REVISED (8/13/2007)

Environmental Analysis for the Proposed Revision to the Pesticide

Commitment of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County

Nonattainment Area

ARB received a number of public comment s after the May 7, 2007 release of staff’s proposed revision to the Pestic ide Commitment of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area (Ventura). In response to these comments, ARB staff revised the origina lly proposed SIP revision. The revised proposal is set forth in Appendix H (revised on 8/13/2007) to the Proposed State Strategy for California’s SIP for the Federal 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards (State Strategy).

When the proposed State Strategy was re leased on May 7, 2007, the potential environmental impacts of t he State Strategy were anal yzed by ARB staff. The analysis is contained in Appendix E to t he State Strategy. Among other things, Appendix E includes an environmental anal ysis of DPR’s 2008 pesticide element of the State Strategy, as well as an anal ysis of ARB staff’s originally proposed

SIP revision for Ventura.

ARB staff has now prepared a new envir onmental analysis for the newly proposed revisions to the Pesticide Commitment of the 1994 Ozone SIP for Ventura. The new analysis is set forth below. Comments received on this new analysis will be summarized and responded to as provided in ARB regulations (title 17, California Code of Regulati ons, section 60007). Although this is a new analysis for the revised proposal, the analysis also summarizes and responds to comments raising significant environmental issues that are contained in comment letter dated June 12, 2007 and submitted by the Center for Race, Poverty & the Environment (CRPE). CPRE’s June 12, 2007 letter asserts that staff’s environmental analysis on the originally pr oposed SIP revision is inadequate for various reasons. Although CPRE’s letter is directed to the original proposal, many of CPRE’s comments are relevant to the revised as well as the original proposal. Staff therefore be lieves it is appropriate to respond to these comments in order to provide full public disclos ure of potential environmental impacts.

Potential Air Quality Impacts on Ozone Formation

Methyl bromide and methyl isothio cyanate-generating fumigants comprise approximately 50 percent of the pesticide VOC inventory in Ventura. These two fumigants have very low photochemical reac tivity, indicating that they do not appreciably contribute to ozone formation. The remaining fumigants used in Ventura have greater phot ochemical reactivity and do contribute to ozone

formation. This means that the proposed SIP revision will result in emissions in 2008 of an additional 0.65 tpd of ROG that will make so me contribution to ozone

formation.Preliminary photochemical modeling indicates that Ventura County will need to

be reclassified as a serious nonattainm ent area for the 8-hour ozone standard,

which will result in a June 2013 attain ment date. Based on the preliminary photochemical modeling, it is apparent t hat ozone formation in Ventura responds to both NOx and ROG reductions. Consequently, the proposed revision may have a significant adverse impact on air qual ity in the short te rm as it may slow down slightly the improvement in ozone leve ls as compared to fully achieving the pesticide emission reductions in the 1994 Ozone SIP. However, the revised proposal phases out the substitution rapidl y over four years and so is structured

to ensure that the substitution will not inte rfere with Ventura’s ability to attain the 8-hour ozone standard by the deadline fo r “serious” nonattainment areas.

Potential Toxic Impacts

Four fumigants accounted for 87% of the pesticide VOC emissions in the Ventura nonattainment area during 2004: 1,3-dich loropropene, chloropicrin, methyl bromide, and metam-sodium. Emissions of these fumigants would be the most impacted by this SIP revision. DPR antici pates a negligible health risk from toxic exposure to the fumigant le vels under all of the emission scenarios described in this SIP revision. Complementary regulat ory requirements and oversight by three regulatory agencies provide a comprehensiv e system for protecting people from toxic exposure to fumigants. The U.S. En vironmental Protection Agency specifies nationwide restrictions through label requirements. Fumigant labels specify legally binding instructions and restrictions pertaining to storage, disposal, first aid, air concentration limi ts, methods of application, worker protection, and environmental protection.

