Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains materials relating to attempts to control coyote attacks on herds of sheep.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16988255
label
Predators (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16988255
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Predators (2)
description
This file contains materials relating to attempts to control coyote attacks on herds of sheep.
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Environmental protection
Predatory animal control
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16988255
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-31
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-04-01
month
4
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
98af59fb59998690
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 26, folder "Predators (2)" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
THE WASHINGTON POST
LEISURE
Waterg
B10
Thursday, May 1, 1975
R
Mr Robi
E
From the book
A wild cub, one of the covotes that Hope Ryden stulked and studied for her
book "God's Dog."
The Case for the Coyote
Reviewed by
Book World
Mary Richie
The reviewer, author of "A
GOD'S DOG. By Hope Ryden.
Romantic Education," recent.
(Coward, McCann & Geoghrgan. 288 DD, $12.50)
ly published "Loving Up.
ward." her second novel.
cluding "America's Last lose sheep, and they have to
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
May 14, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR NORM ROSS
DOMESTIC COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Predator Control
Yesterday I received the recommendations on predator
control submitted by the Nool Growers. This memorandum
represents both my response to the Wool Growers'
presentation and my views on the issue discussed
with the President.
My understanding was that the purpose of the meeting with
the President was to provide the representatives of the
Wool Growers and their associates an opportunity to express
their views. Consequently, I did not express my own views;
neither did the others present who did not subscribe to
the Wool Growers' views. There are clearly two sides to
this issue, and I believe it would be a serious mistake
if a decision for a change in present policy were to be
reached when only one side has been heard.
Opposition to the use of poisons on public lands comes
from a very broad cross section of the American public.
It is not limited to the environmental groups or any other
single segment. Illustrative of this, EPA informs me that
the week that Administrator Train announced the experi-
mental program for testing Sodium Cyanide in the M-44
mechanism, they received some 6,000 telegrams and 4,000
letters, about 99% in protest of the action.
Consequently, I would strongly urge that before there is
any change in the Executive Order or current policy on
predator control poisons, the President should meet with
FORD WORK i LIBRA 07V8
-2-
representatives of the important part of his constituency
which does not wish to see any relaxation of the poison
ban.
Mr. Quinn's letter transmitting the Wool Growers
recommendations states that he is acting "on behalf of
the National Wool Growers Association and the other
organizations represented ot last week's conference."
However, my staff has been in contact with Mr. Robert
Jantzen, who represented the International Association
of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners at the meet-
ing with the President. As Mr. Jantzen has written,
the Association is preparing a separate recommendation.
At least in the draft form available to us, this recom-
mendation is quite different from that of the Wool Growers'.
The basic thrust of the Wool Growers recommendations is
to rescind the existing Executive Order. That is the
effect of their proposed modified executive order and it
would be immediately perceived as such by the public. I
very strongly advise against this procedure for the
reasons outlined below. I am not commenting in detail
on the specifics of the Wool Growers submissions since
they are all directly related to effectively rescinding
the Executive Order. I am also not going into detail on
the history or nature of the predator control program and
problem. I understand that the Department of the Interior
is preparing you a background briefing paper which accom-
plishes that. You also have the Predator Control section
from our last Annual Report.
The basic issue is one of a drastically declining sheep
industry. Since about 1940, the industry has been in a
virtually constant decline. The periods of greatest
decline have accompanied the period of greatest use of
poisons in predator control. Further, the decline in the
industry has been roughly equivalent both in the. 17 Western
states where coyotes are a problem and in the 31 other sheep
raising states where they are not. This situation continues.
Currently the total losses of livestock in the other 31 are
actually slightly greater than those in the 17 states which
DERALD FORD LIBRARY
-3-
have coyotes. There is no question but that the sheep
industry is in serious trouble, but there is equally no
question but that coyote predation is not the main prob-
lem. It is, however, a convenient target for the frus-
trations of the Western wool growers.
The predator control program currently being used, most
with nontoxic methods, is killing as many coyotes on an
annual basis as were killed on an average during the
decade prior to the poison ban. In view of the methods
used, this effort is probably providing more overall pro-
tection to the wool growers, since the nontoxic methods
are generally more selective for the coyotes which are
causing the actual trouble, than was the brond scale use
of toxicants. Since the poison ban, predation is up in
some areas and down in others. From the information
available to us (from USDA, USDI, EPA, etc.) there is no
substantiation that overall predation has significantly
increased since the poison ban.
The Wool Growers recommendations include reference to the
need to use poisons for predator control to protect wild-
life. However, as Mr. Jantzen pointed out in the meeting
with the President, predation is not a major wildlife
problem. The wildlife profession itself has come out
strongly in opposition to poisons in predator control.
At the 1973 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference, the proposed new North American Wildlife Policy
was presented. This was the result of year's study by &
very distinguished group of top wildlife professionals,
including representation from the International Association.
In terms of poisons for predator control, the Wildlife Policy
stated: "Poisoning should be outlawed except for emergency
use by qualified personnel."
Citizen opposition to the use of poisons in predator con-
trol is based on several factors. One is the whorrence
of what is perceived as the cruelty involved. Another is
the potential damage to nontargeted animals {including
birds) and to the ecosystem as a whole. A further factor
involves the predators themselves, Citizens place a high
BERALD FORD LIBRANT
social value on predators and resent their destruction.
Livestock grazing on public lands is seen by much of the
public as one privileged use of such lands. There is
growing opposition when this use further impacts other
public use and enjoyment of those lands, particularly
through the use of poisons for predator control with its
real or believed impact on the predators, other wildlife,
and ecosystems of the public lands.
Those of the public who are better acquainted with the
situation realize that predators are not what is causing
the decline of the sheep industry, and that in most cases
poisons are of questionable benefit at best. This com-
bination of considerations of morality with other factors
creates strong opposition to poisons from a very broad
spectrum of the nation's public.
Given these factors, recognizing that predation is not
the basic problem of the sheep industry, and that poisons,
even with unlimited use, have never solved the industry's
problems, it is clear to me that rescinding the Executive
Order would be strongly counterproductive.
Another option would be to suspend or amend the Executive
Order to allow use of the M-44 under certain circumstances.
I would advise against this procedure also.
The M-44 is currently in wide use under the EPA experi-
mental program and under the USDI emergency uses. The
Wool Growers have repeatedly emphasized that the M-44 is
not effective. We know that the M-44 certainly has limi-
tations on its effectiveness, and alone is not the answer.
Consequently, amending the Order to allow the M-44 will
at most buy a few months time. It will appear to be a
step in the direction of helping the Wool Growers, but
will create real problems with the rest of the public.
The Wool Growers in short order will come back saying that
the I1-44 does not work and that we must go to 1080 or other
poisons. Having set the precedent of allowing poisons on
public lands, it will then be politically vastly more
difficult to hold the line. Therefore, there is littlerforo
GERALD ADDRESS
-5-
even temporary, to be gained from amending the Order to
allow the M-44 and a great deal to be lost. In my judg-
ment it will create a worse problem in the long zun (long
being perhaps less than six months after whatever action
is taken).
The time element is a further factor to be considered if
any change is contemplated. If control of poisons is
shifted entirely to EPA (through amendment or recision of
the Executive Order), the administrative procedures will
require many months. If this procedure involves an envi-
ronmental impact statement and public hearings, the time
would be extended, possibly late into 1976. Such delays
would only create further frustration on the part of the
Wool Growers, while doing nothing to molify the rest of
the public.
My advice, then, is: (1) leave the Executive Order in
place; (2) assure that the emergency provisions of the
Executive Order operate smoothly, (3) accelerate research
on the toxic collar and on other methods of predator con-
trol, and (4) identify the real factors affacting the
sheep industry and. determine Federal policy accordingly.
I will be pleased to amplify these comments or provide
any additional information.
Russell W. Peterson
Chairman
been Peterson (2), Jellinek, Widman, Talbot
Central File - Reading File
LMTalbot:jp 5-15-75
FORD is LIBRARY 03.870
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 16. 1975
TO : JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM: NORM ROSS me
Per our discussion.
I don't feel that I need to
discuss this with Cannon unless
he wants to.
GERALD ? FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
NORM ROSS
ock
SUBJECT:
Coyote Problem
As a follow-up to the April 29, meeting with the
President on the subject of coyote predation, the
National Wool Growers Association has forwarded
recommendations to you directed towards a solution
of the problem. The recommendations included:
- A proposed amended Executive Order
- A suggested Presidential Message to accompany
issuance of an amended Executive Order
- Suggested additional directives of the
President needed to effect a solution to
the predator problem
Essentially, the proposed Executive Order rescinds
Executive Order 11643 by eliminating its restrictions
on toxicant use. The proposed Executive Order would
limit the use of chemical toxicants to those permitted
by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act. The proposal would put the solution to the problem
clear in the hands of Russ Train.
The Wool Growers recommendations were staffed to EPA,
Agriculture, Interior and CEQ for their review and
comment.
EPA
- Opposes the proposed modification in the Executive
Order. Actions to register toxicants causing
secondary poisoning effects are unlikely to be
forthcoming in less than two years, if at all.
-2-
- Proposal would greatly alienate the
environmental community without really
helping the livestock industry
- Train feels the Administration should:
-- Reintroduce Animal Damage Control legislation
which provides funding for alternatives to
toxicants and research
-- Give high priority in EPA to review data
on cyanide
-- Develop controls on cyanide use
-- Begin to prepare an EIS for operational use
of cyanide devices should they be found
registerable
-- Urge Interior to proceed with rapid develop-
ment of new alternatives for predator controls
CEQ
- Strongly urge that before there is any change
in the current policy, the President should
meet with representatives of the other side of
the controversy
- A change in the Executive Order would create a
worse problem in the long run
- Russ Peterson recommends that the Administration:
-- Leave the Executive Order in place
-- Assure that the emergency provisions of the
Executive Order operate smoothly
-- Accelerate research on other methods of
predator control
-- Identify the real factors affecting the
sheep industry and determine Federal policy
accordingly
-3-
The Department of Interior also opposes any modificantion
in the existing Executive Order for the same reasons
as given above. Comments have not been received
from the Department of Agriculture
We have heard these arguments and have debated the
issue long enough. Dick Dunham and I strongly recommend
that you call Russ Train and tell him to proceed under
his authority in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act to take those steps necessary
which would permit the use of chemical toxicants for
controlling predatory animals.
May 18, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
NORM ROSS
SUBJECT:
Coyote Problem
As a follow-up to the April 29, meeting with the
President on the subject of coyote predation, the
National Wool Growers Association has forwarded
recommendations to you directed towards a solution
of the problem. The recommendations included:
- A proposed amended Executive Order
- A suggested Presidential Message to accompany
issuance of an amended Executive Order
- Suggested additional directives of the
President needed to effect a solution to
the predator problem
Essentially, the proposed Executive Order rescinds
Executive Order 11643 by eliminating its restrictions
on toxicant use. The proposed Executive Order would
limit the use of chemical toxicants to those permitted
by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act. The proposal would put the solution to the problem
clear in the hands of Russ Train.
The Wool Growers recommendations were staffed to EPA,
Agriculture, Interior and CEQ for their review and
comment.
EPA
- Opposes the proposed modification in the Executive
Order. Actions to register toxicants causing
secondary poisoning effects are unlikely to be
forthcoming in less than two years, if at all.
GERALD
-2-
- Proposal would greatly alienate the
environmental community without really
helping the livestock industry
- Train feels the Administration should:
-- Reintroduce Animal Damage Control legislation
which provides funding for alternatives to
toxicants and research
-- Give high priority in EPA to review date
on cyanide
- Develop controls on cyanide use
-- Begin to prepare an EIS for operational use
of cyanide devices should they be found
registerable
- Urge Interior to proceed with rapid develop-
ment of new alternatives for predator controls
CEQ
- Strongly urge that before there is any change
in the current policy, the President should
meet with representatives of the other side of
the controversy
- A change in the Executive Order would create a
worse problem in the long run
- Russ Peterson recommends that the Administration:
- Leave the Executive Order in place
-- Assure that the emergency provisions of the
Executive Order operate smoothly
- Accelerate research on other methods of
predator control
-- Identify the real factors affecting the
sheep industry and determine Federal policy
accordingly
FORD is LIBRAR,
-3-
The Department of Interior also opposes any modificantion
in the existing Executive Order for the same reasons
as given above. Comments have not been received
from the Department of Agriculture
We have heard these arguments and have debated the
issue long enough. Dick Dunham and I strongly recommend
that you call Russ Train and tell him to proceed under
his authority in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act to take those steps necessary
which would permit the use of chemical toxicants for
controlling predatory animals.
