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