In addition to the label requirements, DPR develops and implements more stringent statewide requirements. DPR’s statewide requirements for methyl bromide and 1,3-dichlor opropene include buffer zones, air concentration or use limits, application method restrictions, and wo rker protection provisions (Title 3, California Code of Regulations, Sect ions 6450, 6450.1, 6450.2, 6450.3; DPR 2002). As described below, DPR is in the process of assessing the risk and developing mitigation measures for ch loropicrin and metam-sodium. All four fumigants are “restricted materials” in Calif ornia. As restrict ed materials, they require a permit issued by the county agric ultural commissioner prior to use and can only be applied under t he supervision of a certif ied applicator. State law requires county agricultural commissioners to evaluate local conditions prior to issuing restricted materials permits. Bas ed on his evaluation of local conditions, the Ventura County agricultural commission er includes additional restrictions on the permits for chloropicrin and metam-s odium. These permit conditions include buffer zones, tarpaulins for chloropicrin applications, and sprinkler systems for

metam-sodium to be used in the event odors are detected (Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner).The statewide requirements descri bed above are the result of DPR’s comprehensive risk assessment and risk management process. This process includes a toxicological and exposure ev aluation, and mitigation as toxic air contaminants. DPR has completed ri sk assessments for 1,3-dichloropropene, methyl bromide and metam-sodium (as th e methyl isothiocyanate breakdown product) (DPR 1997; Lim 2002; Rubi n 2002). The risk assessment for chloropicrin is in progress. As part of the risk management process, DPR has identified acceptable exposure levels fo r 1,3-dichloropropene, methyl bromide, and methyl isothiocyanate-generating pes ticides, based on the toxicology

evaluation in the risk assessment. As described above, DPR has implemented statewide requirements for 1,3-dichlo ropropene and methyl bromide. DPR has proposed mitigation measures for methyl isothiocyanate-generating pesticides and plans to implement regulatory require ments later in 2007 (DPR 2007). The statewide requirements for these fumigant s are designed to meet the acceptable exposure levels. The Ventura nonattain ment area is one of the highest use counties for fumigants, and is an area that DPR closely evaluates. As part of its

efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of t he statewide regulatory requirements, the ARB (at the request of DPR) conducted monitoring in Ventura during 2005 and 2006. Results of the monitoring show that air concentrations of 1,3- dichloropropene and methyl bromide are acceptable (Table 1). The Office of

Environmental Health Hazard As sessment (OEHHA) recommended a lower acceptable concentration for methyl br omide and the measured concentrations

also meet these levels. Air concentra tions should be lower than shown here once DPR’s VOC regulations ar e implemented, under all of the emission scenarios

described in this SIP revision.

Table 1. Methyl bromide and 1,3-dich loropropene air monitoring in Ventura during 8-week summer peak use season.

Measured Concentration (ppb) Acceptable Concentration (ppb)

2005 2006 DPR OEHHA Methyl bromide Average of 5 sites 0.24 0.64 9.00 1.00 Highest site 0.39 0.88 9.00 1.00 1,3-dichloropropene Average of 5 sites 0.90 0.45 26.00 Highest site 2.33 0.84 26.00

Potential Impacts on Ozone Depletion

Methyl bromide is an ozone depleti ng substance, and its production and importation are regulated under the Clean Ai r Act. Under the proposal, it is estimated that 0.6 tons per day more me thyl bromide would be allowed from field fumigation in Ventura in 2008 than w ould be allowed under the 1994 Plan. Though methyl bromide is an ozone depletin g substance, this revision will not have a significant adverse impact on t he ozone layer. Ozone depletion is not alocalized effect, and the additional methyl bromide permitted in Ventura County under the revision is negligible, approxim ately 0.0003 percent of the worldwide methyl bromide emissions. Also, it is likel y that if the proposal were not adopted, additional methyl bromide emissions pr ohibited in Ventura would be allocated elsewhere in the country.

The cumulative impact of methyl bromide emission on ozone depletion is addressed by the Montreal Protocol, which is implem ented in the United States by U.S. EPA under Title VI of the federal Clean Air Ac t. U.S. EPA limits the total amount of methyl bromide consumed in the United States . The U.S. EPA has steadily decreased the amount of methyl bromide allowed as alternatives

become available.

