BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2657|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2657
Author: Bloom (D)
Amended: 8/11/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/25/14
AYES: Hill, Gaines, Hancock, Jackson, Leno, Pavley
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fuller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-20, 5/23/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Wildlife habitat areas: anticoagulants
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill prohibits the use of anticoagulant
rodenticides in wildlife habitat areas.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Authorizes the states 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
CONTINUED
AB 2657
Page
2
harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring
proper stewardship of those pesticides.
2.Requires the Director of the DPR to control and otherwise
regulate the use of restricted materials.
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
commissioner.
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.
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 any state park, state
wildlife refuge, or state conservancy.
3.Specifies that the use prohibition does not apply to the use
of pesticides for agricultural activities.
4.Directs state agencies to encourage federal agencies to comply
with the prohibition regarding the use of anticoagulant
rodenticides.
5.Specifies that this bill does not preempt or supersede any
federal statute or the authority of any federal agency.
Background
Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) .
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. Anticoagulant
rodenticide baits may take several days following ingestion of a
lethal dose to kill the rodent, so rodents may feed on the SGAR
CONTINUED
AB 2657
Page
3
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, the DPR received a
request from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) that the
DPR designate all SGARs as California-restricted materials in
order to mitigate nontarget wildlife exposure in California.
The DFW contends that dozens of non-target species are impacted
by anticoagulant pesticides including the golden eagle,
great-horned owl, barn owl, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered
hawk, black bear, fisher, red fox, San Joaquin kit fox, mountain
lion, bobcat, and kangaroo rat.
In response to the DFW's request, the DPR took steps to obtain
wildlife incident and mortality data, which it analyzed together
with land use, rodenticide use, and sales data. After reviewing
all the data obtained from both urban and rural areas, the DPR
found that SGAR exposure and toxicity to nontarget wildlife is a
statewide problem, regardless of the setting. The 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, the 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.
CONTINUED
AB 2657
Page
4
In the March action, the 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. The
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/11/14)
Center for Biological Diversity
Environmental Protection Information Center
Mountain Lion Foundation
Raptors Are The Solution
Sierra Club
The Humane Society
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, this bill
"augments DPR regulations that will go in effect in July by
making it clear that resident and commercial areas that are in
the Sensitive wildlife (State Conservancies, State Parks and
National Parks) areas would also not be able to use the second
generation anti-coagulant rodenticides even through a commercial
provider. The objective of the bill is to further reduce the
exposure our wildlife has to these harmful rodenticides."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-20, 5/23/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Bradford,
Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Cooley,
Dababneh, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia,
Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Hall, Holden,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Medina, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, John A. P�rez, Quirk,
Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner,
Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
CONTINUED
AB 2657
Page
5
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Ch�vez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Grove, Hagman, Jones, Linder, Logue,
Mansoor, Melendez, Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonilla, Brown, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, V.
Manuel P�rez, Vacancy
RM:k 8/11/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED