BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2657 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 8, 2014 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS Luis Alejo, Chair AB 2657 (Bloom) - As Amended: April 3, 2014 SUBJECT : Wildlife habitat areas: use of anticoagulants. SUMMARY : Prohibits the use of anticoagulant rodenticides in wildlife habitat areas. Specifically, this bill : 1)Prohibits the use, in a wildlife habitat area, of any pesticide that contains one or more of the following anticoagulants: a) Brodifacoum; b) Bromadiolone; c) Difenacoum; and, d) Difethialone. 2)Defines a "wildlife habitat area" as "State and National Parks, state and federal wildlife refuges, state conservancies, areas designated as critical habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered under the state or federal endangered species acts, and lands that have been designated as habitat for mitigation purposes or are otherwise protected by a conservation easement." EXISTING LAW : 1)Authorizes the state's pesticide regulatory program and mandates the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to, among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber and for the protection of public health and safety, and protect the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 11401 et seq.) 2)Requires the director of DPR to control and otherwise regulate the use of restricted materials. (FAC § 14001) 3)Prohibits a person from using or possessing any pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the local agricultural AB 2657 Page 2 commissioner. (FAC § 14006.5) 4)Prohibits, except as provided by regulation, the possession or use of a restricted material by any person except a certified private or commercial applicator, or someone under the direct supervision of a certified private or commercial applicator. (FAC § 14015) 5)Defines "environmentally sensitive area" as any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. (Public Resources Code § 30107.5) 6)Designates as restricted materials pesticides containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. (Title 3 C.C.R, § 6400 (2014)) 7)Prohibits the use of brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone in any above ground bait more than 50 feet from a man-made structure unless there is a feature associated with the site that is harboring or attracting the pests targeted on the label between the 50-foot limit and the placement limit specified on the label. (Title 3 C.C.R, § 6471 (2014)) FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. COMMENTS : Need for the bill : According to the author, "Last year while authoring AB 1213, I was contacted by Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy, Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority, and Joshua Tree National Park regarding numbers of their bobcat populations succumbing to illness/ailments that normally they would survive. The bobcats were dying from things like mange that normally wouldn't kill them. The rodenticides were identified as the possible issue as they were eating rodents who had consumed the poison? DPR since then has begun regulatory changes which could ban over-the-counter retail sales of the anti-rodenticides to help curb the problem? This bill would take these regulations a step further and ban the commercial use of these anti-coagulants in state parks, national park, and sensitive areas." AB 2657 Page 3 Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) : DPR's Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action and Initial Statement of Reasons provided the following background on SGARs and the impact of its use. Anticoagulant rodenticides work by inhibiting a rodent's ability to produce several key blood clotting factors, thus causing the poisoned rodent to die from internal bleeding. SGARs were developed in response to resistance issues reported with first generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs). In general, SGARs are more toxic than FGARs because they are designed to be lethal after a single feeding instead of after multiple doses. Anticoagulant rodenticide baits may take several days following ingestion of a lethal dose to kill the rodent, so rodents may feed on the SGAR bait multiple times before dying. As a result, rodent carcasses may contain residues of SGARs many times over the lethal dose. If a nontarget predator feeds on a rodent containing lethal concentrations of a SGAR, the nontarget predator can also be impacted by the rodenticide. Brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and, difethialone are active ingredients in SGARs. Impact of SGARs on wildlife : In July 2011, DPR received a request from The Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) that DPR designate all SGARs as California-restricted materials in order to mitigate nontarget wildlife exposure in California. DFW contends that dozens of species are impacted by anticoagulant pesticides, including the golden eagle, great-horned owl, barn owl, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, American kestrel, turkey vulture, Canada goose, black bear, fisher, red fox, gray fox, San Joaquin kit fox, coyote, mountain lion, bobcat, kangaroo rat, raccoon, badger, and wild pig. In response to DFW's request, DPR took steps to obtain wildlife incident and mortality data between 1995 and 2011, which it analyzed together with land use data, and rodenticide use and sales data between 2006 and 2010. DPR considered data from multiple sources, including DFW, private agencies and individuals, available journal articles, and other resources. Of the 492 nontarget mammals (e.g., red fox, mountain lion, bobcat, coyotes, and the federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox) and bird necropsies included in DPR's analysis, 368 (74.8 percent) had residues of one or more anticoagulant rodenticide (FGARs and SGARs). Of the 368 animals that tested positive for at least one anticoagulant rodenticide, 359 (97.6 percent) had residues of at least one SGAR while only 65 (17.7 percent) had AB 2657 Page 4 residues of at least one FGAR. After reviewing all the data obtained from both urban and rural areas, DPR found that SGAR exposure and toxicity to nontarget wildlife is a statewide problem, regardless of the setting. DPR found that the use of SGARs presents a hazard related to persistent residues in target animals resulting in impacts to nontarget wildlife Recent regulatory action on SGARs : While certain mitigation efforts had previously been in effect for some SGARS, following its findings on the impacts of SGARs on wildlife throughout the state, on March 18, 2014, DPR designated the active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone as California-restricted materials, making all SGAR products restricted materials. The action included additional use restrictions for SGARs and will be in effect on July 1, 2014. Restricted materials are pesticides deemed to have a higher potential to cause harm to public health, farm workers, domestic animals, honeybees, the environment, wildlife, or other crops compared to other pesticides. With certain exceptions, restricted materials may be purchased and used only by or under the supervision of a certified commercial or private applicator under a permit issued by the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). California requires permits for restricted materials so that the local CAC can assess, in advance, the potential effects of the proposed application on health and the environment. Permits are time and site specific, and include use practices to reduce adverse effects. The CAC may deny permits or require feasible alternatives to be used. In the March action, DPR further restricted the use of SGARs by prohibiting the placement of aboveground baits containing the specified SGAR ingredients more than 50 feet from a man-made structure, unless there is a feature associated with the site that is harboring or attracting pests. SGARs target commensal rodents, such as the house mouse, Norway rat and roof rat, which generally live in close association with humans and are dependent upon human habits for food, water, and shelter. DPR contends that restricting the use of all SGARs to only certified applicators and limiting its use to near structures will significantly reduce unintended exposures to nontarget wildlife. AB 2657 Page 5 While the author believes that the regulations put forth by DPR are an important step toward protecting the public and wildlife from unintended exposure to SGARs, he does not believe that they sufficiently protect vulnerable wildlife in state and national parks and other sensitive areas. The goal of this bill is to augment the recent restricted-use designation of SGARs by additionally prohibiting the use of those pesticides in designated areas of public value known to harbor wildlife. Should the use of SGARs be restricted through the existing regulatory framework ? In California, pesticides are generally regulated though labeling requirements and the designation of the pesticide as a restricted material. However, there are examples in statute of specific pesticide use restrictions and requirements, such as in FAC § 12978, which requires the posting of a notice of pesticide application on public school grounds. SGARs are designated as a restricted material with additional labeling requirements outlining prohibitions on their use. Instead of adding restrictions of the use of SGARs outside of the existing regulatory framework, should the proposed restrictions in this bill instead be included in the labeling and restricted materials regulations on SGARs? Double referral : This bill is double referred to the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Humane Society of United States Sierra Club California Opposition None received. Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 AB 2657 Page 6