NEROSS/ee
GERALD manualy ? FORD
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
2 0 MAY 1975
Dear Jim:
This is to follow up the meeting on predator control with
the President. Since the purpose of the meeting was to
give the Wool Growers an opportunity to express their
views, those of us who held an opposite view remained
silent. However, only one side of this highly charged
question has been heard, and before any change in the
status quo is made, it is essential that the other side
be heard. If you think that the Wool Growers were angry,
wait till you hear from the vastly larger cross section
of our public if we start poisoning their wildlife on
public lands.
Wildlife has become a significant interest of the American
public. The current popularity of TV wildlife shows is
just one indication of that. Poisons in themselves are
red flags. The threat of returning poisons to public
lands unites a mass of the public that is vastly broader
than the traditional environmental interests.
The public is concerned with "non-target" as well as
"target" animals and birds killed by poisons. There are
no real compilations of unintentional losses, but in a
study of one small area, the animals accidentally poisoned
that were found included: 3 bobcats, 37 dogs, 1 house cat,
2 badgers, 4 weasels, 8 eagles, 7 magpies, 4 hawks, and
2 ground squirrels. I have attached a table of known
"target" animals that were killed during the decades prior
to the ban on poisons: 23,803 bears, 477,194 bobcats,
51,857 wolves, 7,264 mountain lions, and 2,823,146 coyotes.
No wonder the public reaction is so great!
The other key point, of course, is that the poison ban is
not what is putting the sheep industry out of business.
The ndustry has declined dramatically since the 1940's,
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
and the greatest periods of decline accompanied the periods
of greatest use of poisons. The decline is about the same
in the 17 states with a coyote problem as in the 31 non-
coyote states, and total losses of sheep are greater per-
centagewise in the non-coyote states. Predation and the
poison ban is a convenient target for the Wool Growers
frustration, but it is not the central problem.
Accordingly, my recommendation is to retain the Executive
Order as it is, but to take some appropriate measures.
There are further details in my memo to Norm Ross on this,
which is attached.
Sincerely,
Russ
Russell W. Peterson
Chairman
Mr. James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Enclosures
GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 21. 1975
TO : JIM CANNON
FROM: NORM ROSS
As per your request.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
EDWARD A. McCADE
K.MARTIN WORTHY
LAW OFFICES
FULLER HOLLOWAY
CHARLES D. HAMEL (1881-19'
ARTHUR PETER,JR.
BENJ. H. SAUNDERS (1894-12
HENTY ROSMER McPHEE
HAMEL, PARK, MC CABE & SAUNDERS
GLENN L ARCHER,JR
I
WM. H. BRADFORD, JR.
1776 F STREET, N. W.
JOHN W. PETTIT
IN CHICAGO, ILUNOIS 6050
JOHN P. BANKSON, JR.
ARTHUR LEE QUINN
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
HAMEL, PARK & SAUNDERS
III WEST MONROE STREET
STUART C. WHITE
JOHN a DEGODYER
TELEPHONE (202) 785-1234
TELEPHONE (312) 348-3827
BERNARD T. RENZY
JOHN ENRIETTO (RESIDENT PARTI
JEROME P. WEISS'
MARK SULLIVAN III
CABLE ADDRESS: HAMEL
ANTHONY J. THOMPSON
TELEX: 440374 TALY-UI
JOHN H. SPELLMAN
A.FAXON HENDERSON, JR.
MICHAEL C. DURNEY
CHARLES M. BRUCE
STEVEN T. HAMBLIN
LOUISE A.SUNDERLAND
May 9, 1975
LAMBERT H. MILLER
ARTHUR L.OUINN
CHARLES W. NYQUIST
COUNSEL
NOT ADMITTED IN D.C.
Mr. James Cannon
Assistant to the President for
Domestic Affairs
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Cannon:
It was a great pleasure meeting you at the conference
with the President on the afternoon of April 29th, during which
the subject of coyote predation was discussed. We appreciate
your interest in this critical matter and look forward to working
with you towards a successful solution.
As you will recall, as the meeting concluded, the
President requested recommendations be made to you and Secretary
Butz with respect to Executive Order 11643. We are pleased to
do this on behalf of the National Wool Growers Association and
the other organizations represented at last week's conference.
Identical recommendations have been made to Secretary Butz, and
he has indicated he will coordinate with you at a later date.
It is my understanding that Mr. Norman Ross of your
staff will initially review these materials, but we trust you
will subsequently give them your personal attention.
Looking forward to hearing from you, and with warm
regards, I am,
Yours sincerely,
a hee Dinne
Arthur Lee Quinn
ALQ:mf
Enclosures
Enclosures
(1)
A final draft of the Proposed Form of Amended Executive
Order.
(2)
A suggested Presidential Message to accompany issuance
of an amended Executive Order.
(3)
An explanation of Modifications in Executive Order 11643.
(4)
A Statement of Purpose and Intent pertaining to the
proposed changes in Executive Order 11643.
(5)
Suggested Additional Directives of the President needed
to effect a solution to the predator crisis.
Proposed Modified Executive Order
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
No.
Date and Citation
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS ON ACTIVITIES FOR ANIMAL
DAMAGE CONTROL
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of
the United States, and in furtherance of the purposes and
policies of the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7
U.S.C. 426 - 426 (b) ) ; the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the Endangered
Species Conservation Act of 1969. (16 U.S.C. 668aa) ; and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the Federal
Government (1) to limit and insure the proper use of chemical
toxicants for the purpose of controlling predatory mammals,
rodents or birds by permitting only those toxicants approved
under provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act, as amended, to be used in any Federal
Program; (2) that chemical toxicants be used only when and
where other methods of control are inadequate and/or
ineffective; (3) that when chemical toxicants are used on
Federal lands, the provisions of the Federal Insecticide,
Enclosure No. 1
GERALD B. FORD
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act notwithstanding, only agents
or employees of the Federal or State Governments shall be
permitted to apply such toxicants. All such animal or bird
damage control programs shall be conducted in a manner which
contributes to the maintenance of environmental quality, and
to the conservation and protection, to the greatest degree
possible, of the nation's wildlife resources, including
predatory animals.
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order the term:
(a) "Federal lands" means all real property owned by or
leased to the Federal Government, excluding lands
administered by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to his
trust responsibilities for Indian affairs.
(b) "Agencies" means the departments, agencies and
establishments of the executive branch of the Federal
Government.
(c) "Chemical toxicant" means any chemical substance used
for killing predatory mammals, rodents or birds.
(d) "Predatory mammal or bird" means any animal or bird
which habitually preys upon other animals or birds.
(e) "Rodent" means any animal in the orders rodentia
or lagomorpha.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Sec. 3. Restrictions on Use of Chemical Toxicants.
Heads of agencies shall take such action as is necessary,
in any Federal program of mammal, rodent or bird damage
control under their jurisdiction to:
(a) Insure that only those chemical toxicants approved
by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
under the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act, be used in such programs;
(b) Limit the use of chemical toxicants to those
circumstances where other methods of control are determined
to be inadequate or ineffective; and
(c) Permit only agents or employees of the Federal or
State Governments to use approved chemical toxicants on
Federal lands.
Sec. 4. Rules for Implementation of Order. Heads of
agencies shall issue such rules or regulations as may be
necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions and
policy of this order.
GERALD FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
Date
Suggested Presidential Message to Accompany Issuance
of Amended Executive Order
On February 8, 1972, President Nixon promulgated
Executive Order 11643, entitled "Environmental Safeguards on
Activities for Animal Damage Control on Federal Lands. "
Without altering its basic purpose I have today amended this
order for the following reasons:
(1) Subsequent to Executive Order 11643, the
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act
(FEPCA) was enacted to amend the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). This legislation now provides the
Environmental Protection Agency with ample
authority to prevent the misuse of all harmful
chemicals, authority it did not have when
Order 11643 was issued.
(2) The Federal Government experience in animal
damage control, of the past three years, has
shown that in many situations mechanical methods
of control are effective in protecting wildlife,
domestic livestock and poultry from wild animal
predation. But it has also shown that under
numerous circumstances and conditions mechanical
means are ineffective.
Enclosure No. 2
- 2 1
(3) As a result of unmanageable predation in various
parts of the country losses of livestock,
poultry and certain species of wildlife have been
excessive, causing severe economic hardship and
depletion of valuable resources.
The revised Order redefines Federal Government policy
in accordance with the amended FIFRA but further limits the use
of chemical toxicants for predator control in Federal programs
to only those approved by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Further, chemical toxicants are to be used
only when it has been determined that non-toxic methods are
inadequate or ineffective and when used on Federal lands they
are to be applied only by agents or employees of the Federal
or State Governments,
It is in the best interests of our nation to manage
wildlife populations in an effort to maintain environmental
quality as well as afford protection to domestic livestock and
poultry. A balanced program of animal damage control must be
undertaken to achieve these purposes and this could not be done
under the restrictions imposed by Order 11643.
FORDO is 97V839 LIBRAR
Explanation of Modifications in Executive Order 11643
Title
The new title should read "Environmental Safeguards on
Activities for Animal Damage Control" (strike "On Federal Land") .
The scope of the modified order would be extended to include the
use of toxicants on all lands, private as well as public, because
FIFRA encompasses all classes of land. The additional provision
of limiting pesticide use for animal damage control purposes to
those cases where non-chemical techniques are "inadequate" covers
private as well as public lands.
Legal Citations
The following legal citations should be added:
(a) The Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C.
426 - 426 (b) ) .
(b) The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
The addition of these two statutes is necessary because
both provide fundamental responsibilities for animal damage contro.
and toxicant use.
Policy
New Section 1 (1) Policy. The suggested changes are designed
to achieve the basic objectives outlined in Enclosure No. 4,
"Statement of Purpose and Intent." The existing language,
except for the last sentence of the order, becomes unnecessary
Enclosure No. 3
- 2 -
or contradictory to the intention of focusing on FIFRA. The
amended order would be extended to include "rodents."
New Section 1 (2) is intended to limit the use of toxicants
for animal damage control beyond provisions of FIFRA but not
so tightly that administrators are unable to strike reasonable
balances between non-chemical and chemical control methods,
including considerations of available funds and costs of
alternate methods of control, as well as adoption of newly
developed methods of chemical control which may prove more
desirable than mechanical measures.
New Section 1 (3) is intended to preclude any private applicator
of any class under provisions of FIFRA from applying toxicants
for purposes of animal damage control on Federal lands, unless
such applicators are acting in their capacity as agents for
Federal or State Governments.
Definitions
New Section 2 (a)
"Federal lands" remains the same, with the
exception of eliminating sub-section
(2) "real property located in metropolitan
areas. "
(b)
"Agencies" remains same as in old order.
(c)
"Chemical toxicant" as redefined herein is
intended to exempt such products as
tranquilizers, repellents or attractants
from restrictions contained in Section 1
(2) and 121
- 3 -
(d)
"Predatory mammal or bird." remains the
same.
A definition of "rodent" has been added.
(e)
"Secondary poisoning effect" - This
definition should be removed in its entirety.
It becomes irrelevant since such distinctions
are now to be made in accordance with FIFRA.
(f)
"Field use" becomes irrelevant and should be
eliminated.
Restrictions on Use of Chemical Toxicants
The existing Section 3 becomes unnecessary in its
entirety because of the subsequently enacted provisions of
FIFRA which provide means of restricting pesticide applications.
However, the amended order should provide that agency heads use
toxicants in accordance with the stated policy of section 1,
that is, only those approved by EPA, only where non-toxic
methods will not achieve the desired results and only by
government employees on Federal lands.
Rules for Implementation of Order
Section 4 should remain as is.
Statement of Purpose and Intent
The proposed revisions in Executive Order 11643 are
designed to limit and insure proper and responsible use of
chemical toxicants for animal damage control through fundamental
reliance upon the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), as amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act (FEPCA). FEPCA was enacted subsequent to the
Executive Order and the amended FIFRA is the basic statute
designed to prevent environmental abuse by misapplication of
pesticides. It should, therefore, be the guiding legislation
for toxicant use in animal damage control.
It should be noted that over 50,000 chemicals are
registered under FIFRA, but, to our knowledge, the only ones
singled out for prohibition by an Executive Order are the
several formerly used in predator control. It should be
further noted that these same chemicals are still registered
under FIFRA for use in controlling rodents in urban areas.
The Department of Interior experience of the past
three years has shown that the use of toxicants can be reduced
from former levels and they need be applied only. in a limited
number of situations. This same experience has clearly proven
that toxicants are essential under certain circumstances and
are a necessary method for any balanced control program.
Enclosure No. 4
- 2 -
In addition to provisions of FIFRA, it is intended
there be two other restrictions on use of toxicants for these
purposes. They are:
(1) That toxicants not be used if non-chemical
methods are adequate to protect domestic
animals and wildlife resources from predation.
