during this 

program, ranchers could still use lethal measures, including hunting and trapping on their 

own land. In addition, recent research has shown that livestock losses have returned to 

levels before the program was implemented. Ref. 9. Moreover, studies suggest that costs 

to the County have increased under this new program, in part, because the County 

compensates ranchers for lost sheep at their market value. EPA also doubts that a program 

such as this one in Marin County could be extended to all other areas where sheep are 

raised in the U.S. EPA concludes that a program such as this one could only be effective 

with smaller flocks and smaller pastures on even terrain. However, these characteristics do 

not correspond to the mountain west and Texas where large flocks and large-area grazing 

are practiced. 

 Overall, EPA believes there are many methods that can be effective in reducing 

predation on livestock. However, a variety of conditions can make these alternatives 

impractical and the producer may then need to try lethal devices such as the M-44 or 1080 

LPC, to reduce predation. For the reasons above, EPA believes that despite the availability 

of alternatives, the use of M-44s and 1080 LPCs can provide important benefits. 

H. Petitioners Assert Discrepancies Between EPA and APHIS WS 

Records of M-44 Non-target Impacts 

1. Petitioners’ Claim

The Petitioners synthesized M-44 kill data from USDA APHIS WS and EPA 

incident data from 1998 – 2005. Ref. 13 at 1. The Petitioners claim there is a large 

discrepancy between EPA and USDA’s records. Id. The Petitioners requested EPA to 

explain the inconsistencies between USDA and EPA’s records. 

2. Stakeholder Comments

 According to Predator Defense, APHIS WS has made few reports of the poisonings 

to the public. See, www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0851). Predator 

Defense states that in 2000, Oregon Department of Agriculture pesticide inspectors 

demonstrated gross incompetence when they were provided detailed information and 

witnesses from Predator Defense regarding the poisoning of a dog in Estacada, Oregon. Id. 

Predator Defense asserts that Oregon State investigators never interviewed the witnesses, 

including teenagers and several children who were playing within feet of the M-44s. Id. 

Predator Defense believes that there is an inherent conflict of interest with state agriculture 

agencies, in this case, Oregon Department of Agriculture, who are required to make critical 

evaluations on cases. Id. 

 In addition, Predator Defense commented that there is no confidence in the 

reliability of the incident data APHIS WS provides. Id. According to Predator Defense, 

APHIS WS often does not refer information to the EPA at all or fails to provide details or 
45 

include reference numbers. Id. Predator Defense states that the lack of continuity and 

uniformity in APHIS WS’ reporting often results in confusion, delays, and omissions of 

reports. Id. 

3. EPA’s Response

This issue does not seem to be directly related to the question of whether the 

registrations should be canceled, but rather whether APHIS WS may have committed 

certain reporting violations under FIFRA, which could subject APHIS WS to potential 

enforcement action. EPA believes these allegations warrant investigation, and they are 

being referred to EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. EPA believes 

it would be inappropriate to comment further on these potential violations because they are 

part of potential enforcement activities. However, the Agency also intends to work with 

APHIS WS to ensure that APHIS WS understands its obligations under FIFRA section 

(6)(a)(2). 

I. Petitioners Assert M-44 and 1080 LPC Use Create Bioterrorism 

Concerns 

1. Petitioners’ claims

The Petitioners allege that sodium cyanide and Compound 1080 pose significant 

risks to people and the environment because these toxicants could be used as bioterrorism 

agents. Ref. 15 at 2. According to Petitioners, EPA should ban the manufacture and 

distribution of sodium cyanide for predator control and completely ban the manufacture 

and distribution of 1080 LPC at the earliest possible moment because APHIS WS failed 

two Federal audits concerning their handling of and accountability for lethal toxicants. Id. 

Petitioners state that in 2005 and 2006, USDA OIG released audits revealing that WS was 

not complying with regulations concerning the security of toxins, that it had not secured 

certain materials against access by unauthorized persons, that individuals did not have 

adequate training, and that inventories had not been maintained to prevent the illegal 

possession, transfer, or sale of these toxicants. Id. The Petitioners also cite a 2004 OIG 

report that found that APHIS WS: 

 WS [was] unable to fully account for its inventories of hazardous 

pesticides and controlled drugs and that these inventories are not 

always stored in a safe and secure manner...Therefore, hazardous 

materials remain vulnerable to undetected theft and unauthorized use 

and may pose a threat to human and animal safety. Id. at 16. 