Potential Impacts on Global Climate Change

Methyl Bromide has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 5

, which is five times the global warming potential of carbon di oxide but approximately one-fifth of the GWP of methane. Methyl bromide (CH3Br) has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 0.7 year. The proposed addition of less than 0.5 tpd methyl bromide, to be eliminated by 2012, is t oo small to have a significant adverse impact on climate change.

Other Environmental Impacts

Except for the impacts discussed above, staff has not identified any other significant environmental impacts that would result from the proposed SIP

revision.

Project Alternatives

ARB staff evaluated the following alter natives to the proposed SIP revision.

Alternative 1 – No Project

CEQA documents typically contain an evaluati on of the “no project” alternate. In this case, the “no project” alternativ e means that the ARB would not adopt the

SIP revision and that an additional 1.3 t pd of pesticide emission reductions would occur in Ventura from implementation of DPR’s pesticide regulations. As discussed in Appendix H, staff is not re commending this alternative because it would have serious adverse economic impacts on agriculture in Ventura. Staff believes that avoiding these agricultura l impacts outweighs the slight negative impact on ozone air qualit y discussed above.Alternative 2 – Substitute ROG reductions of less than 1.3 tpd

Instead of providing ROG reductions of 1.3 tpd, ARB could provide lesser supplemental reductions of 1.0 tpd of ROG starti ng in 2008 with a phase down into 2012. This would make up part of the shortfall from DPR’s 2008 pesticide regulation. In order to mitigate the re maining 0.3 tpd of ROG, farmers would have to take agricultural fields out of production or use fewer pesticides, which would result in a loss in yield and farml and. Staff is not recommending this alternative because of the greater ec onomic impacts associated with reduced productions or yield.

Alternative 3 – Substitute ROG reducti ons of 1.3 tpd with no gradual phasedown prior to 2012

This alternative would provide the sa me immediate relief from the potential economic impacts of reduced production or yield, but would continue that relief indefinitely compared to st aff proposal. Research is currently underway to improve application methods. Within one to two years, advanced application

methods could reduce ROG emissions from pesticides and provide the necessary reductions for Ventura’s ozone attainment in 2012. Nevertheless, staff is not recommending this alternativ e because it does not ensure that the significant adverse impact on air quality in the short term is fully mitigated by

2012.

Alternative 4 – Substitute ROG reductions of 1.9 tpd

This alternative would provide ROG substi tution of 1.9 tpd, which is the maximum amount of surplus ROG reductions that ex ists from ARB’s on-road motor vehicle program. Some persons who comment ed believe that 1.9 tpd for ROG substitution is necessary to fully miti gate the impacts on agriculture of DPR’s proposed pesticide regulation. These persons believe that DPR’s proposed estimate of a 1.3 tpd shortfall is too low because of their esti mates of the recent growth in fumigated acreage.

Staff is not recommending this alternativ e because DPR estimates that a 1.3 tpd

substitution is sufficient to meet the 1994 SIP obligation.

Feasible Mitigation Measures

As described above, the proposed SIP revi sion may have a significant short-term adverse impact on air quality, since it ma y slightly slow down improvement in ozone levels in Ventura. The previous se ction describes the alternatives to the proposed SIP revision that were evaluated by staff, and explains that staff was not able to identify any feasible alternat ives that would substantially reduce the potential adverse impacts of t he SIP revision while at t he same time achieving its

benefits.Staff also evaluated measures to mitigat e the air quality impacts of the proposed SIP revision. Staff was unable to identify any feasible mitigation measures that would substantially reduce these impacts, while at the same time achieving the

benefits of the SIP revi sion. However, it should be noted that the proposed SIP revision does incorporate mitigation measur es that were not part of the original proposal released for public comment on May 7, 2007. The original proposal was to substitute 1.0 tpd of surplus R OG emission reductions in Ventura for 1.0 tons of pesticide emissions. This was a long-term substitution with no termination date and no phase-out schedul e. Staff’s revised proposal incorporates a phase-out schedule and a 2012 termination date in order to mitigate the air quality impacts of the SIP revision. The effect of the provisions on air quality is described in detail in Appendix H.