In determining "adequacy" cost dimensions as
well as effectiveness of control techniques
in reducing animal damage should be important
factors. For example, use of shot-gunning by
helicopters in areas far removed from airports
may financially preclude that technique as a
justified alternative to toxicant use. It is
also important to recognize that future research
may produce entirely new toxicants and/or
delivery methods which are environmentally more
desirable than non-chemical alternatives. On
the other hand, it is imperative the term
"inadequate" not become a loophole for escaping
environmental considerations or for not providing
satisfactory protection for domestic livestock,
poultry or wildlife resources.
- 3 -
(2) On Federal lands only Federal or State employees
or their properly designated agents should apply
pesticides for animal damage control. This would
preclude application on Federal lands by
individuals, who otherwise may qualify under
provisions of FIFRA, unless those persons are
serving as agents for Federal or State Governments
It is intended that the modified order continue to have
as a basic purpose the objective of conserving wildlife resources
and environmental quality, as did order 11643.
Suggested Additional Directives of the President
Necessary to Solve the Predator Crisis
(1)
The Secretary of Interior should be instructed to
immediately apply to EPA for experimental use
permits for chemicals which are likely to be useful
as candidate materials for animal damage control
programs under provisions of FIFRA. This will
expedite the development of factual information
necessary to classify and register such pesticides
for use under appropriate provisions of FIFRA.
Current policy under Executive Order 11643 has
precluded all Federal research involving pesticides
for animal damage control programs except sodium
cyanide.
(2)
We believe the history of unreasonable delay by EPA
in processing and responding to requests from the
various States under provisions of FIFRA indicates
a conscious effort to frustrate implementation of
the FIFRA Act. The President should also direct the
Administrator of EPA to give priority to expediting
the regulatory procedures under FIFRA, especially
the processing of experimental permits, and perhaps
a definite target date for a full implementation of
the Act.
Enclosure No. 5
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 21, 1975
TO : JIM CANNON
FROM: NORM ROSS
Per your request.
Attached are the
recommendations from
Ag., EPA, CEQ and Interior
regarding predator control.
FORD is LIBRARY 03RALD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
5
SUBJECT: Proposal to Amend Executive Order 11643
DATE:
MAY 141976
FROM:
Russell E. Train, Administrator
TO:
Normal E. Ross, Domestic Council
The White House
Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Wool Growers'
proposal to amend Executive Order 11643. I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to comment on this important matter.
The White House meeting on March 29 was for the purpose of
allowing members of the livestock industry to present their views
to the President. Consequently, other parties in attendance, includ-
ing me, did not present their views in any depth. I am therefore
directing my response to Mr. Cannon and expressing my views on the
predator issue in general, as well as specifics on the Wool Grower's
proposal. A copy of my letter to Mr. Cannon is enclosed for your
information, which I believe fully states my reaction to the proposed
modifications.
Please let me know if we can offer any further information or
assistance at this time.
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
UNITED PROTECTION STATES. AGENCY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Jim
MAY
141075
Dear Mr Cannon:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed modification
of Executive Order 11643 submitted by counsel for the National Wool
Growers Association. Because of the magnitude of this proposed action, I
would like to more broadly express this Agency's position on predator
control in general, which of course has direct bearing on the Executive
Order. Because of the short time frame necessary for our response, I
will address the major issues which I feel should be brought to the
President's attention.
Let me begin by stating that in the opinion of this Agency, the
proposed modification would in effect nullify the intent and impact of
the Executive Order. The Order as proposed would no longer be a tool
of administrative policy; the changes. would in fact render it an empty
shell of platitudes mouthing a respect for environmental integrity,
but in effect removing all operational guidance of substance currently
contained in the Order. Nor do I feel that the proposed change is a
reflection of the consensus of opinion stated in the April 29 meeting
at the White House which I attended along with other Federal Agency
representatives and the Wool Growers and the Cattleman's Association.
In essence, the modified Order would permit the use of toxicants
where nonchemical control is "inadequate" or "ineffective"; while these
terms are not explicitly defined, the Order makes clear that a cost
evaluation is essential in determining "adequacy." While use of chemicals
is presumably to be the "second choice" in control efforts, it is clear
that poisoning is often economically advantageous to many non-chemical
controls, e.g., aerial surveillance and gunning. The cost approach
to determining adequacy of non-chemical controls is not required to
be balanced against other factors such as potential impact on non-target
populations. Further, by removing the requirement for consultation
among Agencies and thus fragmenting the decision of control among land-
managing departments, a different interpretation of "inadequate" and
"ineffective" can be expected. I believe interagency consultation to
be a vital part of the current Order, and certainly necessary to a
consolidated Federal animal control policy.
2
Most importantly; the use of toxicants under the proposed order
would be contingent upon EPA registration or experimental permit under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as
amended. It is thus imperative to understand this Agency's position
regarding predator poisons.
EPA has extensively researched the predator situation in the last
several years. As you know, following the implementation of Executive
Order 11643 in February 1972, this Agency suspended and canceled the
registrations of predator control products containing strychnine, sodium
cyanide, and 1080 on the basis that these toxicants posed an "imminent
hazard to the public welfare." In response to growing complaints of
increased predator losses by the livestock industry subsequent to this
action, the Agency launched an investigation into the current predator
control situation.
We have learned, first of all, that the decline of the livestock
industry, particularly the sheep segment, is due to far larger problems
than predation. Economic stresses include such factors as increased
labor costs (giving rise to less efficient range management), the increase
in the synthetic fiber industry, and the general supply/demand situation
for meat. We have further learned that significant declines in the
sheep industry in the East have occurred where coyotes are not a problem;
that predator rates are up in some areas, down in others and on balance
appear to remain unchanged since the toxicant ban.
Furthermore, the Cain Committee report (on which the Executive
Order and our subsequent suspension/ cancellation are largely based)
found non-target impacts resulting from secondary poisoning to be of
significant magnitude. The FIFRA requires that registration be based
upon data demonstrating a) that the product will be efficacious in
its intended use and b) that it may be used without unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment, which of course includes wildlife. The
findings of Cain would thus be a major obstacle to registration of
toxicants with secondary poisoning potential.
The most promising of the toxicants from a registration standpoint
is sodium cyanide. As you are no doubt aware, the Agency has issued
a total of nine experimental use permits for the testing of sodium
-3-
cyanide in the spring-loaded ejector mechanism (known as the M-44)
in an effort to collect data which can support, or conversely refute,
registration under FIFRA. Since sodium cyanide was never registered
for use in the M-44 (it was formerly employed in the "getter"--an explo-
sive device with a history of hazard to humans), we believe a proper
opportunity should be allowed to gather appropriate data for registration
purposes. We expect to be receiving final data results between June
and November.
With respect to the other toxicants, the Agency has significant
questions which stand in the way of their potential for reregistration
because of their exhibited toxic effects, Effects which caused initial
cancellation to be taken. Agency policy specifies that reregistration
of products which have been previously suspended and/or cancelled due
to a finding of unreasonable adverse effect cannot be accomplished
without full exploration of benefits and risks, and without opportunity
for public hearing. Suspension/cancellation may not be reversed lightly
nor without the same opportunity for full public participation as provided
for in the initial cancellation procedings. Furthermore, such hearings
demand the public's time and resources and cannot be initiated on a
whim but only after finding of substantial new evidence. On March
18, 1975, after long deliberation about the equities involved in overturning
a cancellation stemming from finding of unreasonable adverse effect,
I promulgated regulations covering these types of cases. A copy is
enclosed for your information.
In the case of Compound 1080 or strychnine, it is clear that a
showing of substantial new evidence followed by a formal administrative
hearing would be necessary prior to any reversal of the Agency's 1972
Orders. Such hearings, based upon past experience, could take from
several months to two years.
Sodium cyanide, on the other hand, is in a different situation
since, as I indicated earlier, a primary consideration in the cancel-
lation appeared to be the explosive nature of the device in which it
was employed. Since EPA does not register devices, it can be argued
that sodium cyanide in a different device may be registered without
such a hearing upon proper showing of safety and efficacy; or in the
event of a hearing it is unlikely to be so protracted as in the case
of other toxicants. I have directed my Office of General Counsel to
advise me as to the procedural aspects in this complicated case. Also
-4-
I might mention that potassium cyanide for use in the M-44 has never
been Federally registered and is thus not affected by the March 18
regulations.
As for a potential time frame for registering sodium cyanide,
we are obliged, of course, to await the outcome of the experimental
programs. To respond prior to the collection of adequate data could
only lead to the assumption by the Wool Growers that the programs were
meaningless stalling devices, and to the charge by environmentalists
that we are not properly administering FIFRA. Thus, no action can
reasonably be expected until fall 1975, assuming that adequate data
will be available by that time. Further, the Department of the Interior
advises that in any case, that Agency must prepare an environmental
impact statement prior to operational use of any toxicant in its pro-
grams, and fall would be consistent with USDI's timing needs as well.
To attempt to circumvent proper procedures as outlined can lead
only to greater delays due to vigorous and difficult-to-defend court
suits to prevent the use of toxicants.
Another major point to which I have alluded heretofore is the
reaction of the environmental organizations to any modifications in
the Executive Order. The President 'has been exposed to the Wool Grower's
and Cattlemen's thoughts on the issue. I do not know, however, if
he realizes the tremendous interest in predator control by wildlife
organizations and the public at large. Speaking from my own personal
experience, the week that we announced the initiation of the experimental
sodium cyanide programs, I received approximately 10,000 telegrams
in strong opposition to my action. The hundreds of letters which followed
were at least 99% in opposition to any use of predator toxicants. A
recent book has come to my attention which praises the coyote as "God's
dog." Walt Disnay films have generated much interest in and affection
for the coyote. The animal, in fact, to many symbolizes the free and
vanishing wildlife in this country. Reaction to use of toxicants on
public land has been particularly strong; many have voiced an objection
to use of toxicants on "my land" to deter "my coyotes" to protect the
"self serving" interests of the sheep industry. I therefore strongly
suggest that the President solicit the input of the major environmental
organizations, e.g., the National Wildlife Federation, the Humane Society,
Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Fund for the Animals,
Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Fund, etc., before proceeding
with any changes in the Order.
-5-
EPA certainly does not intend to prevent the livestock industry
from protecting its livelihood. It is concerned about the methods
used. Proper animal management, denning, trapping, shooting and other
alternatives are available and do not result in unacceptable environmental
effects; the spring loaded cyanide device as well may be acceptable
if it proves efficacious in current experiments. However, toxicants
with high potential for inflicting direct and secondary poisoning on
non-target species should not be allowed on either public or private
lands.
The Administration has in the past two years proposed legislation
to more effectively assist the livestock industry in controlling predator
damage. This legislation, the Animal Damage Control Act, would have
provided funds to the States and increased research into predator control
techniques. EPA supported the bill, which unfortunately was not reported
out of Committee.
In summation, then, EPA opposes the proposed modification in the
Executive Order. Actions to register toxicants causing secondary poisoning
effects are unlikely to be forthcoming in less than two years, if at
all. The only feasible relief at this time lies with cyanide (sodium
or potassium) for use in the M-44, and even this will depend upon results
of the current experimental program and cannot reasonably be accomplished
before fall 1975 and perhaps even not before early 1976. Alternative
example scenarios are attached to illustrate typical situations which
may arise.
On balance, it appears that the Wool Growers' proposal will greatly
alienate the environmental community without really helping the livestock
industry.
I believe we must develop a policy which will be in keeping with
the realities of probable accomplishments in assisting the livestock
industry without abandoning a sound environmental and public land policy
by the Administration. Namely, the Administration should:
1. Reintroduce Animal Damage Control legislation which pro-
vides for adequate operational funding of alternatives to toxicants,
mandates and funds a strong research effort and streamlines program
management with the States. The Wool Growers', Cattlemen and other
livestock interests should be urged to get behind the passage of
such legislation.
-6-
2. Give high priority in EPA to review of data on cyanide as
quickly as it is received to determine whether registration can be
justified.
3. Develop controls on cyanide use, to be ready if the data can
support registration. These can be developed, implemented, and enforced
without special changes in the Executive Order through labeling. EPA, USDI
and USDA should approach this jointly.
4. Begin to prepare an EIS for operational use of cyanide devices
should they be found registerable, or approvable for emergency use
under the FIFRA (USDI).
5. Urge USDI to proceed with rapid development of new alternatives,
chemical and non-chemical; for predator controls such as the promising
toxic collar. The current E.O. should not be read as prohibiting such
work. EPA will lend full support to USDI in clearing necessary
experimental use permits.
I urge, therefore, that you recommend the President reject the
Wool Growers' proposal, and at the very most look to the action I have
suggested here.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter,
and ask that you keep me personally apprised of needs for further infor-
mation or actions being considered on this very important and critical
area.