In addition, Petitioners state that because APHIS WS cannot adequately safeguard 

the storage of sodium cyanide or even account for the transfer of these chemicals, the 

public is a risk of “imminent hazard” as contemplated by FIFRA. Id. 

 

2. Stakeholder Comments
46 

USDA APHIS WS describes several steps they have taken since the OIG audit to 

safeguard chemical storage, prevent unauthorized access, and improve tracking. These 

steps include execution of a national safety review, improvement of pesticide use, disposal 

and storage, implementation of a management tracking system, and the requirement of 

frequent, mandated inventories. Ref. 20 at 15. 

 First, APHIS WS describes a national safety review of its overall operational 

programs including hazardous materials. In this review, APHIS WS has retained 

independent contractors to conduct thorough reviews of APHIS WS pesticide and 

hazardous material operations and training programs. Id. APHIS WS asserts that field 

visits and inspections are underway and a final report was disseminated in FY 08. Id; See

“WS Program Safety Review” at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/. 

 

In addition, according to APHIS WS, its new directive, 2.401, “Pesticide Use” 

provides guidelines for storage, disposal, recordkeeping requirements, access to authorized 

personnel and the safe and effective use of pesticides in the WS program. Ref. 20 at 16. 

WS asserts that pesticide use, storage, and disposal conforms to label instructions and other 

regulations and laws, and WS personnel are trained in proper safety and use. Id. APHIS 

WS also notes that they received a Department of Homeland Security supplemental 

appropriation and expended $1,652,351 to upgrade the storage and security of hazardous 

materials. According to APHIS WS, this funding was used to acquire locking storage 

sheds or containers at all APHIS WS state and district offices and warehouses. Id. APHIS 

WS claims that all field employees who use pesticides have lockable boxes for transporting 

pesticides in their vehicles and lockable safes/vaults to store safely hazardous materials at 

their official duty station. Id. 

APHIS WS also claims they have improved chemical accounting and tracking by 

working closely with USDA OIG. Id. at 52. APHIS WS reports having implemented all of 

OIG’s audit recommendations through strengthened management controls and 

improvement in the program’s inventory process. Id.. WS believes they have strengthened 

tracking through the implementation of their comprehensive inventory accounting system 

called Control Materials Inventory Tracking System (CMITS) for hazardous materials that 

they use in wildlife damage management. Id.. According to APHIS WS, CMITS allows 

APHIS WS to account fully for all inventories by documenting acquisition, transfer, and 

disposal of materials within all states. Id. APHIS WS claims their hazardous materials 

management system is rigorous and responsive to program needs and is accountable to OIG 

and other government wide policies and requirements Id.

Finally, APHIS WS asserts that management controls are in place to ensure APHIS 

WS performs periodic inventories of hazardous pesticides and controlled drugs. According 

to WS, they have issued multiple directives to provide direction for staff regarding 

inventories of hazardous materials. Id at 15. APHIS WS Directive 2.465, “Accountability 

and Oversight of Hazardous Materials,” directs the review of inventories by various levels 

of management and requires users of hazardous materials to conduct and reconcile 

quarterly physical inventory. Id. WS asserts that all inventories are reviewed by the 

immediate supervisor within 14 days of receipt of the inventory; and discrepancies are 
47 

corrected and accounted for within 30 days. Id. at 16. APHIS WS claims that their policy 

requires annual inventory reports that accurately list amounts of pesticide products on hand 

in every state. Id. 

The Multi-County Predator District of South Dakota commented that the total 

numbers of M-44 cyanide capsules shipped from Pocatello Supply Depot, the sole 

manufacturer, over ten years (1992-2001) has averaged about 77,000 capsules annually. 

See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0725). According to 

commenters, the corresponding amount of sodium cyanide used in M-44 capsules varied 

between approximately 105 and 194 pounds annually. These commenters remarked that 

these amounts are a miniscule fraction of the 250 million pounds of sodium cyanide 

produced in the U.S. each year for use in gold extraction and other industrial applications 

(HSDB 1991). Moreover, commenters noted that the small amount of sodium cyanide used 

in M-44s is subject to EPA pesticide regulations whereas the millions of pounds used 

industrially are not. These commenters further stated that the use of M-44 is the 

responsibility of highly trained and responsible personnel. 

Eureka County Natural Resources Advisory Committee commented that 

Petitioners’ concerns should be set aside until they have been addressed by the proper 

authorities. See www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0816). 

