2.0 SUMMARY
This section
presents a summary of the environmental review and analysis of the proposed
Pierce's Disease Control Program (PDCP), as described in Chapter 5 of this
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A summary of the potential
environmental impacts identified in the body of this report is found at the end
of this section. The Summary is organized by the topical sections of the
report. Detailed discussions are found within each of the applicable sections
contained in Chapter 5.
2.1 PROGRAM
UNDER REVIEW
This EIR has
been prepared to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed
PDCP, which is a coordinated statewide program to minimize the statewide impact
of Pierce's disease and the glassy-winged sharpshooter, a non-native insect
capable of spreading Pierce's disease to new areas of California.
Pierce's
disease is caused by a strain of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa that kills
grapevines by clogging their water-conducting vessels (xylem). Several strains
of this bacterium exist, attacking and causing damage to different host plants
including grapes, citrus, stone fruits, almonds, alfalfa, oleander, and certain
shade trees (including oaks, elms, maples and sycamore). There is no known cure
for the disease. The glassy-winged sharpshooter is an aggressive non-native
insect that feeds on the xylem fluid of over 700 plant species and has the
ability to spread the bacterium that causes Pierce's disease. Because the
glassy-winged sharpshooter is prolific, disperses rapidly, and transmits the bacteria
from grapevine-to-grapevine, it has the ability to substantially increase the
incidence of Pierce's disease in California. The proposed program intends to
contain the spread of the glassy-winged sharpshooter and the disease until
researchers can find a solution to Pierce's disease.
On May 16,
2000, the State Legislature passed emergency provisions for addressing Pierce's
disease and the glassy-winged sharpshooter (Senate Bill 671, Statutes of 2000,
Sections 6045-6047 of the Food and Agricultural Code). These provisions outline
specific requirements for county agency Pierce's disease workplans, and
authorize the Secretary of CDFA to adopt program regulations to control
Pierce's disease and the glassy-winged sharpshooter. The proposed program
evaluated in this EIR would continue the activities of the current emergency
program and regulations. CDFA is the agency responsible for developing a
statewide comprehensive control
2-1
program and is
the Lead Agency for this EIR. The agricultural commissioner, or other agency
designated by the Board of Supervisors of each county, would have the
responsibility for local implementation of the program, with coordination by
CDFA.
The program has
five central elements: public outreach, statewide survey, contain the spread,
local management and rapid response, and research. Please see Chapter 4 for a
detailed description of the proposed program.
2.2 AREAS
OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
CDFA issued a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR on March 16, 2001. Four community
scoping sessions on the program were held in April 2001 in the cities of Napa,
San Luis Obispo, Riverside, and Visalia to inform the public of the proposed
project, solicit comments, and identify areas of concern. Transcripts from
these meetings and comment letters received during the scoping period are
available from CDFA upon request. The NOP was re-issued on May 17, 2001 to
ensure all County Clerks in California received a copy of the notice. Key
issues that were raised during the scoping process are listed below.
� The public raised
concerns about whether the effects of Pierce's disease and the glassy-winged
sharpshooter were severe enough to warrant a statewide control program.
� General concerns
were raised by the public about the use of pesticides, including the effects of
pesticides on human health. Specifically, commentors were concerned that
pesticides could have negative effects on specific populations of concern, such
as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. In addition, commentors
were concerned about the effects of pesticides on biological resources and
water quality. Concern about the effects of pesticides on organic farms,
integrated pest management programs, commercial bee colonies, and other land
uses were also noted.
� It was
questioned whether the use of pesticides in non-agricultural areas was
necessary for effective control of the glassy-winged sharpshooter.
�
Concerns were raised about the effects of the release of non-native natural
enemies (such as predatory/parasitic insects) on biological resources.
� The
public raised conceals that non-pesticide alternative methods for controlling
Pierce's disease and the glassy-winged sharpshooter were not evaluated for use
in the program.
2-2
All of the
comments gathered during the scoping period were considered in the development
of this EIR, to the extent that they raised environmental concerns and to the
extent that they related to the proposed PDCP, and were addressed as
appropriate.
2.3 UNAVOIDABLE
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126(b) requires an EIR to "describe any significant
impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of
insignificance." Chapter 5 of this EIR provides a description of the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed PDCP. All potential
environmental impacts of the proposed PDCP would be less than significant.