Kum yours,
Train
Mr. James Cannon
Assistant to the President for
Domestic Affairs
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Enclosures
Two Example Alternative Scenarios - -M-44
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FAST#
SLOW
Prepare EIS*
None
Suspend E.O.
June 75
Dec. 75
Suit on Action without EIs, filed
July 75
None
Suit on Action without EIS, cancelled
Dec. 75
None
EPA receives last EUP data
Nov 75
Nov 75
Completes review
Dec 75
Dec 75
Determines hearing needed:
Start hearing
None
March 76
End hearing
June 76
Outcome of hearing
?
Assume positive action, no hearing
Dec. 75
None
Suit against positive action, filed
January 75
July 76
Suit against positive action, completed
Mar. 76
Sept. 76
Earliest use season
Spring 76
Fall 76
Find ineffective
Summer 76
Winter 76
Seek other Toxicants
Summer 76
Winter 76
Impact by Fall, 1976
Woolgrowers &
Don't have any
cattlemen after
toxicant, Impact
new toxicant,
Negative
Impact Negative
Environmentalists negative under either
option.
*USDI believes EIS required for operational program.
#This scenario assumes that the Administrative Procedures Act does not
require an adjudicatory hearing (vs. DDT Louisiana Case).
RULES AND REGULATIONS
12261
Title 40-Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 344-41
PART 164-RULES OF PRACTICE GOVEI
ING HEARINGS, UNDER THE FEDEF
INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODI
TICIDE ACT, ARISING FROM REFUS/
TO REGISTER, CANCELLATIONS
REGISTRATIONS, CHANGES OF CLAS
FICATIONS, SUSPENSIONS OF REG
TRATIONS AND OTHER HEARIN
CALLED PURSUANT TO SECTION 6
THE ACT
Subpart D-Rules of Practice for Appli
tions Under Sections 3 and 18 To Mor
Previous Cancellation or Suspens
Orders
On February 10, 1975, the Enviro
mental Protection Agency ("EPA") pt
lished notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER (
FR 6229) of the filing of an applicati
under section 18 of the Federal Insec
cide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act,
amended ("FIFRA"), and regulatic
thereunder, for the use of pesticides CO
taining DDT (1,1,1-trichlorophenyl et
ane) on cotton to control the tobac
bud worm. EPA also published on Fe
ruary 10, 1975, notice in the FEDERAL RE
ISTER (40 FR 6228) of informal pub
hearings with respect to Louisiana's a
plication to be held in Baton Rouge. Lc
is'ana. on February 27-28, 1975 and
Washington. D.C., on March 3-5, 1975
The objective of EPA in holding the
informal hearings was to provide all 1
terested parties with an opportunity 1
formally to present their views and
allow EPA to reach a determination
soon as practicable. As these inform
hearings prog. essed it became appare
that the questions raised by the Loui
ana application directly relate to t
prior cancellation determination of t
Administrator with respect to DDT. fo
lowing extensive adjudicatory hearin
and judicial review. After the inform
hearings were announced, concern d
veloped within EPA that because
these prior administrative and judic
proceedings, informal hearings alo
may not fully satisfy the requiremer
of the FIFRA, the Administrative Pr
cedures Act and due process. EPA h
concluded that the law requires that I
vised procedures be instituted for t
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 53-TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1975
12262
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Louisiana application and for similar
The application filed by Louisiana in-
Numerous scientific studies and sever
cases in the future, in order to provide
volves the requested use of DDT on
reports to government agencies have co
required notice and opportunity for
cotton. The extensive administrative and
cluded that DDT has a wide spectrum
formal public hearings to all affected
judicial proceedings leading up to final
harmful effects on nontarget plant and ar
mal species; it increases the incidence
parties. If the procedures were not re-
cancellation of DDT registrations not
animals of cancer and reproductive defect
vised and the ultimate determination
only relate directly to the Louisiana
and its residues persist in the environme
were to grant the petition, court chal-
petition but also demonstrate the ex-
and in the human. body long enough to
lenges to the procedures would cause
haustive proceedings which precede final
found far in time and space from the origin
additional delays and may even result
EPA actions in contested cancellation or
application. 428 F.2d at 1096-97.
in reversal on procedural grounds. In
suspension proceedings.
and remanded to the Secretary:
such a situation, Louisiana would be
PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE FINAL CAN-
denied the benefits of a favorable ruling
Either for a fresh determination on tl
CELLATION OF DDT
for spring cotton planting because of
question of suspension, or for a statement
procedural irregularities. The purpose of
(1) The EDF Petition of October 1969.
reasons for his silent but effective refus
this notice is to set forth the required
On October 31, 1969, the Environmental
to suspend the registration of DDT. If 1
persists in denying suspension in the fa
procedures and to explain reasons for
Defense Fund, The National Audubon
of the impressive evidence presented by pet
requiring such procedures. With respect
Society, the Sierra Club and the West
tioners, then the basis for that decisic
to the Louisiana application this notice
Michigan Environmental Action Coun-
should appear clearly on the record, not
also serves to confirm a tentative time
sel ("EDF") filed a petition with the
conclusory terms but in sufficient detail
schedule announced at the Washington,
Secretary of Agriculture ("USDA"), re-
permit prompt and effective review. 428 F.:
D.C. informal hearings on March 5, 1975,
questing him (1) to issue notices of can-
at 1100.
within which these procedures will
cellation for all pesticide products con-
In addition, the Court ordered USDA 1
operate.
taining DDT, and (2) to suspend the
decide "on the record" whether to isst
Since the registration of DDT f r
registrations during the cancellation
the remaining requested cancellatio
pests on cotton, including the tobacco
proceedings. EDF's petition precipitated,
notices or to explain the reasons fc
bud worm, constituted at least 75% of
as the Administrator's Order noted,
deferring the decision still furth Ibis
DDT usage subject to the cancellation
"approximately 3 years of intensive ad-
(4) The "Statement of Reasons" (
order of the Administrator of June 14,
ministrative inquiry into the uses of
the Secretary and Additional Cancello
1972 (37 FR 13369) and amounted to 10
DDT." Order of June 14, 1972 at 1
tions. On June 20, 1970, the Secretar
million pounds of DDT annually, the
("Order").
filed a "Statement of Reasons Underly
Louisiana application for use of 2.25
(2) The Secretary of Agriculture's
ing the Decisions on Behalf of the Sec
milion pounds in Louisiana in 1975
Response. In response to EDF's peti-
retary with Respect to the Registration
squarely presents the question of whether
tion, three things occurred. First, USDA
of Products Containing DDT." At th
the final cancellation order should be
cancelled four uses of DDT (on shade
outset he adhered to "the prior detei
reconsidered. EPA has determined that
trees, tobacco, around the home and in
mination that no DDT registration
any application under section 3 or sec-
aquatir areas) second, USDA requested
should be suspended at this time, an
tion 18 of FIFRA for the use of a pesti-
comments on other DDT products; and
that further action with respect to car
cide at a site and on a pest for which
third, USDA took no action on the re-
cellations should await completion (
registration has been finally cancelled
quest for suspension.
(USDA's intra-agency) use-by-use eval
or suspended by the Administrator is in
On November 25, 1969, USDA pub-
uations presently in progress." State
substance a petition for reconsideration
lished a notice which stated (34 FR
ment of Reasons at 1. He went on t
of such order. Because of the extensive
18827):
make the following findings:
notice and hearing opportunities man-
The department is considering cancella-
(1) "that here are reports of carcinoge
dated by FIFRA and the Administrative
tion of any other uses of DDT unless it can
nicity resulting from the administration <
Procedures Act before a final cancella-
be shown that certain uses Lie essential in
large doscs of DDT in test animals" (p. 1);
tion or suspension order may be issued,
the protection of human health and welfare
(2) DOT is persistent and accumulates i
EPA has determined that such orders
and only those uses for which there are no
animal tissues (p.3);
may nct be reversed or modified without
effective and safe substitutes for the in-
(3) "DDT is present in most forms of ani
affording interested parties-who may
tended use will be continued.
mal life" (ibid.):
in fact have participated in lengthy
(4) "there is information which suggest
On December 11, 1969, a reply to the
that DDT is interfering with the reproduc
cancellation proceedings-similar notice
petition was sent to EDF by the Director
tion of certain raptorial birds and may be
and hearing opportunities.
of Science and Education for USDA, stat-
contributor, among other factors, to the de
Section 6 of FIFRA permits the Ad-
ing that the Department had been "con-
cline of some of these species" (ibid.);
ministrator to issue notice of intent to
cerned for some time over the potential
(5) "DDT is moderately toxic to hone
cancel a pesticide registration upon a
bees" (ibid.);
hazards that may result from the pres-
(6) "DDT in lakes and streams has beei
finding by him that the pesticide "gen-
ence of DDT and other persistent pesti-
a factor in fish mortality and reproductiv
erally causes unreasonable adverse ef-
cides in the environment." and listing
failures" (ibid.): and
fects on the environment. "Such notice
several actions, including the above can-
(7) When DDT accumulates in "detritu
is required to be sent to the registrant
cellations, that had been taken. No spe-
food some harm may be done to detritu
and made public. The registrant, or
cific mention was made of EDF's request
feeders" (pp.3-4).
other person adversely affected, may
for suspension.
He concluded (p. 8) that:
then request a hearing. The final de-
(3) Environmental Defense Fund,
(1) DDT is not an "imminent hazard t.
cision of the Administrator is required
Inc. V. Hardin (DDT- I) On December
human health";
to be made after the conclusion of the
29, 1969, EDF filed a petition in the Court
(2) "there are some adverse effects upoi
hearing. The United States Court of Ap-
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
certain species of fish and wildlife";
peals for the District of Columbia has
seeking review of USDA's failure to com-
(3) "DDT has indisputably important and
characterized the cancellation proce-
ply fully with their requests.
beneficial uses in connection with humai
dures as providing "extensive safeguards"
health and agriculture, and there are not ye
On May 28, 1970, in Environmental De-
and "elaborate procedural protection"
available substitutes for all [emphasis added
jense Fund, Inc. V. Hardin, 138 U.S. App.
to pesticide registrants and others and,
essential uses";
D.C. 391, 428 F.2d 1093 (1970), the
(4) DDT use should be reduced to "use
as a result, "a substantial time, likely to
Court held that EDF had standing to
which are essential to the public health and
exceed one year, may lause between is-
suance of notice of cancellation and final
challenge the Secretary's determinations
welfare"; and
(5) there should be "continuation of the
order of cancellation.
Environ-
under FIFRA, that a refusal to suspend
review of the possible effects (both beneficia
mental Defense Fund, Inc. V. Environ-
was reviewable. and that the inaction
and deleterious) of DDT."
mental Protection Agency, 328 F. 2d 528,
on the suspension request was ripe for
In addition to issuing the Secretary's
533 (1972).
review. This Court noted that:
statement of reasons, USDA took other
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 53-TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1975
RULES AND REGULATIONS
12263
action subsequent to the filing of EDF's
bility. and biomagnification of DDT in the
(11) EDV v. Ruckelshaus (DDT IV)
initial petition. Specifically, on February
environment. Recognizing these character-
With the administrative proceedings in
26, May 6 and August 18, 1970, in order
istics, the four government committees which
process, the Court on December 9, 1971,
have studied the DDT problem in depth be-
to protect man and the environment
tween 1963 and 1969 have all recommended
denied EDF's suspension petition, while
from the hazardous use of DDT. notices
that its uso be phased out over a period of
at the same time granting EDF the right
of cancellation were issued covering reg-
time. [Footnote omitted None have recom-
to renew its petition If the administra-
istrations for a number of vegetable,
mended an immediate ban. However. the
tive proceedings were not completed by
grain, fruit, forestry. livestock, nursery
time has come for resolution of the DDT
April 15. 1972.
and lawn uses of products containing
issue in light of the standards set out in the
(12) Formal Public Hearings. Formal
DDT.
FIFRA. This is now being done through the
public hearings commenced on August 17,
(5) Environmental Defense Fund V.
orderly administrative forum provided by the
1971, before a hearing examiner and
statute in the cancellation proceedings.