Commenters refer to Sections 201 and 212 of The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism 

Preparedness Act of 2002 requiring the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

and Agriculture, respectively, to maintain lists of each biological agent and toxin that poses 

a severe threat to public health and safety or to animal or plant health or to animal or plant 

products. Id. According to these commenters, neither of these lists include sodium cyanide 

or Compound 1080. Id. In addition, these commenters state that by statute, HHS and 

USDA are responsible for determining which toxic agents pose severe threats to human, 

animal, or plant life. Id. Commenters assert that should the Petitioners believe that 

sodium cyanide or Compound 1080 pose such a threat, their proper recourse is to petition 

the appropriate Departments for inclusion of the compounds on the lists maintained 

pursuant to law, and unless and until the responsible Departments give a positive response 

to such a petition, the EPA should decline to take action on a petition like the one 

submitted in this case. Id. 

 Predator Defense commented that Compound 1080 has been identified by both the 

FBI and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service as a substance which may be sought as 

a chemical warfare agent for addition to water supplies. See, www.regulations.gov (Docket 

Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0851). Predator Defense noted that in 1999 the U.S. Air Force 

identified the poison as a likely biological agent. Id. Predator Defense also referenced an 

EPA study by Malcolm S. Field in a 2002 US Geological Survey Report reiterating this 

urgent concern in: "Development of a Counterterrorism Preparedness Tool for Evaluating 

Risks to Karstic Spring Water. Id. In addition, Predator Defense references a CIA report, 

which cited Iraq's test of Compound 1080, revealing that a can of the poison had been 

found in Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons laboratory. Id. According to Predator 

Defense, the Iraqi Intelligence Service tested the poison on animals with possible plans for 

using it for political assassination. Id. 
48 

3. EPA Response 

EPA disagrees with Petitioners’ allegation that potential bioterrorism threats arising 

from APHIS WS’ use of M-44 and 1080 LPC warrant cancellation or suspension. 

EPA acknowledges that sodium cyanide and Compound 1080, like certain other 

pesticides and chemicals, are acutely toxic to humans. EPA also acknowledges the 

significance of the findings from USDA OIG’s past audits. However, according to the 

USDA OIG, APHIS WS has made dramatic improvements to its handling of these 

pesticides. EPA believes extra consideration is being given to ensure supplies of pesticides 

containing sodium cyanide and Compound 1080 are adequately protected. APHIS WS has 

made significant modifications to their chemical security procedures based on 

recommendations from the USDA OIG and implemented through their own new directives 

for protecting hazardous materials. Ref 3 at 15 – 16; See, Ref. 7-9. APHIS WS has worked 

with OIG and USDA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) regarding hazardous 

materials inventory and accountability as a result of the OIG audit and management alert. 

As of April 2007, APHIS WS has obtained closure of all the audit recommendations 

through strengthened management controls and improvement in the program’s inventory 

process. See Ref. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12. 

Moreover, EPA has consulted with the Department of Homeland Security, and the 

Department agrees that cancellation is not necessary from a homeland security perspective. 

Given the Department’s position and the corrective steps APHIS WS has taken, EPA does 

not believe cancellation is either necessary or appropriate from a homeland security 

perspective. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION

 Petitioners have raised a number of varied arguments against the M-44 and 1080 

LPC registrations, but essentially the arguments boil down to two separate ones. First, a 

variety of reasons is put forward to support the contention that proper use of the products 

poses unreasonable risks to the environment. Second, Petitioners argue that the pesticides 

have not been used properly and the registrant, APHIS WS, has failed to live up to some of 

its responsibilities. EPA does not believe that the information or arguments put forward by 

Petitioners warrant cancellation of these registrations under either theory. EPA is therefore 

denying that portion of the petition that requests EPA initiate cancellation action against the 

registrations. Because suspension is an interim remedy under FIFRA that must be 

accompanied by the initiation of cancellation action, and because EPA has determined not 

to initiate cancellation action, that portion of the petition that requests EPA suspend the 

registrations is also denied. EPA does believe it appropriate to reinitiate consultation with 

the FWS on endangered species issues related to these registrations, and is granting that 

portion of the petition. 

 As to the argument that proper use of the M-44 and 1080 LPC poses unreasonable 

risks to the environment, EPA finds the petition unpersuasive for a number of reasons. 
49 

First, a number of the issues raised by Petitioners seem directed against lethal predator 

control practices generally, rather than the M-44 and 1080 LPC registrations specifically. 

