Current restrictions are not sufficient

Transcription

1 June 10, 2016 Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC Re: Comments on Registration Review Dockets (81 Fed. Reg ): Brodifacoum (2755) Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP , Bromadiolone (2760) Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP , Difenacoum (7630) Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP , and Difethialone (7603) Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the registration review for pesticide products containing the active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. American Bird Conservancy commends the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its determined efforts in recent years to remove d-con and other second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) from retail stores. We urge the Agency to close the remaining loopholes that allow for needless poisonings of children and non-target wildlife. Given the wide range of effective and economical alternatives on the market today, from sanitation and exclusion, to snap- and zap- traps, to rat contraceptive baits, it would be misguided for the EPA to condone the residential, industrial, structural, and agricultural applications of these super-toxic poisons, causing sickness and death in children as well as in hawks, owls, eagles, and other animals. We urge the EPA to cancel all general use registrations of SGARs and to classify any remaining registrations as restricted use products, available only as a last resort in a demonstrated public health emergency or as a conservation measure to control non-native and invasive species that pose a significant threat to imperiled species. Current restrictions are not sufficient Rodenticides are designed to kill mammals, so their effects on humans and non-target vertebrate animals are similar to their effects on target pests. Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are acutely toxic, interfering with blood clotting and causing severe hemorrhaging. Non-target species may be killed by a single meal of rodenticide bait. 1 The poisons remain in the body long after consumption, with half-lives of up to 170 days so additional consumption of poisoned prey can compound the problem. Predatory birds and mammals that feed on poisoned rodents are vulnerable to secondary poisoning from SGARs. Non-target wildlife deaths due to exposure to SGARs are well documented in the scientific literature. 2 Wildlife mortality incident reports compiled by the EPA have demonstrated poisoning and deaths to non-target wildlife for several decades. 3 Studies have shown anticoagulant rodenticide toxicosis in 6% of raptors tested. 4 Raptor species like Red-tailed Hawks and Great Horned Owls that reside near human

2 2 populations now carry multiple rodenticide residues, primarily SGARs. 5 This extensive exposure in wildlife populations can lead to increased susceptibility to anticoagulation and hemorrhaging. Between 1994 and 2000, the California Department of Fish and Game collected and analyzed 74 tissue samples from 21 different species of non-target birds and mammals. SGARs were detected in 70% of mammals and 68% of birds examined; signs of intoxication were seen in 43% of exposed wildlife. 6 Raptors showing the highest exposure levels were Golden Eagles and Barn Owls. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) reports similarly high numbers: between 1995 and 2011, approximately 73% of animals tested had residues of at least one SGAR. 7 Difethialone residues were found in approximately 8% of the animals analyzed. Bromadiolone residues were found in approximately 37% of the animals analyzed, and bromadiolone was likely involved in approximately 3% of animal mortalities. Brodifacoum was the most widespread and lethal SGAR, with residues found in approximately 69% of the 492 animals tested. Brodifacoum was likely involved in 13% of animal mortalities. Raptors are especially vulnerable to secondary poisoning from brodifacoum via ingestion of contaminated animals. 8 Apart from acute poisonings, a range of sublethal effects have been reported including liver damage, osteoporosis, and damage to the heart muscle in birds and mammals. 9 The 2011 EPA Scientific Advisory Panel also concluded that terrestrial food chains were widely contaminated with brodifacoum. Endangered species at risk EPA s preliminary work plans for SGARs state that assessments for listed species and designated critical habitats have not yet been undertaken. EPA is working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) to develop joint approaches for assessing risks to listed species from pesticides, in accordance with the recommendations of the 2013 National Academy of Sciences report. We look forward to reviewing that assessment at a later point in this registration review process. Several endangered species may be at risk. Recent data from EPA, DPR, and scientific journals document poisonings and deaths of the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Golden Eagle, Pacific Fisher, and numerous migratory bird species. 10 Brodifacoum toxicosis has been reported in neo-natal dogs following a previous sub-lethal exposure in the mother. 11 The risk of trans-placental transfer raises special concerns for the high proportion of mammals found carrying residues, including endangered species such as the San Joaquin Kit Fox. At the same time, populations of several native island-based species are in dire need of protection from invasive rodents. SGARS can play a critical role in these controlled eradication efforts. We urge EPA to adopt a nuanced approach that allows for protecting the nation s native species, both listed and unlisted. Use near man-made structures EPA restricts application to within 50 to 100 feet of man-made structures. Unfortunately this requirement does not protect raptors and other wildlife from secondary exposures through consumption of poisoned rodents.