Cumulative Impacts

Staff has also considered the potential cu mulative impacts of the proposed SIP revision. With respect to air quality, evaluating cumulative impacts essentially means that the impact of an extra 1. 3 tons of ROG emissions must be

considered in combination with other s ources of ROG emissions in the Ventura County Nonattainment Area. The nature of the photoc hemical modeling done for Ventura County analyzes the cumulative impacts of all know ROG emission on ozone formation. Consequently, staff did a cumulative analysis when determining the effect of the propos ed SIP revision on ozone formation and

attainment in Ventura.

Summaries and Responses to Signi ficant Environmental Issues

Following are summaries and ARB staff’s re sponses to the environmental issues raised in the June 12, 2007 comment letter submitted by the Center for Race, Poverty & the Environment (CRPE).

Comment in Section II, page 4: “...t he AMAFs are based on unrepresentative field fumigation studies conducted in other states under cool soil conditions, which do not provide an accurate esti mate of emissions from California fumigations conducted at high temperatures in the Central Valley during the peak ozone season from May to October. St udies conducted under worst-case scenarios have been excluded from the grou p of studies on which the regulation

is based.”

Response : We have included in this analysis those studies that have been reviewed and accepted as sufficient qualit y to provide reliable results. The studies were conducted at a variety of lo cations under a variety of meteorological conditions and over the entire year. T he variety of locations, application methods, and meteorological conditions are varied in large part due to thediverse nature of agriculture in California. The current set of studies used in this analysis is the database available.

We agree in concept that temperature is important. However, DPR’s work with methyl bromide applications throughout t he year found that winter applications can show high flux, high emissions, and hi gh air concentrations. In fact, analysis of the relationship between Julian date of the application (as a surrogate for temperature) and the percent age of emissions (emissi on ratio) for monitored applications shows no significant rela tionship between emissions and day of application. A measurable temperature ef fect should be clearly discernable by a regression analysis. Thus, a simple, cl ear relationship bet ween temperature and flux is not supported by the DPR methyl bromide database. More likely many factors act together and, t hus, the more global approach that DPR has taken to estimating the AMAF’s is more appropriate.

A plot of the methyl bromide emission rati os is shown below. Note the complete lack of trend for the tarp broadcast data. In particular, the February 13, 1997 application has an emission ra tio of 9.8%. This could be argued to support the low temperature, low flux theory. However, the Ju ly 25, 1998 application shows

an emission ratio of 6.8%. It is also clear the tarp bed application method shows a high emission ratio no matter when the applic ation is made. In fact, the tarp bed applications in December show a 100% emission ratio, similar to those applications made in June and October. The methyl bromide database is the largest available and likely reflects trends in flux and emissi on ratios for other fumigants.

jul dateem ratio

400 300 200 100 0 100

80

60

40

20

0 nontarp deep
tarp broadcast
tarp bed method Scatterplot of em ratio vs jul dateComment: The memorandum from Susan Kegley to Brent Newell, dated June 12, 2007, recommends “Base emission esti mates on all available studies with valid experimental procedures that are relevant to the currently allowable applications methods.”

The memorandum provides four exam ples of unrepresentative and excluded studies. “For example, the chloropicr in fumigation that was conducted in Washington State was done on a night that the air temperature actually dropped below freezing. It is very likely that the low emission rate observed for this fumigation had nothing to do with the application method and everything to do with the fact that the air temperat ure was nine degrees below freezing.”

Response: This comment inaccurately repor ts the study results and does not
mention that the 33.8% emi ssions shown in the Washington results is similar to
the 36.5% emissions shown in the Florida results. The temperature during the day when the application was actually m ade was 57 degrees F. The temperature on the night immediately fo llowing the application was 46 degrees F. The night air temperatures during the majority of the study were above 37 degrees F and the maximum night temperature was 57 degrees F. The average night air temperature was 40 degrees F. The average day air te mperature was 48 degrees F. When “... air temperature was nine degrees below freezing...,” this event occurred 2 weeks following the application during the second to last sampling interval. By that sampling interv al the majority of the 34% of applied mass lost was already meas ured. The 33.8% emissions shown in Washington

results are similar to 36.5% emissions show n in the Florida results. These were both broadcast tarp applications. The ai r temperatures during the Florida study were 15 to 20 degrees F warmer yet the mass loss results are similar to the Washington study. Thus, the commenter’s views are not suppor ted by the data.

Comment: “None of the chloropicrin studies were conducted in California... Soil type is one of the factors that controls the amount of fumigant released from the soil during a fumigation...”

Response : It is true that none of the chlo ropicrin studies were conducted in California. We agree in concept that so il type is among many factors that has an effect on emissions. In fact, the Ariz ona studies were conducted on sandy soil that in concept could result in a hi gher loss than most soils in California. However, we will reiterate that DPR has taken a glob al approach to estimating the AMAF’s for several reasons including the lack of studies to quantify what are essentially small scale refinements of the AMAF’s and the fa ct that when the

AMAF’s are used to estimate the total VOCs the scale is very large. There is no practical way to incorporate soil type into the estimates.

Comment : “In contrast, industry studies with glaring experimental errors were accepted for use in the emission estimates. For example, the soil study used to estimate emissions from “standard spri nkler” applications of metam sodium, hadsamplers placed nearly perpendicular to th e wind direction, thus ensuring the

maximum concentrations could not be measured.”

Response : No studies with “ glaring experimental errors ” were used in the AMAF development. It is true that the st andard sprinkler study, and also the standard shank study, had a sampler layout that wa s not optimal. The sampler layout was an attempt to capture the predominant wind direction. However, studies conducted over several days typically hav e no true predominant wind direction.

It should be noted that both studies we re done according to Good Laboratory Practices and were submitted, accepted, and used to characterize off-site exposure by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in their

Metam Sodium Risk Assessment. Thus , both U.S. EPA and DPR have reviewed these studies. Further, the la yout of the samplers in both those studies actually caused very high emission estimates to be obtained for some sampling intervals due to inherent shortcomings of the com puter model. As a result, the emissions estimated from those studies may be ov erestimated, not underestimated as the commenter suggests.

Comment: “Studies like this should be discarded in preference to studies with valid experimental procedures such as the ARB/DPR study conducted in 1993 where the experiment was done correctly and captures t he representative

emissions from a worst-case scenario application. In the current emission estimate, this ARB study is not used.”

Response : The 1993 ARB/DPR study is not used for several reasons:

1) The study was not designed to estimate flux: a) Only four samplers were used, one on each side of the field for an 84 acre

field. This is not sufficient to characterize the flux. b) Only summarized weather data was available, no on-site weather data was reported. c) The sampling intervals span sunrise and sunset. In order to accurately estimate emissions, the sampling periods must separate the day and night periods.

2) There are significant events that cast doubt on the reported air concentrations: a) Samples from sampling periods 3 and 4 were left in an ice chest over the weekend in air temperatures over 100 degrees F. No dry ice was left in the ice chest by the time the sample s were retrieved. Therefore, those samples are not valid. b) The west sample from sampling peri od 5 was left by mistake in the freezer for 10 weeks and then analyzed. The storage stability over 10 weeks was

not evaluated.Comment in Section II, page 4: ...”natural variability in flux rates (the rate at which the fumigant escapes from the soil) is large, thus a singl e study – or even several studies – will not provide an accu rate estimate of actual emissions.”

The memorandum from Susan Kegley to Brent Newell, dated June 12, 2007, recommends “Use high-end emission estimate s from these studies to estimate VOC emissions during the summer ozone season.”

