Nothing quite says “love is in the air” like 18 pages of discussion on reducing pesticide spray drift exposures for non-target species. That was the theme of comments ASA submitted Tuesday, Valentine’s Day, to an open docket on EPA’s Endangered Species Act Work Plan Update. The Work Plan Update proposes developing general ecological restrictions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act aimed at reducing surface water and spray drift risks to species that could help the agency’s pesticide program become compliant with ESA.
ASA’s message in the comments to the agency? We need to talk.
The Work Plan Update proposes several general FIFRA restrictions mainly in the form of on-farm conservation practices a grower may need to apply to use a pesticide moving forward to reduce risks to non-target species. While ASA praised the agency for considering how it can make its pesticide program compliant with ESA (failure to comply with ESA has led federal courts to strike down an increasing number of pesticide registrations in recent years), the comments expressed concern about how the proposal might be implemented and the enormous burden it could place on farmers.
The comments addressed three main themes: the impacts for agriculture, our food supply, and the environment; general observations about the Work Plan; and responses to specific questions on which the agency was seeking feedback. In the first section, ASA sought to share with EPA what is at stake in ESA compliance. If the agency’s overly conservative approach makes compliance costly and onerous, it will greatly reduce the ability of farmers to protect their crops and undermine our ability to produce an affordable, sustainable food supply. ASA also spoke at length about conservation practices dependent on pesticide use, such as terminating cover crops and weed management in reduced tillage/no-till systems, that would be jeopardized if EPA undermines grower access to pesticides.
In the second section, ASA raises numerous general concerns with the Work Plan. For example, it is unclear how many conservation practices a grower may need to adopt to use a pesticide, and EPA is suggesting additional ESA restrictions may be needed on top of the general FIFRA restrictions being proposed. ASA provided analysis on many of the conservation practices proposed by the agency (e.g., cover crops, vegetative filter strips, contour farming, riparian buffers) and how requiring implementation over thousands of acres would cause costs to explode for most farming operations.
ASA counter-proposed that EPA should develop more realistic water concentration and spray drift models than the overly conservative models the agency currently uses, which inflate the expected impact on species. Additionally, EPA should use real-world data (e.g., existing conservation practices and pesticide usage rates) in its species effects determinations to develop a more science- and evidence-based picture of what exposures truly look like. This more realistic picture would almost certainly show non-target species are not being affected the way EPA currently expects, reducing the possibility growers would need to implement restrictions that do nothing to help most species. This would also allow the agency to focus on those species that may truly need greater protection.
Finally, in the third section, ASA responded to specific questions EPA posed on draft label language and proposed restrictions. Of note, ASA was concerned with ambiguous language preventing some pesticide applications 48 hours ahead of runoff-producing rainfall events. ASA’s comments also propose additional conservation practices for the agency to consider (e.g., crop rotation, double/relay cropping, precision application equipment) that could allow a grower’s operation to become compliant. EPA is expected to review comments and later this year develop a set of general restrictions the agency could begin including into pesticide registrations moving forward. ASA will be following up with the agency to advise implementation in a way that is flexible and workable for farmers.
