Key Takeaways
- Along with many other responsibilities, the EPA’s Pesticide Program must maintain obligations established by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to consult federal wildlife agencies and adopt protections from pesticides for listed species.
- EPA has received over 20 lawsuits in recent years challenging its failure to meet these ESA obligations for hundreds of pesticides.
- In response, EPA developed its Endangered Species Act Workplan in 2022 to outline how the agency plans to not only meet its court-enforced deadlines for certain pesticides, but to also prevent future litigation by adjusting the registration and review process for all pesticides going forward.
- EPA began by releasing their proposed Vulnerable Species Pilot Project (VSPP) in 2023, where they developed a list of 27 “pilot” species and developed guidelines related to pesticide use to reduce these species’ pesticide exposure.
- After receiving significant opposition from various groups, including TFBF and AFBF, EPA has paused this proposal and committed to revising the approaches proposed in the VSPP.
- EPA continued to dive deeper into strategies for specific types of pesticides. First, they released their herbicide-specific strategy, outlining requirements specifically for growers addressing weed pressures.
- EPA plans to publish the final Herbicide Strategy in summer of 2024, a preliminary insecticide strategy is expected soon, and a fungicide strategy will follow.
Questions
- Were you previously aware of EPA’s ESA Workplan?
- What other information do you need as a pesticide applicator to prepare for these proposals?
- What conservation practices do you utilize on your operation?
- What conservation practices have you been considering implementing on your operation?
- Do you currently have access to appropriate broadband speeds to access online pesticide labels?
Background
EPA began by releasing their proposed Vulnerable Species Pilot Project (VSPP) in 2023, where they developed a list of 27 “pilot” species and created guidelines related to pesticide use to reduce these species’ pesticide exposure. Two of the 27 species have Tennessee habitats – the Rayed Bean (Villosa fabalis) and the Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa). These are species of mussels whose habitat is found in the Duck River in six counties in southern middle Tennessee, which is a thriving production agriculture region of the state. The VSPP developed pesticide use limitation areas (PULAs), areas where the 27 species inhabit or are believed to inhabit, and proposed stricter restrictions on pesticide use in these PULAs, including requiring farmers to:
- Implement a certain number of mitigation practices from a pre-determined “pick list”, including reduced application rates, buffer strips, no-till and conservation tillage, cover crops, droplet size requirements, etc.
- Consult with regional Fish and Wildlife Service officials no less than three (3) months before applying pesticides; and,
- Access the Bulletins Live! Two website – an online portal to access geographically-specific requirements for pesticide use as well as further instructions for specific pesticides – to receive the proper information to comply with requirements within the PULAs.
After receiving significant opposition from various groups, including TFBF and AFBF, EPA has paused this proposal and committed to revising the approaches proposed in the VSPP.
EPA continued to dive deeper into strategies for specific types of pesticides. First, they released their herbicide-specific strategy, outlining requirements specifically for growers addressing weed pressures. The proposal assigns specific runoff and erosion mitigation practices with “efficacy points” and is proposing applicators meet a pre-determined number of points before applying particular herbicides. These practices range in their point value and include conservation techniques such as cover crops, no-till, reduced application rates, vegetative filler strips, contour terracing, and others. Growers could need at least six points to comply with general label restrictions, and growers located within PULAs could need to obtain as many as nine or more efficacy points to apply certain herbicides.
While some of the accepted conservation practices are commonly used among growers – such as no-till and cover crops – others put weed control at risk. For example, EPA includes reduced application rates in their list of accepted mitigation measures. In the proposal, this measure is worth anywhere from 1 to 9 points, depending on the reduction rate percent. Inadequate application rates which are lower than the science-based rates developed for registered herbicides reduce the efficacy of neutralizing pests and hasten resistance buildup.
TFBF, AFBF, and many other agricultural organizations provided comments to EPA, sharing concern with the impracticality and overreaching nature of EPA’s approach to protecting listed species and its impacts on production agriculture. In response, EPA published an update on the status of the Herbicide Strategy, describing improvements they plan to make to increase flexibility and improve ease of implementation while still protecting listed species. EPA plans to publish the final Herbicide Strategy in summer of 2024, a preliminary insecticide strategy is expected soon, and a fungicide strategy will follow.
Policy
Crop Protection (Partial)
We oppose curtailment of the proper use of crop protection products unless further research and scientific data detect injury to health and well-being would result.
More prompt certification of crop protection products for commercial usage should be pursued to the maximum degree possible without endangering public health. Prompt certification reduces farm production costs and promotes conservation tillage practices.
We urge Congress to provide greater oversight of EPA’s review of crop protection products. EPA must be held accountable to make timely, science-based decisions and now bow under pressure from activist groups. We oppose any legal action based on excessively broad interpretations of environmental laws which restrict or limit the safe and proper use of agricultural crop protection products.
Farm Bureau should work with the EPA and OSHA to identify problems in the use of crop protection products. Benefits from the use of these products should be weighed against environmental risks.
Farm Bureau mist insist realistic tolerances are established by the EPA and OSHA throughout the agriculture industry.
Environmental Protection (Partial)
Farmers have a deep and abiding interest in protection of the environment based upon philosophical beliefs and also practical self-interest.
Environmental regulations, whether by air, water, noise, or visual standards, should recognize the essential nature of efficient and safe use of organic matter, pesticides, and fertilizers as a basic and natural part of agricultural production.
We support continued oversight of the EPA and its authority and funding. We appreciate a common-sense approach of the EPA leadership and their efforts to protect not only the environment but the rights of the regulated community.
Endangered Species Act (Partial)
We recognize the intent of the Endangered Species Act, but we do not believe protecting these species should always receive priority.
Congress must assess whether the highest priority for the public’s interest is the protection of certain endangered species or the continued efficient production of food, fiber or the protection of human life.
The Endangered Species Act should not be used to implement policies restricting proper chemical use on farms. Endangered and threatened species protection can be more effectively achieved through incentives to private landowners and public land users rather than land use restrictions and penalties. We oppose label restrictions on essential agricultural pesticides for the protection of listed and threatened species when the restrictions jeopardize agricultural production.
American Farm Bureau
336 / Agricultural Chemicals
- Regulation
7.1. We believe implementation and defense of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) should be based on credible scientific information in order to benefit farmers, the environment and the public and should be the sole federal regulatory authority over pesticides.
7.2. There must be clear guidelines for how EPA determines if data is credible, verifiable, timely, and science-based.
7.3. We recommend that state and local law not be able to prevent the use of pesticide and herbicide products that have EPA approval.
7.3.1. We should continue to work with EPA on the use of pesticides in counties where endangered species are located to ensure we are not adding an undue burden on farmers.
7.20. We oppose:
7.20.12. (We oppose): The EPA making product or label decisions based solely on a “likely to adversely affect” determination during EPA’s biological evaluation. Only after a jeopardy or adverse modification determination following formal consultation with FWS should product availability be limited or label restrictions or mitigations be required.
7.20.13. (We oppose): The EPA’s Vulnerable Species Pilot Project as originally proposed.
565 / Endangered and Threatened Species
- We oppose:
5.1. Listing additional endangered and threatened species or the designation of additional critical habitat until the ESA is amended.
5.2. Using the ESA as a means to implement polices that restrict proper chemical use on our farms and ranches.
5.3. Using the ESA as a means to implement climate change policies.