Response : We agree that the variability in flux rates (emissions) between applications is large. For fumigants and application methods with multiple studies, the standard deviations of the emissions are approximately 50%. DPR has chosen to use the average flux ra tes to estimate emissions for three reasons. First, the emission inventory represents the aggregat e emissions from all agricultural and structural pesticide app lications within a region over several months. The average flux rates represent the most accura te estimate of aggregate emissions. Second, all pestici de applications included in DPR’s inventory represent their most accurate and consistent estimate of emissions, for both the base year and subsequ ent years. Using a consistent method to estimate emissions is essential for making re lative comparisons and determining compliance with the SIP commitments. Usi ng the most accurate estimates for some applications and high-end estimates for other applications would skew the inventory and make relative comparisons unreliable. Thir d, even if high-end emission estimates were to be used, they would affect both current emissions and emissions for the 1991 base year. Estimates of the 1991 base year emissions are generally more uncertain than current emissions. Therefore, it would probably be appropriate to apply a lar ger uncertainty factor to the 1991 base year than current emissions, and the emission reductions achieved would be larger than currently estimat ed using the average flux rates.

Comment: The memorandum from Susan K egley to Brent Newell, dated June 12, 2007, recommends “Determine 4-hour and 8-hour averages and use them to estimate peak ozone-forming emissions.”

Response : Data is not available for all but a few pesticides to determine 4-hour or 8-hour peak emissions. Using a consis tent method to estimate emissions is essential for making relative comparis ons and determining compliance with the SIP commitments. Using peak emissions fo r some, but not all applications would skew the inventory and make rela tive comparisons unreliable.

Comment in Section II, page 4: “DPR has not presented any evidence supporting its estimates of historical fumigant app lication methods, nor has it made public the details of the process by which this information was obtained.”

Response: DPR provided a detailed explanati on of its method for determining the frequency of use of historical fumigant application methods in its memorandumfrom Barry, Spurlock, and Segawa to Sanders, dated April 6, 2007. The explanation from this memo randum is excerpted here.

In California, all agricultural and comme rcial pesticide applications must be reported. County agricultural commissioner s and DPR compile these PURs into a

database. The PUR database includes the identity of the pr oduct applied, the amount applied, location, dat e, crop/site treated, and other information. DPR uses the pounds of product applied recor ded in the PUR database to calculate the VOC emissions for each pesticide app lication included in the pesticide VOC emission inventory. The PUR database contains general information about the application method (i.e. air, gr ound, or other), but it does not indicate the specific application method. Therefor e, another adjustment is needed to account for the use of each fumigant application method.

In general, different crops use different fumigant application methods. Roush (2006) found that the diffe rent nonattainment areas have different crops responsible for the majority of pes ticide VOC emissions . Therefore, each

nonattainment area should have a differ ent set of adjustm ent factors to characterize the use of fumigant appl ication methods. While the application method depends on the crop to be planted, other factors such as soil type, cost, and equipment availability also influence t he choice of application method. For example, strawberries always use a s hallow application method. However, the tarp broadcast and tarp bed application methods are both commonly used for strawberries, and these application methods have different emissions. Therefore, the type of crop is an unre liable surrogate to identif y the fumigant application

method in some cases.

DPR proposes to use a variety of methods to estimate the use of each of the fumigant application methods (method use fr action). The method for 1,3-D is the most accurate. As required under DPR’s 1, 3-D management plan, the registrants maintain records of the specific applic ation method for all 1,3-D applications. Johnson (2006) describes the May–Oct ober method use fractions, based on the registrants’ data.

Lawson (2006) provides a survey of me tam-sodium practices by several dozen growers and applicators in certain areas of the state. This survey includes a compilation of the application methods. T he survey includes specific information

for three nonattainment areas , as well as the top t en counties. DPR uses the percentage breakdown described in Lawso n (2006) on the use of the various metam-sodium applications for the San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert, and

Ventura nonattainment areas. DPR uses the breakdown for t he top ten counties described in Lawson (2006) as a su rrogate for the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area, and Ventura as a surrogate for the South Coast

nonattainment area.

Similar to the approach described by Stangellhini (2006a, 2006b; Appendix 1),

DPR uses information from the PURs to estimate the May–October method use fractions for methyl bromide and chloropicrin based on the following assumptions:• For 1990/91 methyl bromide and chloropicr in applications, all row, vegetable, and nursery crops (except strawberries) were fumigated using a shallow injection broadcast method with a high perm eability tarpaulin or no tarpaulin.

• For 1990/91 methyl bromide and chloropi crin applications, one-half of the strawberry applications were conduct ed with a shallow injection broadcast method and a high permeability tarpaulin , and one-half of the strawberry applications were conducted with a shallow injection bed method and a high permeability tarpaulin.

• For 1990/91 methyl bromide and chloropi crin applications, all tree and vine crops were fumigated using a deep in jection method with a high permeability tarpaulin or no tarpaulin.

Comment in Section III.A., page 8: “it is inconceivable for the Environmental Impact Analysis to assert that an increase in toxic fumigant use will have no impact on the environment.”

Comment in Section III.A.1., page 8: “Subs tantial evidence shows that neither DPR regulations nor EPA labeling requi rements adequately prevent acute or chronic health impacts.”

Comment: The memorandum from Anne Katten to Brent Newell and Susan Kegley, dated June 6, 2007, states that for methyl bromide “OEHHA has recommended that regulations should be designed to reduce sub-chronic exposure of the general public and adjust workers below 1 ppb and 2 ppb respectively to prevent neurobehavioral effe cts, while DPR’s current regulations are only designed to control exposures to 9 ppb for the general public and 16 ppb for fumigation workers.”

Response : These comments are addressed in t he section of this Environmental Analysis entitled “Potential Toxic Impacts.”

Comment in Section III.A.2, page 9: “Subs tantial evidence demonstrates that fumigants cause acute chronic impacts to human health and to threatened and endangered species.” “These fumigants also may inflict substantial harm on the California red-legged frog, which is found in Ventura County and listed endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act.”

Response : Pesticide use restrictions im plemented under a court injunction and order specifically address red-legged frog populations. On Oc tober 20, 2006, the

U.S. District Court for the Northern Distr ict of California imposed no-use buffer zones around California red–legged frog upland and aquatic habitats for certain pesticides. This injunction and order will remain in effect for 66 pesticides (including the fumigants 1,3-dichlor opropene and metam-sodiu m) until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency goes th rough formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on each of the 66 pes ticides, and the Fish and WildlifeService issues a Biological Opinion incl uding a “not likely to adversely affect” statement for the pesticides. Under the injunction and order, no-use buffer zones of 60 feet for ground applications and 200 f eet for aerial applications apply from the edge of California red- legged frog habitats, including habitats in Ventura County.

Specifically for Ventura County, Califo rnia Red-legged frogs occur in three

Critical Habitat units: Ventura 1 – Mat ilija Creek, Ventura 2 – San Antonio Creek, and Ventura 3 – Piru Creek as designated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in

2006. Additional habitat is found within one N on-critical Habitat Section near the southeast corner of the county. Duri ng 2001 – 2005, there was no reported use of 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin, meta m-sodium, or methyl bromide within a one mile of any of the habitats, well outside the 60-foot or 200- ft buffers required

under the court order. DPR’ s evaluation, in consultation with California Department of Fish and Game, indicates that non-target wild life exposure to these fumigants in Ventura.

References

DPR. 1997. Risk Assessment of 1, 3-Dichloropropene, January 10, 1997. California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

DPR. 2002. California Management Plan: 1,3-Dichloropropene, January 30, 2002. California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

DPR. 2007. Mitigation Proposal, Control of Off-Site and Bystander Short-Term Exposure to Methyl Isothiocyanate (MITC) from Metam-Sodium and MetamPotassium Applications, January 5, 2007. California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Roush, T.L. 2006. 2006 Update to the Pesticide VOC Emission Inventory:

Estimated Emissions 1990-2004. Memorand um to John Sanders, October 24, 2006. California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Rubin, A.L. 2002. Evaluation of Meth yl Isothiocyanate as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Part C – Human Health Assessment, August 2002. California Department of Pest icide Regulation.

Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner . Permit Conditions – Metam Sodium and Metam Potassium. Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner.

Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner . Permit Conditions – Chloropicrin. Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner.