EPA wants to give growers credit for implementing Natural Resources Conservation Service practices as part of the agency’s effort to protect endangered species.
Michal Freedhoff, EPA’s assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, made the announcement to heads of state agricultural departments who were in Washington as part of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture’s winter policy conference.
She said EPA and USDA finalized a memorandum of understanding Tuesday “that paves the way for us to begin to give growers credit for about two dozen NRCS practices that also reduce pesticide drift and runoff.”
Robert Bonnie, USDA undersecretary for farm production and conservation, said in a news release from EPA that “farmers who use strong conservation practices developed by NRCS should be given credit for all of the benefits these practices provide, including reducing the off-site movement of pesticides. NRCS’s programs remain entirely voluntary and producers will not need NRCS approval.”
Facing a backlog of complex evaluations required under the Endangered Species Act and an impatient court system, EPA has been under pressure to come up with streamlined ways to look at the impact of pesticides on endangered species. To that end, it reached an agreement with environmental and industry interests to develop strategies addressing 27 federally listed species, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides and insecticides.
Drafts of the vulnerable species pilot (VSP) and the herbicide strategy have raised alarms among producers, state ag departments and various grower groups, who have said the proposed requirements are too complicated and, in some cases, would apply in areas the species do not live.
Freedhoff addressed that issue, also, saying the vulnerable species pilot would not be completed until the maps are redone. EPA is working with Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA, the University of Georgia, “and other stakeholders to develop maps that better reflect where these species actually live and where protections from pesticides are needed.”
In April, the agency will hold a workshop “to facilitate and prioritize the development of these maps, and EPA will also develop guidelines that the public can use to develop and submit refined maps for hundreds of other endangered species.”
Other changes to the agency’s effort to comply with the ESA include use of an online mitigation menu and the potential use of offsets for species protections.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here.
“Currently, if EPA needs to add new mitigations to pesticide labels, the agency must update hundreds or thousands of paper labels every time the menu of mitigation options is expanded – a process that can take years,” the agency said. “EPA will launch its first online mitigation menu that will allow the agency to quickly add new mitigation measures options, thus ensuring that growers can use those new options promptly. This year, the agency plans to release a draft online menu for public comment, and then update that menu based on feedback later this year.”
Freedhoff also said EPA is working with CropLife America, which represents the pesticide industry, and others to determine when it would be practical to use offsets, such as purchasing land off-site or funding conservation at a zoo, to mitigate for pesticide use.
In its release, EPA said it would take part in a workshop involving stakeholders and other federal agencies later this month. “This initiative should give pesticide registrants and users more flexibility to meet label requirements to protect endangered species, while directly contributing to recovering those species,” the agency said.
The American Soybean Association said it was both pleased and concerned.
Alan Meadows, an ASA director who grows soybeans in Tennessee and is chair of ASA’s regulatory team, said the group welcomed the announcement.
"These efforts related to maps and conservation practices are a positive step in the right direction," Meadows said. "However, it remains concerning that there is little movement on other issues of importance to growers. These include the agency’s risk assessment process, which is not science-based and overstates risks to species, and the enormous financial burden these proposals would impose on farmers. We do appreciate today’s update and look forward to working with EPA to advance solutions for the remaining challenges so these proposals will be more workable for U.S. farmers.”
On the federal court decision vacating dicamba registrations, Freedhoff did not have a lot to say, noting that the ruling just came out on Tuesday.
She did say, however, that the agency has some “near term existing stocks questions” that will have to be worked out – specifically, whether the court decision mean that farmers cannot use dicamba this spring.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com