For example, Petitioners argue that predator control programs are ineffective in 

substantially reducing predator populations, and that reducing predator populations can 

have negative effects on ecosystems. Even if true (and the arguments appear, at least at 

first blush, to be somewhat mutually inconsistent), given that the great majority of lethal 

predator control in the United States does not involve either the M-44 or 1080 LPC 

(approximately 12% and 0.04% respectively (See Ref. 15 at 1) it is not clear at all that 

granting the petition would have much impact. Similarly, while Petitioners argue that use 

of the M-44 and LPC devices can be expected to kill non-target wildlife and (at least in the 

case of the M-44) predators that may not themselves be preying upon cattle or sheep, 

Petitioners do not present much evidence or argument to believe that other lethal control 

measures, principally trapping, are more selective or would result in fewer fatalities. As 

stated earlier, the only authority EPA may exercise in responding to this petition would be 

to impact the lethal predator control measures sanctioned under FIFRA; EPA can not ban 

lethal predator control measures generally. 

 Moreover, most of the arguments raised in the petition are similar to the arguments 

that have been considered by EPA in its previous decisions relating to these pesticides. 

EPA has long recognized that there will be non-target fatalities with use of the M-44 and 

LPC, and the Petitioners have not provided any substantial new information in this regard. 

Petitioners do not argue that the number of non-target fatalities is greater than was 

anticipated by the earlier Agency decisions, or that the devices have been significantly less 

selective than was believed when those decisions were made. Where a petition essentially 

seeks reconsideration of a decision that has been the subject of a number of previous 

determinations, the Agency would expect to see a greater discussion of the significance of 

new information that was not previously considered by the Agency. The information 

proffered by Petitioners on non-target fatalities, on the other hand, seems consistent with 

the Agency’s earlier decisions. 

 It also bears noting that the Agency is obligated to reassess the compliance with 

registration standards by every pesticide registration every fifteen years under the 

“registration review” provision of section 3(g) of FIFRA. EPA will be opening the 

registration review docket for both M-44 sodium cyanide capsules and 1080 LPCs for 

public review and comment in September 2010. Through this registration review process, 

EPA will thoroughly review any new information regarding potential risks from these two 

products, and if appropriate, consider additional risk management steps. While EPA has 

considered Petitioners’ arguments here, a case could be made for denying any petition 

seeking separate review of registrations that is not accompanied by substantial new 

information demonstrating that the Agency review should not wait until the next 

registration review cycle. 

 Petitioners also argue that the risks presented by these registrations are 

unreasonable because of homeland security concerns and the ESA. As discussed earlier, 

EPA does not believe that it is obligated under the ESA to cancel these registrations, and 

51 

References 

1. Atzert, S.P., “Review of Sodium monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080): 

Properties, Toxicology, and Use in Predator and Rodent Control.” (1971).

2. Burns, R.; Connolly, G.; Meeker, D.; et al., “Efficacy and Hazards of Compound 

1080 in Toxic Collars: Laboratory and Pen Studies.” (April 1980; July 1984).

3. Connolly, G. and R. Burns of APHIS, L.R. Davis, and Marsh, “Efficacy of 

Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars for Killing Coyotes that Attack 

Sheep.” Proceedings of the Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of 

California, Davis. (1990). 

4. Connolly, G., “Use of Compound 1080 in Livestock Neck Collars to Kill 

Depredating Coyotes.” (1980).

5. Dana, R. H., “Vertebrate pest control in California.” (1971).

6. Guthrey, F. and S. Beasom, “Effectiveness and Selectivity of Neck Snares in 

Predator Control.” The Journal of Wildlife Management. 42(2): 457-459. 

(1978). 

7. Hudson, R. K., R. K. Tucker, and M. A. Haegele, Handbook of toxicity of 

pesticides to wildlife, 2nd edition. (1984).

8. Knowlton, F.F., and S.M. Ebbert, “Develop physiologic markers to identify 

 coyotes that kill sheep or goats.” (1991). 

9. Larson, S. “The Marin County Predator Management Program: Will It Save the 

Sheep Industry?” Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Vertebrate Pest Conference. 

(2006). 

10. Lloyd B.D. and S.M. McQueen, “Secondary Poisoning of Insectivores.” New 

Zealand Journal of Ecology. 24:47-56. (2000). 

