BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2657
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 2657 (Bloom)
          As Amended August 11, 2014
          Majority vote
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |54-20|(May 23, 2014)  |SENATE: |26-6 |(August 19,    |
          |           |     |                |        |     |2014)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
            
           Original Committee Reference:   E.S. & T.M.  

           SUMMARY  :  Prohibits the use of specified anticoagulant  
          rodenticides in state parks, state wildlife refuges, and state  
          conservancies.  

           The Senate amendments  :  

           1)Limit the scope of this bill by deleting provisions  
            prohibiting the use of specified anticoagulant rodenticides in  
            national parks and federal wildlife refuges.

          2)Provide that state agencies are directed to encourage federal  
            agencies to comply with the prohibition on the use of  
            specified anticoagulant rodenticides.

          3)Provide that the prohibitions in this bill do not preempt or  
            supersede any federal statute or the authority of any federal  
            agency. 

           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill prohibited the use of  
          specified anticoagulant rodenticides in any state or national  
          park, state or federal wildlife refuge, or state conservancy.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

           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  








                                                                  AB 2657
                                                                  Page  2

          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 [Department of Pesticide  
          Regulations] 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."

          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  
          bait multiple times before dying.  As a result, rodent carcasses  
          may contain residues of SGARs many times over the lethal dose.   
          If a non-target predator feeds on a rodent containing lethal  
          concentrations of a SGAR, the non-target 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 Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) that DPR  
          designate all SGARs as California-restricted materials in order  
          to mitigate non-target wildlife exposure in California.  DFW  
          contends that dozens of non-target species are impacted by  
          anticoagulant pesticides, including 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 DFW's request, DPR took steps to obtain wildlife  
          incident and mortality data, which it analyzed together with  
          land use, rodenticide use, and sales data.  DPR found that SGAR  
          exposure and toxicity to non-target wildlife is a statewide  
          problem, regardless of the setting, and that the use of SGARs  
          presents a hazard related to persistent residues in target  
          animals resulting in impacts to non-target 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  








                                                                  AB 2657
                                                                  Page  3

          restricted materials.  The action included additional use  
          restrictions for SGARs, including prohibiting the placement of  
          aboveground baits containing the specified SGAR ingredients more  
          than 50 feet from a man-made structure, as specified, which went  
          into 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.

          The goal of this bill is to augment the recent restricted-use  
          designation of SGARs by additionally prohibiting the use of  
          those pesticides in specified areas of public value known to  
          harbor non-target wildlife.  

          Senate amendments:  The Senate amendments limit the scope of  
          this bill by restricting the prohibition to state, and not  
          federal, entities.  The amendments were taken to address  
          concerns with the costs associated with the requirement for the  
          use of potentially more costly or less effective (and therefore  
          more resource intensive) rodenticides to protect threatened or  
          endangered species from rodent impacts.  The Farallon Island  
          project was cited as a specific example of concern.  In  
          addition, the amendments remove concerns about potential  
          litigation resulting from the provisions of the bill that would  
          have applied to federal employee activities on federal land.
           

          Analysis Prepared by :    Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)  
          319-3965


                                                               FN: 0004581