2.4 ALTERNATIVES
TO THE PROGRAM
CEQA requires
the Lead Agency to consider a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed
program that meet the program's basic objectives, while avoiding or reducing
significant impacts. The following alternatives are considered in Chapter 8 of
this EIR:
� The No
Project Alternative;
�
Alternative A: Regulate the movement of commodities that may carry the
glassy-winged sharpshooter but do not take any action against glassy-winged
sharpshooter infestations;
�
Alternative B: Regulate the movement of commodities that may carry the
glassy-winged sharpshooter and abate new glassy-winged sharpshooter
infestations on agricultural lands, using the most effective treatments
vailable; and
�
Alternative C: Regulate the movement of commodities that may carry the
glassy-winged sharpshooter and abate all infestations of glassy-winged
sharpshooter outside of the generally infested areas, but do not use
conventional pesticides in non-agricultural areas.
The
alternatives evaluate different combinations of program elements and control
methods. Chapter 8 also evaluates alternative control methods for their
effectiveness in containing the spread of Pierce's disease and the
glassy-winged sharpshooter, which is a basic program objective. In addition,
Chapter 8 describes two alternatives that were considered but withdrawn from
further analysis, because it was determined that they were either infeasible or
would not avoid or lessen the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
PDCP.
2-3
2.5 SUMMARY 0 F
IMPACTS
According to
the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment means
"a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land,
air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or
aesthetic significance" (Section 15382).
The potential
for PDCP activities to result in adverse environmental impacts is described in
Chapter 5 of this EIR. With the implementation of the additional safeguards
provided within the PDCP, all of the potential environmental impacts would be
less than significant. For this reason, no additional mitigation measures are
recommended in this EIR. Table 2-1 provides a summary of potential
environmental impacts evaluated in this EIR and the safeguards in the PDCP that
mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level. Potential impacts are
numbered in accordance with the environmental topic to which they pertain and
in the order they appear within each EIR section.
2-4
TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY
LAND USE
Impact LU-1: In
general, the PDCP would not result in physical alterations to the landscape.
Although the PDCP may require additional greenhouses or other facilities,
development of these types of facilities would be limited in size and located
in existing research or agricultural areas. Thus, no physical division of a
community would occur. Consequently, there would be no significant effect.
Mitigation
Measure LU-1: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact
(LTS). Additional environmental review of new facilities would occur when they
are proposed for development, as required by Sections 15162 and 15168(c) of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
Significance:
LTS
Impact LU-2:
The PDCP includes restrictions on the movement of goods and vehicles. These
restrictions could cause an inconvenience to producers, shippers, and
receivers. Although the agricultural community could experience economic
effects from shipment delays, these delays would benefit the overall economic
health of the agricultural community by controlling Pierces disease. Further,
the inconveniences and economic effects related to the restrictions included in
the PDCP would not result in physical changes to the environment, so no
environmental impact would occur.
Mitigation
Measure LU-2: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Significance:
LTS
Impact LU-3:
Under the rapid response component of the PDCP, nonagricultural areas could be
treated with pesticides by ground crews. Residents and other site occupants
would be notified prior to application of pesticides, and would be advised to
avoid treated areas until re-entry conditions are met (typically approximately
two hours). Providing ground crew access and avoiding treated areas could
temporarily disrupt use of the treatment sites, which would cause an inconvenience
to residents and occupants. However, this temporary inconvenience would not
result in a significant effect to the physical environment, as defined by CEQA.
(For a discussion of the potential for hazards related to pesticide use, please
refer to Chapter 5.2.)
Mitigation
Measure LU-3: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Significance:
LTS
Impact LU-4:
The proposed PDCP could result in temporary loss of some wild and hobby-kept
bees. County agricultural commissioners would notify registered beekeepers
within the treatment boundaries about program activities and hobbyist
beekeepers would be notified of program activities through the general
community notification process. Although measures are available to beekeepers
to protect their bees, some loss could occur. However, loss of individual bees
does not necessarily result in the loss of the bee colony. Such losses would
not decrease bee populations below self-sustaining levels, because pesticide
applications are limited to infestation areas and untreated areas would be
accessible to the colony. Thus, impacts to bee colonies resulting from the PDCP
are considered less than significant. For further discussion, refer to chapter
5.4.
Mitigation
Measure LU-4: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Additional program safeguards to minimize the effect to bees include
notification of registered beekeepers about program activities in their area
prior to treatment. With this notification, beekeepers could take whatever
action they deem prudent to protect their beehives. In addition, pesticide
label instructions often prohibit application of the pesticide or allowing it
to drift to blooming plants and weeds if bees are visiting the treatment area.
