This week, ASA led coalition comments raising “grave concern” with EPA’s vulnerable species pilot project proposed under the Endangered Species Act. The comment letter, which drew 206 signers, expressed multiple ways in which grower and other pesticide user operations potentially would be subject to irreparable harm should the pilot take effect as proposed. The comments raised concern that the proposal “will effectively result in a de facto pesticide ban for many farmers.” Additionally, the comments expressed alarm with ways in which the proposal likely violates EPA’s legal obligations under ESA, FIFRA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and other federal statutes.
The vulnerable species pilot, which seeks to protect 27 species EPA alleges are uniquely vulnerable to pesticide exposures, would impose geographical use restrictions on pesticide users within the species ranges. The pilot would establish pesticide use limitation areas (PULA) with varying restrictions depending on the species.
While the proposal is complicated and largely species-specific, there are many general trends regarding the restrictions that would apply to pesticide users affected by the pilot. For example, many farmers in the PULAs would have to coordinate with their local Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) offices three months ahead of making any pesticide applications on fields or rangelands. The comments highlight how this could create an enormous regulatory bottleneck if the local FWS office has limited capacity to handle hundreds of coordination requests. It is also impossible for growers to predict their pest pressures and application needs three months in advance. Most farmers under the proposal would have to adopt four runoff/erosion mitigations as well, many of which would be incredibly expensive or impractical for growers to implement. The comments highlight that the collective impact of this proposal would be an effective pesticide ban for many growers.
The effects on growers and communities in the PULAs would be enormous. Many growers would be unable to protect their crops from significant crop damage, which would harm their ability to qualify for crop insurance and financing. For most producers, these impacts would affect their ability to continue farming.
The comment letter also highlights concerns that the proposal is likely inconsistent with the agency’s legal obligations. For example, given that EPA did not conduct a risk assessment or effects determination ahead of proposing any of these restrictions, the signers are concerned EPA has not satisfied its responsibilities under ESA to use the “best available science” or FIFRA to conduct risk assessments. There is also concern the restrictions the agency is proposing are not “reasonable and prudent,” as required by ESA. Read the full comment letter here.