Ruckelshaus (DDT ID. On January 7,
concluded on March 16, 1972. During
1971, after reviewing USDA's Statement
(8) Advisory Committee Report. The
those eight months, 123 witnesses testi-
of Reasons, the Court remanded the case
advisory committee requested by Crop
fied, and 363 exhibits were introduced
a second time, this time to the Adminis-
King and Montrose, and composed of
into evidence. The DDT industry pre-
trator of the newly-created Environ-
experts nominated by the National
sented 17 witnesses and introduced 58
mental Protection Agency. who had just
Academy of Sciences, began delibera-
exhibits: USDA, in a dual role as regis-
been given authority for administration
tions on DDT in May. 1971. On Septem-
trant (of two agricultural pest quaran-
of the FIFRA. Environmental Defense
ber 9, 1971, the committee issued its re-
tine products) and intervenor, presented
Fund V. Ruckelshaus, 142 U.S. App. D.C.
port and recommendations. After a
40 witnesses and 94 exhibits; EDF pre-
74, 439 F. 2d 584 (1971).
lengthy discussion of the scientific evi-
sented 13 witnesses and introduced 66
The Court determined that the Secre-
dence of the hazards of DDT use. the
exhibits; and the EPA staff presented 47
tary's refusal to suspend or cancel all
committee found that DDT posed an im-
witnesses and introduced 132 exhibits.
registrations of DDT had been predi-
minent hazard to the environment and
The remaining witnesses and exhibits
cated on an "incorrect interpretation of
recommended that all DDT uses be rap-
were introduced by H. P. Cannon and
the controlling statute." 439 F. 2d at 588.
idly phased out. Previously. four Presi-
Ell Lilly. The transcript of the evidenti-
Noting in particular that the Secretary
dential and other scientific commissions
ary hearing contains more than 9,300
had found that DDT at large dosages
recognized the inherent hazards of DDT.
pages.
caused cancer in experimental animals
"Use of Pesticides." A Report of the Pres-
(13) The Examiner's Recommended
and that DDT was toxic to certain birds,
ident's Science Advisory Committee
Decision. The Hearing Examiner's rec-
bees, and fish, the Court stated that it
(May, 1963) "Restoring the Quality of
ommended decision vas issued on April
was "plain that he found a substantial
Our Environment," Report of the En-
25, 1972. Stating that in order to cancel
question concerning the safety of DDT."
vironmental Pollution Panel, President's
DDT, he would either have to find that
439 F. 2d at 594- 95. When such a ques-
Science Advisory Committee (November,
DDT directly causes cancer in man or
tion exists, this Court held, the adminis-
1965) ; Report of the Committee on Per-
makes the "earth uninhabitable" the
trative procedure must be "triggered."
sistent Pesticides, Division of Biology
Examiner concluded that the "DDT
Accordingly, the case was remanded to
and Agriculture, National Research
products in issue were not misbranded
the Auministrator with instructions to
Council, to US. Department of Agri-
under the FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 135b(2),
issue notices of cancellation with respect
culture (May 1969): the Report of the
(z) (2) (c), (d) and (g))"; that, as a
to the remaining uses of DDT.
(H.E.W.) Secretary's Commission on
matter of law, DDT use is not a carcino-1
(6) The Aaministrator's Issuance of
Pesticides and Their Relationship to En-
genic, mutagenic or teratogenic hazard
Notices of Cancellation. On January 15,
vironmental Health (Mrak Commission)
to man; and that DDT did not have a
1971, the Administrator issued notices of
(December, 1969).
deleterious effect on fish or wildlife. Rec.
cancellation with respect to all remain-
(9) EDF D. Ruckelshaus (DDT III).
Dec. pp. 92-94.
ing registrations of DDT products.
EDF returned to Court a third time to
(14) Oral Argument Before the Ad-
More than 50 registrant filed objec-
challenge the Administrator's refusal to
ministrator. On May 16, 1972, the Ad-
tions and a request for a public hearing.
suspend Since the advisory committee
ministrator personally heard over three
Two registrants, Montrose Chemical
report was issued just prior to oral argu-
hours of oral argument on the exceptions
Company and Crop King sought advisory
ment, the case was remanded to EPA
raised by the various parties.
committee consideration. In addition to
for further consideration of the suspen-
(15) The Administrator's Cancellation
EDF, several other parties intervened in
sion issue in light of the advisory com-
Order of June 14, 1972. On June 14, 1972,
the hearing, namely: USDA, The Na-
mittee findings.
the Administrator issued an order can-
tional Agricultural Chemicals Associa-
(10) The Administrator's November 1,
celling all registrations except those
tion (NACA), H. P. Cannon & Son (a
1971 Statement. In a statement filed with
for public health and agricultural pest
Delaware food processor, only as to use
the Court on November 1, 1971, the Ad-
quarantine use. The order established
of DDT on sweet peppers) and Ell Lilly
ministrator again determined not to sus-
December 31, 1972, as the effective date
& Company, a former registrant of one
pend DDT products. In reaching that
of the cancellations.
DDT product. Montrose and Crop King
decision he noted that the advisory com-
At the outset, he stated that he was
were not parties to the public hearing.
mittee had found:
"persuaded
*-
that the long-range
(7) The Administrator's March 18,
DDT spreads from its site of application
risks of continued use of DDT for use on
1971 Refusal to Suspend. In response to
and is carried 'throughout the global bio-
cotton and most other crops is unac-
Court order that he reconsider the ques-
sphere' (Conclusion 2. page 39): and DDT
ceptable and outweighs any benefits."
tion of suspension, the Administrator Is-
and its metabolites persist for years in the
Order at 1.
sued a statement of "Reasons Underlying
e:.vironment and become concentrated in
the Registration Decisions Concerning
certain species of fish and wildlife, which
The Administrator found that DDT is
Products Containing DDT, 2,4,5-T,
suffer either present or potential danger
persistent, highly mobile in the environ-
Aldrin and Dieldrin" on March 18, 1971.
therefrom (Conclusion 3. page 39).
ment, biomagnified in food chains, and
has deleterious effects on beneficial or-
It set forth the reasons why the Admin-
However, the Administrator concluded,
ganisins. The bulk of his Opinion and
istrator deemed suspension of DDT prod-
as the advisory committee had similarly
Findings were concerned with the harm-
ucts unnecessary in view of the admin-
concluded,
ful effects resulting from these proper-
:- trative proceeding then underway, and
articulated general standards relating to
there will be no appreciable dif-
ties and assessment of the asserted bene-
pesticide cancellation and suspension
ference in hazard to the public whether the
matters. The Administrator noted that:
registration of DDT is immediately sus-
'38 of the witnesses were wildlife biologists,
pended or whether it is cancelled in the near
32 were entomologists, 9 were toxicologists
This determination Is supported by the
future. If warranted. Therefore. the harm to
or pharmacologists. 5 were cancer experts,
nature of the present effects of DDT. DDT
the public from DDT cannot be lessened by
B were chemists, 5 were medical doctors, 2
is a hazard by virtue of its potential toxicity
immediate suspension as opposed to appro-
were economists, and 0 were businessmen.
at prolonged low levels of exposure. This
priate cancellations upon the orderly com-
The remaining witnesses represented other
hazard is made acute by the persistence, mo-
pletion of the cancellation procedures.
miscellaneous disciplines and fields.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 53-TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1975
12264
RULES AND REGULATIONS
fits of the DDT uses in issue. He found
of administrative proceedings. The Initial
of FIFRA relating to notice and to the
that DDT is a potential human carcino-
cancellation notice for the major uses of
opportunity of adversely affected partie:
gen and presents a real carcinogenic risk
aldrin and dieldrin was issued by the
to join in formal hearings are broadl:
to man. See Findings at 3.
Administrator on March 18, 1071. Formal
drafted to permit maximum participa
He also found widespread hazards to
administrative hearings commenced on
tion in the cancellation proceedings b:
birds, fish and other animal life caused
August 7, 1973. During the following
other Federal agencies, the States, indus
by use of DDT, specifically (ibid)
twelve months of hearing, 249 witnesses
try, environmental groups, and private
1. DDT affects phytoplankton species' com-
testified, and over 35,000 pages of tran-
citizens. With such broad opportunitie
position and the natural balance in aquatic
script and exhibits were considered and
to participate in the original proceedings
ecosystems.
the suspension is now subject to judicial
the public interest-and the interests 0
2. DDT Is lethal to many beneficial agri-
review by the Court of Appeals for the
the partics who participated in such pro
cultural insects.
District of Columbia.
ceedings-requires that the issues befor
3. DDT can have lethal and sublethal ef-
Similarly, the two administrative pro-
the Administrator not be relitigated
fects on useful aquatic freshwater inverte-
ceedings currently in progress with re-
without a threshold determination tha
brates, including arthropods and molluscs.
spect to pesticide products containing
there is substantial new evidence which
4. DDT is toxic to fish.
5. DDT can affect the reproductive success
mercury and mirex have involved
may materially affect the prior order
of fish.
lengthy hearings. The notice of intent
This procedure does not prejudice th
6. DDT can have a variety of sublethal
to hold hearings on mirex was issued on
interests of parties seeking modification
physiological and behavioral effects on fish.
March 28, 1973. The formal hearings
If there is substantial new evidence,
7. Birds can mobilize lethal amounts of
were begun on December 3, 1973 and
formal hearing should be convened t
DDT residues.
have not yet, conclud-d. To date, over 60
demonstrate the materiality of such evi
8. DDT can cause thinning of bird egg-
witnesses have testified in those hearings
dence. Morcover, the public interest de
shells and thus impair reproductive success.
resulting in a record of over 12,400 pages.
mands that public agencies not be re
He then found minimal benefits be-
As in the aldrin and dieldrin proceed-
quired to expend limited resources o
cause adequate alternative pest control
ings, a scientific advisory committee re-
reconsideration of facts previously adju
measures were available. Finding V-10.
port on mirex was prepared prior to the
dicated. Public resources should not b
He ultimately concluded that almost all
commencement of the formal hearings.
commited to reconsider a prior Cnal or
uses of DDT were not safe, that the risks
The cancellation notice of pesticide
der unless there is substantial new evi
of use far outweighed any benefits and
products containing mercury was issued
dence which may materially affect suc.
that it was therefore misbranded under
on March 22, 1972. The formal admin-
order.
FIFRA.
istrative hearings began on October 1,
For the foregoing reasons, EPA i
(16) EDF v. LPA (DDT V). Coahoma
1974 and a. still in progress. Forty wit-
adopting a new Subpart D to the Rule
Chemical Company, EPF and other par-
nesses have testified thus far in those
of Practice (40 CFR Part 104) settin
ties sought review of the Administrator's
hearings generating a record of over
forth the procedures to be followed i
final cancellation order in the Court of
2,400 pages.
the case of an application under FIFR
Appeals. Observing that the order was
THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES
sections 3 or 18 which requests use of
issued "after a lengthy administrative re-
pesticide at a site and on a pest for whic
view.
the Court affirmed the deter-
In cancellation and suspension cases
registration has been finally cancelle
mination and order of the Administrator.
such as those outlined above, where EPA
or suspended. These revised procedure
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. V. En-
has finally determined to cancel or sus-
require that in any such case the Admin
vironmental Protection Agency, 489 F. 2d
pend a pesticide registration after ex-
istrator will initially determine, on th
1247, 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1973). In so doing
haustive notice and opportunities for
basis of the application and supportin
the Court rejected industry argument
hearing as mandated by FIFRA and the
data, whether there 13 substantial ne
that:
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"),
evidence which may materially affect th
fairness requires that such final orders
the Administrator's findings are
prior order and whether such evidenc
Insufficient in that they are based to a large
not be modified or reversed lightly. Such
could not have been discovered by du
extent on data which does not directly and
prior orders should not be modified or
diligence on the part of the parties 1
specifically relate to the use of DDT to com-
reversed without notice and opportunity
the original proceeding. If it is deter
bat the boll weevil and the bollworm in the
for formal public hearings. The formal
mined that there is no such evidenc
cotton growing areas of the Southeast.
on-the-record decision making process
then the application will be denied. If
The Court went on to find that:
imposed by FIFRA and the APA as a
is determined that there is such evidenc
necessary prerequisite to final cancella-
then a formal hearing will be convene
It is true that much of the evidence in the
tion or suspension would be rendered
to determine whether such evidence ma
record concerning dangers of DDT does not
meaningless if the Administrator were
specifically relate to this one area or to the
terially affects the prior order and rt
use on cotton crops. However, it is not neces-
to modify or reverse such orders without
quires its modification. This determin:
sary to have evidence on such a specific use
notice to the public, without an oppor-
tion will be made on the basis of the re
or area in order to be able to conclude on the
tunity for formal hearings and without
ord in the hearing and the recommend
basis of substantial evidence that the use of
limiting his consideration to a formal
tions of the administrative law judi
DDT in general is hazardous. The Adminis-
hearing record. Such an informal process
presiding-over the hearing, taking in
trator has pointed to evidence in the record
could greatly prejudice the interests of
account the human and environment
showing that use of DDT except in minuscule
parties to the original proceedings. In
amot in highly controlled circumstances
risks found by the Administrator in h
the original proceedings they had the
should be curtailed because of unreasonable
prior order and the cumulative impa
risks to health and the environment. Reli-
opportunity to be represented by coun-
of past, present, and anticipated uses
ance on general data, consideration of labo-
sel, to present witnesses and documen-
the future: The procedures adopted to
ratory experiments on animals, etc., provide
tary evidence and to cross-examine wit-
day also provide that in emergency ci.
a sufficient basis to support the Adminis-
nesses of other parties. They had the
cumstances the Administrator may ru
trator's findings, even with regard to each
opportunity to argue their cases before
on the application without convening
special use of DDT. 489 F.2d at 1253-54 (foot-
an independent hearing examiner and
formal hearing when he determin
notes omitted).
before the Administrator. An informal
that: (1) the application presents a si
Other Cancellation and Suspension
process to modify or reverse final orders
untion involving nced to use the pesticio
Proceedings. In each of the other major
would not prove such opportunities,
to prevent an unacceptable risk to (
cancellation and suspension proceedings
would not protect the procedural rights
human health, or (ii) fish and wildli
initiated pursuant to Section 6, EPA has
of affected persons and would undercut
when such use would not pose a hums
similarly provided extensive notice and
the statutory scheme required by FIFRA.
health hazard; and (2) there is no oth
formal hearing opportunities.
Formal reconsideration of prior orders
feasible alternative solution to such ris
The aldrin and dieldrin suspension or-
should only be granted where there is
and (3) the time available to avert tl
der issued by the Administrator on Octo-
substantial new evidence which may ma-
risk to human health or fish and wildli
ber 1, 1974 followed almost three years
terially affect the order. The provisions
is insufficient to permit convening
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 53-TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1975
RULES AND REGULATIONS
12265
hearing: and (4) the public interest re-
showing under section 18 of a pest out-
Subport D-Rules of Practice for Applications
quires the granting of the requested use
break, of unavailability of alternatives
Under Sections 3 and 18 To Modify Previous
Cancellation or Suspension Orders
as soon as possible.
and of significant economic problems
Sec.
Notice of the Administrator's deter-
could now be made without substantial
164.130
General.
minations regarding substantial new evi-
new evidence. The procedures set forth
164.131
Review By Administrator.
dence will be published in the FEDERAL
in this regulation clarify the application
164.132
Procedures governing hearing.
REGISTER, as will notice of findings of
of the general rules under sections 3
164.133
Emergency waiver of hearing.
emergencies which require action with-
and 18 to specific cases, such as the Lou-
AUTHORITY: Sec. 25(a) and 6 of the Fed-
out hearing.
isiana application, which in substance
oral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
In the case of the petition by the State
request modification or reversal of a
Act, as ainended by the Federal Environmen-
of Louisiana it is anticipated that the
prior final order.
tal Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (86 Stat.
Administrator will make his determina-
Following the 1972 DDT cancellation
997).
tion as to whether substantial new evi-
order. EPA permitted limited quantities
Subpart D-Rules of Practice for Applica-
dence exists on or about March 14, 1975.
of DDT for temporary use to control the
tions Under Sections 3 and 18 To Modify
If it is determined that no substantial
pea leaf weevil and the tussock moth in
Previous Cancellation or Suspension
new evidence is presented then the peti-
specific areas. In 1973 and 1974 DDT
Orders
tion will be denied. If it is determined
was authorized for use for the pea leaf
that substantial new evidence is pre-
$
164.130
weevil in Idaho and Washington. These
General.
sented then notice of a formal public
authorizations considered the available
EPA has determined that any applica-
hearing will be issued as soon as possible
evidence "In light of the terms of the
tion under section 3 or section 18 of the
and it is anticipated that. depending on
June 1972 (cancellation) order
Act to allow use of a pesticide at a site
the date of the Administrator's deter-
(39 FR 10322). However, the use of DDT
and on a pest for which registration has
mination, the hearing would commence
for the pea lear weevil was not cancelled
been finally cancelled or suspended by
on March 21, 1975, and be scheduled for
by the Administrator in his 1972 order
the Administrator constitutes a petition
approximately five days, with the pre-
and thus the pea leaf weevil applications
for reconsideration of such order. Be-
siding officer's recommendations due ap-
did not in substance request the use of
cause of the extensive notice and hear-
proximabely four to five days after the
a pesticide on a site and against a pest
in:- opportunities mandated by FIFRA
hearing and a final determination by the
which was cancelled by final order.
and the Administrative Procedures Act
Administrator anticipated to be made
In 1974 DDT was authorized for use
before a final cancellation or suspension
approximately four to five days there-
on the Douglas-fir tussock moth in Ore-
order may be issued, EPA has deter-
after. Notice of the revised procedures
gon, Idaho and Washington. That de-
mined that such orders may not be re-
set forth in this publication and of this
cision specifically stated that: "The use
versed or modified without affording
tentative time schedule was given to all
of DDT for control of the tussock moth
interested parties-who may in fact have
parties involved in the informal public
was not specifically addressed in (the
participated in lengthy cancellation pro-
hearings held in Washington, D.C., on
1972 DDT cancellation) order. but there
ceedings-similar notice and hearing op-
March 5, 1975. Because of the March 5,
is no present registration of DDT for this
portunities. The procedures set forth in
1975 notice to interested parties, includ-
purpose." 30 PR 8377. The use of DDT
this Subpart D shall govern. all such
ing the State of Louisiana, the publica-
on the Douglas-fir tussock moth was not
applications.
tion of this regulation on the eve of the
cancelled by the Administrator in his
1972 order. This use had been registered
§ 164.131 Review by Administrator.
Administrator's anticipated decision as
to -tantial new evidence will not prej-
in 1947 by the Forest Service, but the
(a) The Administrator will review ap-
udice the interests of interested parties
registration was later withdrawn without
plications subject to this Subpart D and
including the State of Lovisiana. All in-
objection.
supporting data submitted by the appli-
terested parties received I. tice of these
To the extent that the procedures an-
cant to determine whether reconsidera-
procedures on March 5 and were encour-
nounced in thi- notice may differ from
tion of the Administrator's prior cancel-
aged to submit an additional brief state-
prior agency practice as observed in the
lation or suspension order is warranted.
ment summarizing what they maintain
pea leaf weevil, tussock moth and other
The Administrator shall determine that
to be substantial new evidence on
cases, EPA has concluded that such dif-
such reconsideration is warranted when
March 10, 1975. The State of Louisiana,
ferences are necessitated for the reasons
he finds that: (1) the applicant has pre-
and other interested parties have sub-
set forth in this preamble.
sented substantial new evidence which
mitted such statements.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. section
may materially affect the prior cancella-
In addition, the Louisiana application
553, the procedures set forth in these
tion or suspension order and which was
was filed under FIFRA section 18 pursu-
regulations shall take effect upon pub-
not available to the Administrator at
ant to which Louisiana is required to
lication, without notice and public pro-
the time he made his final cancellation
show that there is a pest outbreak for
cedure thereon, because they contain
or suspension determination and (2)
which no alternatives are available and
rules of agency procedure and practice
such evidence could not, through the ex-
which will result in significant economic
which are not required to be issued as
ercise of due diligence, have been dis-
or health problems (40 CFR Part 166).
proposed rulemaking. For the reasons set
covered by the parties to the cancellation
Louisiana has questioned whether EPA
forth in this preamble, EPA finds for
or suspension proceeding prior to the is-
is now changing the substantive stand-
good cause that the effective date of
suance of the final order
ard by which its application will be eval-
these regulations will not be postponed
(b) If after review of the application
uated. The procedures set forth in this
for 30 days after publication because the
and other supporting data submitted by
regulation do not, however. change the
currently pending application by the
the applicant. the Administrator detcr-
substantive rules by which the Louisiana
State of Louisiana requests a determi-
mines, in accordance with paragraph (a),
application will be measured. The issues
nation as soon as possible and EPA has
of this section. that reconsideration of
raised by the Louisiana application
determined that these procedures should
his prior order is not warranted. then
under section 18 were adjudicated and
be implemented immediately so that the
the application will be denied without
finally decided in the 1972 DDT cancel-
Louisiana application may be processed
requirement for an administrative hear-
lation case. In that case the Adminis-
in accordance with them.
ing. The Administrator shall publish no-
trator was required to make, and made,
For the reasons set forth herein. Title
tice in the FEDERAL REGISTER of the de-
specific findings and conclusions with re-
40, Part 164 of the Code of Federal Reg-
nial briefly describing the basis for his
spect to the risks and benefits associated
ulations is hereby amended by adding a
determination as soon as practicable.
with DDT use on cotton. The Adminis-
new Subpart D to read as follows:
Such denial shall constitute final agency
action.
trator's findings and conclusions were
Dated: March 12, 1975.
(c) If after review of the application
then affirmed by the Court of Appeals
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
and other supporting data submitted by
for the District of Columbia. Thus, no
Administrator.
the applicant, the Administrator deter-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 53-TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1975
12266
RULES AND REGULATIONS
mines, in accordance with paragraph
vening a hearing as required by § 164.-
(a) of this section, that reconsideration
131; and
of his prior order is warranted, he will
(4) That the public interest requires-
then publish notice in the FEDERAL REGIS-
the granting of the requested use as
TER setting forth his determination and
soon as possible.
briefly describing the basis for the deter-
(b) Notice of any determination
mination. Such notice shall announce
made by the Administrator pursuant to
that a formal public hearing will be held
paragraph (a) of this section shall be
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. section 554.
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER as
The notice shall specify: (1) the date on
soon as practicable after granting the
which the hearing will begin and end;
requested use and shall set forth the
(2) the issues of fact and law to be ad-
basis for the Administrator's deter-
judicated at the hearing, (3) the date
mination.
on which the presiding officer shall sub-
[FR Doc.75-7080 Filed 3-17-75;8:45 am]
mit his recommendations, including find-
ings of fact and conclusions, to the Ad-
ministrator, and (4) the date on which
a decision by the Administrator is antic-
ipated.
§ 164.132 Procedures governing hear-
ing.
(a) The burden of proof in the hearing
convened pursuant to § 164.13' shall be
on the applicant and he shall proceed
first. The issues in the hearing shall be
whether: (1) substantial new evidence
exists and (2) such substantial new evi-
dence requires reversal or modification
of the existing cancellation or suspen-
sion order. The determination of these
issues shall be made taking into account
the human and environmental risks
found by the Administrator in his can-
cellation or suspension determination
and the cumulative effect of all past and
present uses, including the requested use,
and uses which may reasonably be an-
ticipated to occur in the future as a
result of granting the requested reversal
or modification. The granting of a par-
ticular petition for use may not in itself
pose a significant risk to man or the en-
vironment, but the cumulative impact of
each additional use of the cancelled or
suspended pesticide may re-establish. or
serve to maintain, the significant risks
previously found by the Administrator.
(b) The presiding officer shall make
recommendations, including findings of
fact and conclusions and to the extent
feasible, as determined by the presiding
officer, the procedures at the hearing
shall follow the Rules of Practice. set
forth in Subparts A and B of this Part
164.
§ 164.133 Emergency waiver of hearing.
(a) In the case of an app lication sub-
Ject to this Subpart D which is filed under
Section 18 of FIFRA, and regulations
thereunder, and for which a hearing
is required pursuant to $ 164.131, the
Administrator may dispense with the re-
quirement of convening such a hearing
in any case in which he determines:
(1) That the application presents a
situation involving need to use the pes-
ticide to prevent an unacceptable risk:
(i) to human health, or (ii) to fish or
wildlife populations when such use would
not pose a human health hazard; and
(2) That there is no other feasible
solution to such risk; and
(3) That the time available to avert
the risk to human health or fish and
wildlife is insufficient to permit con-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 53-TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1975
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Date
May 20, 1975
FROM:
Executive Assistant
to the Secretary
TO
:
Norm Ross
Room 218 Old Executive Office Building
I am attaching herewith the proposed amendment
to Executive Order 11643. It has been approved by
Assistant Secretaries Long and Feltner. The
Secretary has not had an opportunity to digest
this yet, but suggested that I forward this to
you immediately so Mr. Cannon will have the
benefit of our thinking.
If there are any changes suggested by Secretary
Butz, I will call you.
Even
EVAN J. HALE
Attachment
5-21
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
Subject: Proposed Amended Executive Order 11643
May 19, 1975
To:
Robert W. Long
G
Assistant Secretary for
Conservation, Research, and Education
Through: R. L. Feltner
Assistant Secretary for
Helth
Marketing and Consumer Services
Enclosed is the proposed amended Executive Order 11643, Environ-
mental Safeguards on Activities for Animal Damage Control, as
Related to Federal Lands, for Public Health, and Other Federal
Programs.
Please review for approval. The deadline for this document is
noon tomorrow.
