BILL ANALYSIS �
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