3 3 Commensal rodents those living in close association with humans -- will travel more than 100 feet away from their burrows to seek food. They are poisoned by the baits, and then become prey for hungry raptors and other predators. For example, the house mouse (Mus musculus) will travel from 10 to 30 feet from its burrow in search of food 12, while the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) normally travels 100 to 150 feet from its burrow -- and will travel up to 300 feet away from its burrow in search of food and water 13. Thus, the current controls do little to protect wildlife from certain species of poisoned rodents. There is no justification or assurance that EPA s bait placement limitation serves to protect wildlife. Need to close the loopholes In 2014, American Bird Conservancy joined EPA in celebrating the legal settlements pulling d-con rodenticides from retail shelves in California and nationwide. Yet the controls are still not sufficient to protect children and animals. EPA prohibited sale to residential consumers and required the use of protective bait stations for other rodenticides. Brodifacoum and other SGARS may still be purchased by anyone -- in bulk quantities from agricultural, farm and tractor stores. California s settlement resulted in more stringent restrictions than those instituted nationally, limiting the use of SGARs to certified pesticide applicators. But even with these stricter controls in California, state wildlife veterinarians continue to report high levels of exposure to rodenticides. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) reported in April 2016 that, Unfortunately, even after stricter regulations on rodenticides were enacted, wildlife continue to be exposed to secondgeneration anticoagulant rodenticides (brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum and difethialone). 14 The CDFW Wildlife Investigations Lab (WIL) will finalize a report on surveillance of raptors in California in the coming year. Preliminary results indicate there has not been a significant change in the number of cases of intoxication by anticoagulant rodenticides since the new regulations were instituted. This information will be critical to determining post-regulation efficacy. In 2015, CDFW-WIL reported nine cases of intoxication caused by brodifacoum including Great Horned Owl, Red-shouldered Hawk, Turkey Vulture, and three mammals. 15 Special uses We urge EPA to take further steps to prevent significant adverse impacts to children, birds, and other non-target animals. However, ABC recognizes the need for use of these rodenticides in special cases within strict timelines and applications. We therefore recommend that EPA adopt restrictions allowing limited SGAR application to meet urgent or high priority human health or wildlife conservation needs under the following conditions: 1. Human health emergency. A federal, state, or local public health authority makes a finding that a public health emergency exists; there is demonstrated local resistance to first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides by the target species; and other, less-toxic measures have been implemented, including sanitation and trapping, and have been insufficient to control the hazard; or,

4 4 2. Conservation action for imperiled species. Federal or state authorities determine that conditions exist which require the use of SGARs to control, eradicate, or halt the invasion of non-native and invasive species that pose direct or indirect significant harm to imperiled species on islands, or threaten the ecosystem integrity of any island or designated mainland area. In these contexts, SGARs may be applied where other, less-toxic measures have been demonstrated to be ineffective (e.g., where invasive species have developed resistance to first generation anticoagulant rodenticides) or not feasible in the specific circumstances. For these purposes, imperiled species includes protected, threatened, or endangered species recognized by state, federal or international assessments (e.g. International Union for the Conservation of Nature or USFWS), or wildlife that are candidates for protection under federal or state endangered species laws. Eradication of invasive vertebrate pests is among the greatest conservation needs for island ecosystems and for endemic and imperiled birds 16. Providing for the special use of SGARs for conservation purposes will ensure that this management option can remain in the toolbox for these limited and tightly-controlled circumstances. Improve incident reporting system In addition to these restrictions, we urge the EPA to work with its incident reporting division to upgrade the incident reporting system for non-target animal poisonings. Such a reporting system should be free from reporting thresholds and should allow for public access to the data, thus providing greater insight into the efficacy of the proposed regulations, and the cumulative impacts to non-target species. To enhance the utility of incident data, pesticide applicators should identify locations where these rodenticides are used by providing specific coordinates (including zip code, county, section, township, range, base and meridian, or latitude, longitude Global Positioning System coordinates), to be submitted to EPA for purposes of mapping pesticide use and outcomes. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # We believe that the Environmental Protection Agency is on the right track in limiting the unnecessary use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. American Bird Conservancy applauds the efforts made to date, and urges the Agency to close the remaining loopholes to protect our birds, other wildlife, and children. Thank you for your consideration. Cynthia Palmer Director, Pesticides Science and Regulation American Bird Conservancy

5 5 1 Thomas et al. 2011, Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in predatory birds: Probabilistic characterization of toxic liver concentrations and implications for predatory bird populations in Canada. Environment International 37: Eason et al Assessment of Risks of Brodifacoum to Non-target Birds and Mammals in New Zealand, Ecotoxicology, 11, EPA 2013, Compilation of Rodenticide Wildlife Mortality Incident Reports Between (January 29, 2013). 4 Murray Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure and toxicosis in four species of birds of prey presented to a wildlife clinic in Massachusetts, J Zoo Wildl. Med Mar; 42(1): Thomas et al Hosea 2000, Exposure of non-target wildlife to anticoagulant rodenticides in California. In: Salmon, T.P. and A.C. Crabb, (eds.) Proceedings of the Nineteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, CA. pg DPR 2012, Memorandum: Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides (draft) from Deborah Daniels, DVM, Senior Environmental Scientist (September 19, 2012). 8 8 Thomas et al Rahmy 1993, Myocardial alterations in animals intoxicated with an anticoagulant rodenticide. J. Egypt. Ger. Soc. Zool. 12C: Id.; DPR 2012, Memorandum: Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides (draft) from Deborah Daniels, DVM, Senior Environmental Scientist (September 19, 2012); Gabriel et al. (2012) Anticoagulant Rodenticides on our Public and Community Lands: Spatial Distribution of Exposure and Poisoning of a Rare Forest Carnivore. PLoS ONE 7(7): e doi: /journal.pone Munday et al. 2003, Brodifacoum toxicosis in two neonatal puppies. Veterinary Pathology 40: Cornell University, et al., Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management, (last visited Sep. 30, 2013). 13 Cornell University, et al., see also, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida, W.H. Kern, Jr. et. al., Non-Chemical Rodent Control, (Mar. 2011), 14 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, When it Comes to Rodent Control, Consider Alternatives to Poison (April 27, 2016) 15 Personal communication with Stella McMillin, Senior Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Investigations Laboratory. June 8, HP Jones, et al Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, p