Harry Mussman
Harry C. Mussman
Acting Administrator
Enclosure
Title :--The President
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11643, AMENDED
Environmental Safeguards On Activities For Animal Damage
Control, as Related to Federal Lands, For Public
Health, and Other Federal Programs
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United
States and in furtherance of the purposes and policies of the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1973, as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.); The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 668aa); and the
Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426(b)); it is ordered
as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the Federal Government to
(1) use pesticides on Federal lands and in Federal programs on other lands,
for the purposes of public health and to control depredating mammals and
birds, only in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended; and (2) interpret
and administer the policies, regulations, and public laws on the use of
pesticides in control of such mammals or birds in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and (3) monitor, evaluate,
and control these activities for the protection and enhancement of the
environment.
All such mammal and bird control programs shall be conducted in
accordance with a manner which contributes to the maintenance of environ-
mental quality, and to the conservation and preservation of the Nation's
resources, including wild and domestic animals, and agricultural and
forest crops.
Enclosure No. 1
- 2 -
Section 2. Definitions. As used in this Order the term:
(a) "Federal lands" means all real property owned by or leased
to the Federal Government, excluding (1) lands administered by the
Secretary of Interior pursuant to his trust responsibilities for
Indian Affairs, and (2) real property located in metropolitan areas.
(b) "Agencies" means the departments, agencies, and establishment
of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
(c) "Pesticides" means any substance or mixture of substances
intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any
mammal or bird pest.
(d) "Depredating mammal or bird" means any mammal or bird which
preys upon other animals, birds, or forest and agriculture crops.
(e) "Public health purposes" means any control action of mammals
or birds to reduce the menace of disease to humans, wild and domestic
animals.
Section 3. Restrictions on Use of Pesticides for Animal Damage
Control.
(a) Heads of agencies shall take such actions as is necessary to
comply with all Federal policies, regulations and laws in the use of
pesticides in control of depredating mammals or birds and for public
health purposes on Federal lands and in Federal programs on other lands.
(b) Heads of any Federal Agency, within their respective areas of
responsibility, when in their judgment control of depredating mammals
and birds, or protection of public health is inadequate and creating an
- 3 -
emergency, shall request the Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency, to grant emergency use of pesticides required to alleviate the
emergency in accordance with Section 18, FIFRA, as amended.
(c) Heads of Federal Agencies shall act in such manner to prevent
the substantial irretrievable damage to nationally significant resources
which include, but are not limited to, domesticated species, endangered
or threatened wildlife species.
Section 4. Rules for Implementation of Order:
Heads of agencies shall issue such rules or regulations as may be
necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions and policy of
this Order.
Section 5. Amending of Previous Order:
This Executive Order amends and supersedes Executive Order 11643
in its entirety.
GREAT
Suggested Presidential Message to Accompany Issuance
of Amended Executive Order
Executive Order 11643, entitled "Environmental Safeguards on
Activities for Animal Damage Control on Federal Lands," was promulgated
as of February 8, 1972. Without altering its basic purpose I have
today amended this order for the following reasons:
(1) Subsequent to Executive Order 11643, the Federal
Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA) was
enacted to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This legislation now
provides the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
with authority to prevent the misuse of pesticides.
(2) The Federal Government experience in control of depredating
mammals and birds in the past three years, has shown
that in many situations mechanical methods of control
are effective in protecting wildlife, domestic livestock
and poultry, and forest and agriculture crops from wild
animal predation. But it has also shown that under
numerous other circumstances and conditions mechanical
means are ineffective.
Enclosure No. 2
- 2 -
(3) As a result of depredation in various parts of the
country , losses of livestock, poultry and certain
species, of wildlife have sometimes been excessive,
causing economic hardship and depletion of valuable
resources.
(4) Since the issuance of Executive Order 11643, instances
have occurred whereby wild mammals and birds have
become a public health menace, such as with rabies.
(5) Other wild mammal and bird depredations have occurred
in both forest and agricultural crops requiring the
use of pesticides.
The Order redefines Federal policy to include provision for
public health and depredations on crops to insure proper use of pesti-
cides on Federal lands and in Federal programs on other lands when
needed. Further, the revised Executive Order reduces delays in
meeting emergency use of pesticides on Federal lands for public
health and control of depredating animals, yet provides fundamental
environmental protection of humans, wild and domestic animals.
It is in the best interests of our nation to manage wild and
domestic animal populations in an effort to maintain environmental
quality as well as afford protection to humans and forest and agri-
cultural crops. .A balanced program must be undertaken to achieve
these purposes.
Explanation of Modifications in Executive Order 11643
Title
The new title should read "Environmental Safeguards on
Activities for Animal Damage Control, as Related to Federal Lands,
For Public Health, and Other Federal Programs."
Legal Citations
The following legal citations should be added:
(a) The Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C.
426 - 426(b).
(b) The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
The addition of these two statutes is necessary because both
provide fundamental responsibilities for mammal and bird damage
control and pesticide use.
Policy
New Section 1(1). Policy. The suggested changes are designed
to achieve the basic objectives outlined in Enclosure No. 4, "Statement
of Purpose and Intent." The existing language, except for the last
sentence of the order, becomes unnecessary or contradictory to the
intention of focusing on FIFRA.
Enclosure No. 3
- 2 -
New Section 1 (2) is intended to provide a balanced control of the
mammal and bird species beyond provision of the FIFRA within existing
legislation relating to environmental policy.
New Section 1 (3) is intended to include provisions of existing
Executive Orders relating to protection and enhancement of the environment,
and. pollution at Federal facilities.
Definitions
New Section 2 (a) "Federal lands" remains the same, with the
exception of excluding sub-section (2)
"real property located in metropolitan areas."
(b) "Agencies" remains same as in old order.
(c) "Pesticides" replaces the term "chemical
toxicants" to be consistent with the FIFRA
and to avoid possible redefinition when and
if the Toxic Substances Act is passed.
(d) "Depredating mammal or bird" replaces the term
"Predatory mammal or bird" to be consistent
with the control of these species in forest and
agricultural crops.
(e) "Public health purposes" term is added to define
its use in Section 1 (1).
The terms "secondary poisoning" and "field use" are now
irrelevant and are eliminated.
- 3 -
Restrictions on Use of Pesticides
The existing Section 3 has been removed in its entirety to be
consistent with provisions of the FIFRA, NEPA, and the Endangered
Species Conservation Act, and the Act of March 2, 1931. However, the
amended order provides that heads of agencies comply with existing
policies, regulations and laws when pesticides are needed for animal
damage control, and for their use under emergency provisions.
Rules for Implementation of Order
Section 4 should remain as is.
Amending of Previous Order
Section 5 is added to amend and supersede Executive Order 11643.
Statement of Purpose and Intent
The revisions in Executive Order 11643 are designed to insure proper
and responsible use of pesticides for mammal and bird control through
fundamental reliance upon the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, by the Federal Environmental
Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA). FEPCA was enacted subsequent to the
Executive Order and the amended FIFRA is the basic statute designed to
prevent environmental abuse by misapplication of pesticides. It should,
therefore, be the guiding legislation for pesticides used in animal
damage control and for protection of public health.
It should be noted that over 50,000 chemicals are registered under
FIFRA, but, to our knowledge, the only ones singled out for prohibition
by an Executive Order are three canceled predacides. It should be further
noted that these same chemicals are still registered under FIFRA for use
in controlling rodents in urban areas.
Experience in the past three years has shown that some pesticides
can be used with little, if any, hazard to the environment. This same
experience has demonstrated that pesticides are essential under certain
circumstances and may be necessary components of any balanced control
program.
It is intended that the modified order continue to have among its
basic purposes the objective of conserving wildlife and domestic resources
and environmental quality.
Enclosure No. 4
Suggested Additional Directives of the President
(1)
The Secretary of Interior should be instructed to apply
for registration of those pesticides which can be success-
fully used in mammal and bird control under provisions of
the FIFRA. He should also be instructed to begin screening
those pesticides for which the Denver Wildlife Research
Center has data for possible substitute pesticides in mammal
and bird control. Candidate pesticides should be chosen and
application for registration made with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
(2)
The President should also direct the Administrator of EPA to
give priority to expediting the regulatory procedures under
FIFRA for the registration of pesticides for animal damage
control.
Enclosure No. 5
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
May 14, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR NORM ROSS
DOMESTIC COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Predator Control
Yesterday I received the recommendations on predator
control submitted by the Wool Growers. This memorandum
represents both my response to the Wool Growers'
presentation and my views on the issue discussed
with the President.
My understanding was that the purpose of the meeting with
the President was to provide the representatives of the
Wool Growers and their associates an opportunity to express
their views. Consequently, I did not express my own views;
neither did the others present who did not subscribe to
the Wool Growers' views. There are clearly two sides to
this issue, and I believe it would be a serious mistake
if a decision for a change in present policy were to be
reached when only one side has been heard.
Opposition to the use of poisons on public lands comes
from a very broad cross section of the American public.
It is not limited to the environmental groups or any other
single segment. Illustrative of this, EPA informs me that
the week that Administrator Train announced the experi-
mental program, for testing Sodium Cyanide in the M-44
mechanism, they received some 6,000 telegrams and 4,000
letters, about 99% in protest of the action.
Consequently, I would strongly urge that before there is
any change in the Executive Order or current policy on
predator control poisons, the President should meet with
-2-
representatives of the important part of his constituency
which does not wish to see any relaxation of the poison
ban.
Mr. Quinn's letter transmitting the Wool Growers
recommendations states that he is acting "on behalf of
the National Wool Growers Association and the other
organizations represented at last week's conference."
However, my staff has been in contact with Mr. Robert
Jantzen, who represented the International Association
of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners at the meet-
ing with the President. As Mr. Jantzen has written,
the Association is preparing a separate recommendation.
At least in the draft form available to us, this recom-
mendation is quite different from that of the Wool Growers'.
The basic thrust of the Wool Growers recommendations is
to rescind the existing Executive Order. That is the
effect of their proposed modified executive order and it
would be immediately perceived as such by the public. I
very strongly advise against this procedure for the
reasons outlined below. I am not commenting in detail
on the specifics of the Wool Growers submissions since
they are all directly related to effectively rescinding
the Executive Order. I am also not going into detail on
the history or nature of the predator control program and
problem. I understand that the Department of the Interior
is preparing you a background briefing paper which accom-
plishes that. You also have the Predator Control section
from our last Annual Report.
The basic issue is one of a drastically declining sheep
industry. Since about 1940, the industry has been in a
virtually constant decline. The periods of greatest
decline have accompanied the period of greatest use of
poisons in predator control. Further, the decline in the
industry has been roughly equivalent both in the 17 Western
states where coyotes are a problem and in the 31 other sheep
raising states where they are not. This situation continues.
Currently the total losses of livestock in the other 31 are
actually slightly greater than those in the 17 states which
-3-
have coyotes. There is no question but that the sheep
industry is in serious trouble, but there is equally no
question but that coyote predation is not the main prob-
lem. It is, however, a convenient target for the frus-
trations of the Western wool growers.
The predator control program currently being used, most
with nontoxic methods, is killing as many coyotes on an
annual basis as were killed on an average during the
decade prior to the poison ban. In view of the methods
used, this effort is probably providing more overall pro-
tection to the wool growers, since the nontoxic methods
are generally more selective for the coyotes which are
causing the actual trouble, than was the broad scale use
of toxicants. Since the poison ban, predation is up in
some areas and down in others. From the information
available to us (from USDA, USDI, EPA, etc.) there is no
substantiation that overall predation has significantly
increased since the poison ban.
The Wool Growers recommendations include reference to the
need to use poisons for predator control to protect wild-
life. However, as Mr. Jantzen pointed out in the meeting
with the President, predation is not a major wildlife
problem. The wildlife profession itself has come out
strongly in opposition to poisons in predator control.
At the 1973 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference, the proposed new North American Wildlife Policy
was presented. This was the result of year's study by a
very distinguished group of top wildlife professionals,
including representation from the International Association.
In terms of poisons for predator control, the Wildlife Policy
stated: "Poisoning should be outlawed except for emergency
use by qualified personnel."
Citizen opposition to the use of poisons in predator con-
trol is based on several factors. One is the abhorrence
of what is perceived as the cruelty involved. Another is
the potential damage to nontargeted animals (including
birds) and to the ecosystem as a whole. A further factor
involves the predators themselves. Citizens place a high
-4-
social value on predators and resent their destruction.
Livestock grazing on public lands is seen by much of the
public as one privileged use of such lands. There is
growing opposition when this use further impacts other
public use and enjoyment of those lands, particularly
through the use of poisons for predator control with its
real or believed impact on the predators, other wildlife,
and ecosystems of the public lands.
Those of the public who are better acquainted with the
situation realize that predators are not what is causing
the decline of the sheep industry, and that in most cases
poisons are of questionable benefit at best. This com-
bination of considerations of morality with other factors
creates strong opposition to poisons from a very broad
spectrum of the nation's public.