Significance:
LTS
Impact LU-5:
The PDCP could result in a loss of some beneficial insect species that are a
part of pest management programs. Such a loss could result in a disruption of
normal agricultural operations. As a result, pest management programs may need
to be adjusted where pesticide control of the glassy-winged sharpshooter is
required. This disruption could result in an inconvenience and economic effects
to growers; however, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated from
the operational shift. (For a discussion of the potential for hazards related
to pesticide use, please refer to Chapter 5.2.)
Mitigation
Measure LU-5: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Significance:
LTS
Impact LU-6:
The PDCP may require the construction of additional greenhouses or other
facilities. Where possible, existing facilities would be used. However, new
facilities could be developed if existing facilities are not available. These
facilities are anticipated to be located within existing agricultural areas or
research facility sites. Thus, no significant environmental impacts are
anticipated with the development of potential new greenhouses and laboratory
facilities.
Mitigation
Measure LU-6: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Additional environmental review of new facilities would occur when they are
proposed for development, as required by Sections 15162 and 15168(c) of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
Significance:
LTS
Impact LU-7:
PDCP-related applications of pesticides could lead to temporary withdrawal of
organic certifications for growers. Although this effect could be economically
adverse to growers who wish to market organic products, it is not considered an
impact to the physical environment under CEQA. Organic farms could be
temporarily converted to non-organic farms; however, this conversion would not
result in a conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use. This
impact is less than significant according to CEQA.
Mitigation
Measure LU-7: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Significance:
LTS
Impact LU-8:
The PDCP would not directly affect the potential conversion of agricultural
lands to non-agricultural use. Rather, the PDCP would benefit the agricultural
industry by supporting the economic viability of the state's grape industry and
perhaps other commodity groups. As a result, the program could prevent the
indirect conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No significant
environmental effect is associated with this issue.
Mitigation
Measure LU-8: No mitigation is required.
Significance:
LTS
Hazards
Impact Haz-1:
As a result of pesticide application for the PDCP, people in non-agricultural
areas could potentially come into contact with residues through skin contact,
inhalation, or through ingestion of treated materials. The U.S. EPA and
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) consider the potential
exposure of people to residues of a pesticide when evaluating it for
registration, and to determine any restrictions necessary to ensure that it can
be used safely. Any pesticide employed in the PDCP is required to be registered
and applied only in a manner consistent with its restrictions. The potential
for spray drift from pesticides applied by ground personnel is monitored and
limited by professional applicators. Pesticide application is also monitored by
county agricultural commissioners and CDPR. The registration program, use
restrictions, and monitoring would ensure that pesticides are applied with a
reasonable certainty of no harm to human health or the environment. Therefore,
this is a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure Haz-1: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Additional program safeguards to minimize potential hazards include
professional application of registered pesticides and monitoring of pesticide
applications by CDPR to verify proper application rates and provide information
about pesticide residues in the surrounding environment. The data from
environmental monitoring would be reviewed to ensure that applications do not
lead to undesirable residue levels. Anomalous results would be evaluated to
determine if application methods needed to be adjusted, and if so, the PDCP
would require that treatments be modified accordingly.
Significance:
LTS
Impact Haz-2:
As a result of the PDCP, some growers and nursery owners may be required to
treat their crops with pesticides to control the glassy-winged sharpshooter.
Growers may choose to use aerial application over commercial cropland areas
where allowed. Agricultural and nursery workers have a potential for exposure
to pesticides. The U.S. EPA and CDPR consider the potential exposure of people
to residues when a pesticide is proposed for registration, and to determine any
application restrictions necessary to ensure that it can be used safely. Pesticide
use restrictions are imposed to ensure that agricultural and nursery workers
are not exposed to pesticide residues before it is safe. Because of use
restrictions and monitoring, pesticide application in agricultural areas would
occur with a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health. Therefore, this
is a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure Haz-2: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Additional program safeguards to minimize potential hazards include professional
application of registered pesticides. California law requires that pilots
receive training and have a pest control aircraft pilot's certificate from
CDPR. In addition, specific worker health and safety regulations require
notification of pesticide applications and training for field workers.
Significance:
LTS
Impact Haz-3:
Fragile populations, i.e., individuals who are susceptible to health
complications, because of health or developmental status (e.g., acutely ill,
very young or old, or pregnant individuals), may be present in certain
locations, such as parks, recreation areas, sports arenas, hospitals, nursing
homes, adult care centers, day care centers, and schools. When evaluating a
proposed pesticide, CDPR adds an additional uncertainty factor to compensate
for inherent uncertainties in the process. The uncertainty factor takes into
account the variability in susceptibility within populations. In addition, the
PDCP includes measures to ensure that schools, day care centers, and similar
places would be given special consideration in scheduling pesticide treatments,
which would further limit the potential for pesticide exposure. With these
measures, the potential for health hazards to fragile populations would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-3: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Additional program safeguards to reduce potential health impacts to fragile
populations include notification of schools, day care centers, rest homes, and
hospitals that are nearby any proposed treatment operations prior to treatment.
Special scheduling would be arranged, if necessary. Pesticide treatments on
school grounds and busy public areas would be scheduled for off-time hours when
feasible. CDPR would conduct monitoring to verify proper application rates. The
data from environmental monitoring would be reviewed to ensure that
applications do not lead to undesirable residue levels. Anomalous results would
be evaluated to determine if application methods needed to be adjusted, and if
so, the PDCP would require that treatments be modified accordingly.
Significance:
LTS
Impact Haz-4:
Pesticide applicators and agricultural workers have the greatest potential for
exposure to pesticides. PDCP pesticide applications would be made by licensed
pesticide applicators. All licensed applicators are certified through the
Licensing and Certification Program administered by CDPR. Pesticide applicators
receive annual training that includes routine and emergency decontamination
procedures, safety procedures and requirements for handling pesticide
materials, and emergency first aid measures. Pesticide use restrictions are in
place to ensure that agricultural field workers are not exposed to pesticide
residues before it is safe. Compliance with these restrictions by the PDCP
would avoid significant hazards to the health and safety of workers.
Mitigation
Measure Haz-4: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
California worker health and safety regulations specify safe work practices for
employees who handle pesticides or work in treated areas. The regulations
require certification and training for pesticide applicators, notification of
pesticide applications, and training for field workers. CDPR and county
agricultural commissioners enforce worker safety regulations.
Significance:
LTS
Impact Haz-5:
Because the effects of pesticides are related to dose, potential impacts to
human health could occur with accidental spills and improper use and disposal
of pesticides. Licensed pesticide applicators receive training on routine and
emergency decontamination procedures, safety requirements for handling
pesticides, and emergency first aid. While it is possible that an accident
could occur with implementation of the PDCP, the program would not result in an
increase in accident risk. PDCP safeguards and annual training of licensed
pesticide applicators would ensure that these risks would be less than
significant.
Mitigation
Measure Haz-5: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Pesticide labels provide instructions for proper handling, storage, and
disposal of pesticides. Licensed pesticide applicators receive training on
routine and emergency decontamination procedures, safety requirements for
handling pesticides, and emergency first aid procedures. Moreover, local
jurisdictions maintain emergency action and preparedness plans in case of an
accidental spill.
Significance:
LTS
Water Quality
Impact WQ-1:
The active ingredients of the pesticides to be used for the control of the
glassy-winged sharpshooter can reach surface water after rainfall or as a
result of spray drift. Applying pesticides consistent with label requirements
would reduce potential water quality impacts. Pesticide application
requirements vary; however, they do not allow direct application to water if
there are potentially significant water quality impacts associated with surface
water applications. In addition, pesticide labels also require precautions be
taken against contaminating water as a result of equipment use and cleaning.
When a pesticide is evaluated for registration, the U.S. EPA and CDPR consider
how it breaks down in water environments. Application restrictions are
developed based on these data. For these reasons, the potential for adverse
water quality impacts related to non-agricultural pesticide treatment is
considered less than significant.
Mitigation
Measure WQ-1 : No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Additional program safeguards that mitigate potential impacts to water quality
include using licensed pesticide applicators with oversight by county
agricultural commissioners, and monitoring by CDPR to ensure proper application
of the materials. All pesticide label requirements, including those
specifically intended to avoid impacts to water quality, would be followed.
CDPR would sample surface water before and after PDCP pesticide treatments in
non-agricultural areas. The data from environmental monitoring would be
reviewed to ensure that applications do not lead to undesirable residue levels.
Anomalous results would be evaluated to determine if application methods needed
to be adjusted, and if so, the PDCP would require that treatments be modified
accordingly.
Significance:
LTS
Impact WQ-2:
Aerial pesticide spraying may be used in agricultural areas to implement the
PDCP. Like treatments by the county in nonagricultural areas, pesticide
application would be by licensed pesticide applicators according to product
label directions. Pesticide label requirements specifically prohibit
applicators from allowing application or drift over water bodies. In addition,
pesticide labels require precautions be taken against contaminating water as a result
of equipment use and cleaning. Because applicators are required to follow all
pesticide label requirements to avoid adverse impacts to surface waters from
direct application or runoff, the potential for adverse impacts to water
quality is not considered significant.
Mitigation
Measure WQ-2: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Licensed pesticide applicators would follow pesticide label requirements,
including those to avoid adverse impacts to water quality.
Significance:
LTS
Impact WQ-3:
The active ingredients of some pesticides could reach ground water by
infiltration from treated ground surfaces (see Appendix P). Label requirements
on pesticides containing active ingredients with these attributes include
measures to avoid adverse impacts to ground water. During PDCP pesticide
treatment, licensed pesticide applicators would follow all pesticide label
requirements. Thus, the potential for impacts to ground water are considered
less than significant.
Mitigation
Measure WQ-3: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Additional program safeguards that minimize effects on ground water include
using licensed pesticide applicators with oversight by county agricultural
commissioners. All pesticide label requirements, including those specifically
for avoiding adverse impacts to ground water, would be followed. These use
modifications are designed to prevent pesticides from reaching ground water at
concentrations that would be considered pollution (CaIEPA, 1997).
Significance:
LTS
Biological
Resources
Impact Bio-1:
The PDCP includes pesticide treatments in nonagricultural areas. Treatments in
non-agricultural areas could result in the loss of some non-target
invertebrates with temporary effects in treatment areas. Pesticide treatments
would not substantially affect any vertebrate species. The U.S. EPA and CDPR
consider the potential effects of a pesticide on fish and wildlife when
evaluating a pesticide proposed for registration and to determine any use restrictions
necessary to ensure that it will not cause unreasonable risks to the
environment. As an additional safeguard, existing Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) and established communication procedures with CDFG, USFWS, and NMFS
would ensure that take or other significant impacts to special status species
and sensitive habitats would be avoided. This potential impact is considered
less than significant.
Mitigation
Measure Bio-1: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Additional program safeguards to minimize potential hazards include
professional application of registered pesticides and monitoring by CDPR to
verify proper application rates and coverage. CDPR monitoring provides
information about pesticide residues in the surrounding environment after
treatment. The data from environmental monitoring would be reviewed to ensure
that applications do not lead to undesirable residue levels. Anomalous results
would be evaluated to determine if application methods needed to be adjusted,
and if so, the PDCP would require that treatments be modified accordingly. As
an additional safeguard, CDFA would notify USFWS, CDFG, and NMFS, when appropriate,
of program activities. CDFA will work with these resource agencies to avoid
"take" of threatened and endangered species and to minimize adverse
environmental impacts to species of concern.
Significance:
LTS
Impact Bio-2:
Pesticide treatments associated with the PDCP would occur in agricultural areas
and nurseries. Some agricultural areas provide important habitat for vertebrate
wildlife species, including some special status species. Nurseries are not
considered important wildlife habitat. The PDCP is not expected to
significantly affect any vertebrate wildlife species because the pesticides
used must be in compliance with federal and state laws and regulations, and
most of the pesticides approved for use are already used routinely in agricultural
areas and nurseries in California. This impact is considered less than
significant.
Mitigation
Measure Bio-2: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Significance:
LTS
Impact Bio-3:
The use of pesticides in the proposed PDCP would pose risks to non-target
insects. Although the PDCP would result in the mortality of some beneficial,
non-target insect populations, the impacts would be temporary and limited to
the application site. Populations of affected insects would recover through
recolonization after treatments; therefore, the temporary loss of non-target
insects is considered to be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure Bio-3: No mitigation is required for this less than-significant impact.
Significance:
LTS
Impact Bio-4:
Treatment procedures for the PDCP include the removal of vegetation that serves
as a potential host for the glassy-winged sharpshooter or as a source of
inoculum for the Pierces disease bacterium. Vegetation removal would typically
occur on unmaintained cropland, roadside vegetation, and other areas near an
infestation. The PDCP does not allow the removal of any sensitive habitats or
special status plants. Therefore, this is considered a less-than-significant
impact.
Mitigation
Measure Bio-4: As a safeguard, implementation of the PDCP would not include the
removal of sensitive habitats or special-status plants. No mitigation is
required for this less-than significant impact.
Significance:
LTS
Impact Bio-5:
Non-native natural enemies of the glassy-winged sharpshooter could be released
under the biological control aspect of the PDCP. Prior to the importation and
release of natural enemies, CDFA evaluates them for the potential to cause
adverse impacts in the state. Natural enemies would be released only after
evaluation determined that the release would meet the CDFA criteria regarding
reasonable avoidance of harm to beneficial, non-target organisms and the
environment. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation
Measure Bio-5: CDFA would evaluate foreign biological control agents prior to
importation and release in California. An important phase in assessing the
suitability of a new biological control agent is determining whether it could
attack nonpest organisms, such as native insects, or cause harm to the
environment. With these program safeguards, the potential for adverse
environmental impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
Significance:
LTS