11. Meenken D. and L.H. Booth, “The risk to dogs of poisoning from sodium 

monofluorocacetate (1080) residues in possum.” (1997). 

12. Savarie, P.; Burns, R.; Zemlicka, D., “Sodium Fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) 

Contamination on the Necks of Lambs with Livestock Protection Collars (LPCs) 

that are killed by Coyotes: Lab Project Number.” (1990).

13. Sinapu et al., “Second Addendum to Sinapu et al .'s Petition to Ban Sodium 

Cyanide (M-44) and Sodium Flouroacetate (Livestock Protection Collars).” (July 

27, 2007). (Available at www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-

0944.) 

14. Sinapu et al., “First Addendum to Sinapu et al.'s Petition to Ban Sodium Cyanide 

(M-44) and Sodium Flouroacetate (Livestock Protection Collars).” (March 20, 

2007). (Available at www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-

0944-0002).) 

15. Sinapu et al., “Petition for Suspension and Cancellation of M-44 Sodium Cyanide 

Capsules & 1080 Livestock Protection Collars.” (January 24, 2007). (Available at 

www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944). 
52 

16. Thomas, D.L and Haenlein, Panorama of the Goat and Sheep Dairy Sectors in 

North America. International Dairy Federation Special Issue. (2008). (Available 

at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17209874.) 

17. Trinidad, Amy. “Sheep Industry in Transition.” Sheep Industry News. (2008) 

(Available at http://sheepindustrynews.org/?page=site/text&nav 

id=3434bbbe6aeda86b2c99e753ccc46d3b&archive_id=.) 

18. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

“Sodium Cyanide (M-44) Questions Regarding Areas Set Aside for Recreation.” 

(December 11, 2008). (Available at www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQOPP-2007-0944). 

19. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

“Correspondence addressed to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” (October 

1, 2008). (Available at www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-

0944). 

20. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

“Response to Petition to Cancel Registrations for Sodium Cyanide and 1080.” 

(March 3, 2008). www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944-

801). 

21. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “WS 

Directive 2.401.” (January 2, 2008). (Available at www.regulations.gov (Docket 

Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944). 

22. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “WS 

Directive 2.465. (January 2, 2008). (Available at www.regulations.gov (Docket 

Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944). 

23. U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Financial Officer, APHIS 

Wildlife Services. “Controls Over Hazardous Materials Inventory Audit#33001-

5-HY.” (April 30, 2007). (Available at www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPAHQ-OPP-2007-0944). 

24. U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Financial Officer, APHIS 

Wildlife Services, “Controls Over Hazardous Materials Inventory Audit#33001-5-

HY.” (August 24, 2006). (Available at www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPAHQ-OPP-2007-0944). 

25. U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Financial Officer, APHIS 

Wildlife Services, “Controls Over Hazardous Materials Inventory Audit#33001-5-

HY.” (August 3, 2006). (Available at www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: EPAHQ-OPP-2007-0944). 

26. U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Financial Officer, APHIS 

Wildlife Services, “Controls Over Hazardous Materials Inventory Audit#33001-5-

HY.” (November 30, 2004). (Available at www.regulations.gov (Docket Id: 

EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944). 

27. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “WS 

Directive 2.415.” (February 18, 2004). (Available at www.regulations.gov 

(Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944). 

28. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

“Correspondence from P. Joseph, summarizing the information on the use of the 
53 

Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collar during Y-1988, 1989, and 1990 in 

five western states.” (1991).

29. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Cain, S.A., Kadlec, J.A., Allen, D.A., Cooley, R.A., Hornocker, M.G., Leopold, 

A.S., and Wagner, F.H., “Predator control – 1971. Report to the Council on 

Environmental Quality and the Department of the Interior By the Advisory 

Committee on Predator Control.” (1972).

30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Analysis of the Role of the M-44 Device 

and Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars in Predator Management.” 

(January 6, 2009). 

31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Biological Opinion: Effects of 16 Vertebrate 

Control Agents on Threatened and Endangered Species.” (March 1993). 

32. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Formal Section 7 Biological Opinion Regarding 

1-Year Extension of Experimental Use Permit for the 1080 Toxic Collar in Idaho, 

Montana, and Texas.” (1984).

33. Ward, J. C. and D.A. Spencer, “Notes on the pharmacology of sodium

fluoroacetate-compound 1080.” Journal of the American Pharmaceutical 

Association. 36(2): 59-62 (1947).