Given these factors, recognizing that predation is not
the basic problem of the sheep industry, and that poisons,
even with unlimited use, have never solved the industry's
problems, it is clear to me that rescinding the Executive
Order would be strongly counterproductive.
Another option would be to suspend or amend the Executive
Order to allow use of the M-44 under certain circumstances.
I would advise against this procedure also.
The M-44 is currently in wide use under the EPA experi-
mental program and under the USDI emergency uses. The
Wool Growers have repeatedly emphasized that the M-44 is
not effective. We know that the M-44 certainly has limi-
tations on its effectiveness, and alone is not the answer.
Consequently, amending the Order to allow the M-44 will
at most buy a few months time. It will appear to be a
step in the direction of helping the Wool Growers, but
will create real problems with the rest of the public.
The Wool Growers in short order will come back saying that
the M-44 does not work and that we must go to 1080 or other
poisons. Having set the precedent of allowing poisons on
public lands, it will then be politically vastly more
difficult to hold the line. Therefore, there is little,
-5-
even temporary, to be gained from amending the Order to
allow the M-44 and a great deal to be lost. In my judg-
ment it will create a worse problem in the long run (long
being perhaps less than six months after whatever action
is taken).
The time element is a further factor to be considered if
any change is contemplated. If control of poisons is
shifted entirely to EPA (through amendment or recision of
the Executive Order), the administrative procedures will
require many months. If this procedure involves an envi-
ronmental impact statement and public hearings, the time
would be extended, possibly late into 1976. Such delays
would only create further frustration on the part of the
Wool Growers, while doing nothing to molify the rest of
the public.
My advice, then, is: (1) leave the Executive Order in
place; (2) assure that the emergency provisions of the
Executive Order operate smoothly; (3) accelerate research
on the toxic collar and on other methods of predator con-
trol; and (4) identify the real factors affecting the
sheep industry and determine Federal policy accordingly.
I will be pleased to amplify these comments or provide
any additional information.
Russ
Russell W. Peterson
Chairman
9:00 AM - Cayote Control Meeting
Senator McClure's office
Sen. Fanner, Hansen,
Laxaylt , Art Quinn 7, and 2
Associates JMC.
460 OSOB
Hursday, May 22, 1975
who wrote
Twi label
We Uum .) Two transact types of
a) Dreugroun
At. Relectarity - -
PA Down
in Hand
their of
3 year
adv and term you
your tay
g ev not
street
THE
varly only want
1
it That why
b) M-VU- - -
for guere
Livertoch are - my
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 27, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON
FROM:
DOUG COSTLE
Dul
SUBJECT:
Coyote Predation; Wool Growers' Proposal
to Amend Executive Order 11643
After reviewing the EPA, CEQ and Interior positions
on the Wool Growers' proposal, I think that our
principal objective should be to move this out of
the White House, if possible. As long as it is here,
it represents a no-win proposition for the President.
The situation basically comes down to this:
1. The evidence for and against the use of chemicals
for predator control is inconclusive. Both sides
make strong arguments on the basis of available
data. The available data is simply not definitive.
2. Interior, CEQ and EPA are unanimously opposed to
alteration of the Executive Order or putting the
President in the position of "over promising" to
the Wool Growers.
3. Amending the Executive Order will not, by itself,
advance the cause of the Wool Growers, but will
bring down the wrath of the organized environmental
community (not just the nuts, either). Specifically,
even were the Executive Order to be amended, the use
of 1080, strychnine, and cyanide (sodium or potassium)
compounds would have to be licensed in separate
proceedings by EPA under recently amended pesticides
laws. The existence of the Federal Executive Order
does not affect this requirement either way.
- 2 -
Under EPA adopted rules, 1080 or strychnine,
having already been suspended once, can only be
registered again upon a showing of substantial
new evidence--evidence not shown to date. The
use of sodium or potassium cyanide would also
require EPA licensing although the probability
of a favorable ruling is higher in the case of
these compounds. If EPA were to license these
compounds, then the Executive Order would have
to be amended or it would act as a separate bar
to the use of these compounds on Federal lands.
4. Interior is of the opinion that an environmental
impact statement would have to be prepared before
any of these compounds could be used on Federal
lands (even if the Executive Order were to be
dropped or amended). If they began preparing that
statement now, it would be 2-4 months before a high
quality draft would be ready, and 6-8 months before
a final environmental impact statement could be
published.
5. In an attempt to gather the necessary information
for eventual licensing of cyanide compounds, EPA
has issued permits for an experimental program in
the use of the M-44 device. Early results look
promising. Some of these experimental studies will
be concluded within a matter of 3-4 months. Accord-
ing to EPA, the analysis of this data could be
accelerated.
In short, even if the President wished to move decisively,
there appears to be no "quick fix" available to him under
existing laws.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the President defer amending or dropping the
Executive Order until after EPA's evaluation of the
use of cyanide compounds is completed. The President
will gain nothing and lose a great deal by amending
the Executive Order. He will not advance the Wool
Growers' cause thereby, and he will make the environ-
mentalists mad. He will also appear to be prejudging
- 3 -
EPA study results before they are in and the findings
of any legally prescribed formal hearings before
they are held.
2. That you instruct EPA to accelerate to the maxi-
mum extent feasible the collection and analysis
of data on the use of M-44. Simultaneously, instruct
Interior to begin work on a draft, contingency
environmental impact statement involving the use
of cyanide compounds.
3. That you direct Interior to accelerate its program
of research into both chemical and non-chemical
alternatives (I understand that Interior has been
hesitant in getting too deeply into the question
of chemical alternatives).
4. That the President's new science adviser be asked
to independently evaluate the available scientific
data on the environmental and health effects of
1080, strychnine and any other relevant chemicals
for use in predator control and assess the signifi-
cance of predator control to the economic viability
of the industry. This study could provide a valuable
input to any EPA hearing.
5. That Russell Train work directly with the Wool
Growers and clearly indicate that we understand
and are sympathetic with the Wool Growers' problems
and that EPA will work with them to re-evaluate
the evidence on both sides of this question. I
think it is important that the Wool Growers under-
stand that we are sympathetic to their problems.
They, in turn, must understand that no "instant
resolution" is available to the President, for legal
as well as political reasons.
6. That you and Secretary Butz sit down personally with
Train, Peterson and Hughes (from Interior) to hear
their arguments, both on the merits and on the
politics.
7. That you afford a selected responsible environmental
group an opportunity to meet with you. This will
avoid criticism from the environmentalists that
the White House has listened to only one side of this
issue. (Reference earlier correspondence from
Audubon Society, et al).
- 4 -
As you know, I am holding several pieces of corres-
pondence on this. If you concur in the above
recommendations we can move things along fairly
quickly.
Concur
Do Not Concur
See Me
DRAFT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 29, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNON
SUBJECT:
Coyote Predation; Wool Growers' Proposal
to Amend Executive Order 11643 --
For Your Information
We have reviewed the coyote control question in detail with
all parties involved, including the Wool Growers.
We feel that it would be inadvisable to amend Executive Order
11643 at this time because, under recently amended laws,
formal EPA hearings, findings, etc. are required before such
an executive action by you can effectively change the situation.
I propose to take the following steps to help solve this problem.
1.
Russ Train will work with the Wool Growers to re-evaluate
the evidence on both sides of this question. It will be
explained to the Wool Growers that no "instant resolution"
is available to the President, for legal reasons.
2.
EPA will accelerate to the maximum extent practicable the
collection and analysis of data on the use of cyanide
compounds for control. This is the most promising solution.
3.
I will ask the new Science Adviser (or the National Academy
of Sciences) to independently evaluate the available
scientific data on the environmental and health effects of
all alternatives for use in predator control and to assess
the significance of predator control to the economic
viability of the industry.
4.
I will ask Interior to accelerate their research into both
chemical and non-chemical predator control alternatives
and to begin work on a draft environmental impact state-
ment involving the use of cyanide compounds.
A more detailed memorandum from a member of my staff is
attached at Tab A.
Agree
Disagree
See me
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 27, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON
FROM:
DOUG COSTLE
Dul
SUBJECT:
Coyote Predation; Wool Growers' Proposal
to Amend Executive Order 11643
After reviewing the EPA, CEQ and Interior positions
on the Wool Growers' proposal, I think that our
principal objective should be to move this out of
the White House, if possible. As long as it is here,
it represents a no-win proposition for the President.
The situation basically comes down to this:
1. The evidence for and against the use of chemicals
for predator control is inconclusive. Both sides
make strong arguments on the basis of available
data. The available data is simply not definitive.
2. Interior, CEQ and EPA are unanimously opposed to
alteration of the Executive Order or putting the
President in the position of "over promising" to
the Wool Growers.
3. Amending the Executive Order will not, by itself,
advance the cause of the Wool Growers, but will
bring down the wrath of the organized environmental
community (not just the nuts, either). Specifically,
even were the Executive Order to be amended, the use
of 1080, strychnine, and cyanide (sodium or potassium)
compounds would have to be licensed in separate
proceedings by EPA under recently amended pesticides
laws. The existence of the Federal Executive Order
does not affect this requirement either way.
- 2 -
Under EPA adopted rules, 1080 or strychnine,
having already been suspended once, can only be
registered again upon a showing of substantial
new evidence--evidence not shown to date. The
use of sodium or potassium cyanide would also
require EPA licensing although the probability
of a favorable ruling is higher in the case of
these compounds. If EPA were to license these
compounds, then the Executive Order would have
to be amended or it would act as a separate bar
to the use of these compounds on Federal lands.
4. Interior is of the opinion that an environmental
impact statement would have to be prepared before
any of these compounds could be used on Federal
lands (even if the Executive Order were to be
dropped or amended). If they began preparing that
statement now, it would be 2-4 months before a high
quality draft would be ready, and 6-8 months before
a final environmental impact statement could be
published.
5. In an attempt to gather the necessary information
for eventual licensing of cyanide compounds, EPA
has issued permits for an experimental program in
the use of the M-44 device. Early results look
promising. Some of these experimental studies will
be concluded within a matter of 3-4 months. Accord-
ing to EPA, the analysis of this data could be
accelerated.
In short, even if the President wished to move decisively,
there appears to be no "quick fix" available to him under
existing laws.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the President defer amending or dropping the
Executive Order until after EPA's evaluation of the
use of cyanide compounds is completed. The President
will gain nothing and lose a great deal by amending
the Executive Order. He will not advance the Wool
Growers' cause thereby, and he will make the environ-
mentalists mad. He will also appear to be prejudging
- 3 -
EPA study results before they are in and the findings
of any legally prescribed formal hearings before
they are held.
2. That you instruct EPA to accelerate to the maxi-
mum extent feasible the collection and analysis
of data on the use of M-44. Simultaneously, instruct
Interior to begin work on a draft, contingency
environmental impact statement involving the use
of cyanide compounds.
3. That you direct Interior to accelerate its program
of research into both chemical and non-chemical
alternatives (I understand that Interior has been
hesitant in getting too deeply into the question
of chemical alternatives).
4. That the President's new science adviser be asked
to independently evaluate the available scientific
data on the environmental and health effects of
1080, strychnine and any other relevant chemicals
for use in predator control and assess the signifi-
cance of predator control to the economic viability
of the industry. This study could provide a valuable
input to any EPA hearing.
5. That Russell Train work directly with the Wool
Growers and clearly indicate that we understand
and are sympathetic with the Wool Growers' problems
and that EPA will work with them to re-evaluate
the evidence on both sides of this question. I
think it is important that the Wool Growers under-
stand that we are sympathetic to their problems.
They, in turn, must understand that no "instant
resolution" is available to the President, for legal
as well as political reasons.
6. That you and Secretary Butz sit down personally with
Train, Peterson and Hughes (from Interior) to hear
their arguments, both on the merits and on the
politics.
7. That you afford a selected responsible environmental
group an opportunity to meet with you. This will
avoid criticism from the environmentalists that
the White House has listened to only one side of this
issue. (Reference earlier correspondence from
Audubon Society, et al).
- 4 -
As you know, I am holding several pieces of corres-
pondence on this. If you concur in the above
recommendations we can move things along fairly
quickly.
Concur
Do Not Concur
See Me
DOMESTIC COUNCIL CLEARANCE SHEET
Drd
DATE: May 29, 1975
hots Discuss
JMC action required by:
TO:
JIM CANNON
VIA:
DICK DUNHAM RD
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
DOUG COSTLE
SUBJECT:
Coyote Predation; Wool Growers' Proposal
to Amend Executive Order 11643
COMMENTS:
hase my you handle D.
suggestriasty
DATE: 6/5/75
RETURN TO:
Material
Signed has been: and forwarded
Changed and signed (copy attached)
for accussion further
Returned per our conversation
Noted
Jim Cannon