[Seminar Blog] Pesticides and Agriculture Coexisting with Protected Species: The rules, regulations, and conversations that make it work

written by: Robert Salerno & Helen Craig
​
Have you ever applied a pesticide to control a pest problem in your yard, garden, or farm? If so, have you thought about where the pesticide may end up or the impacts it will have on the environment? If you answered yes to these questions, you may be relieved to know this is the job of environmental risk assessors at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There, they ask important questions like what are the potential effects of a pesticide, how does it move through the environment, how are different organisms in the environment potentially exposed, and what is the likelihood of harmful effects occurring when a pesticide is applied? The answers to these essential questions are what make up an ecological risk assessment. Before a pesticide can be registered, the EPA needs to obtain or produce evidence that the pesticide “will not generally cause any unreasonable risk to man or the environment.”
​
Recently, Annie Krueger, a consultant from Compliance Services International, spoke to the UMD entomology department about the past, present, and future of pesticides and the Endangered Species Act. She highlighted how ecological risks are assessed for a pesticide, described how threatened and endangered species are protected from pesticides, and shared how different groups are working towards the coexistence of pesticides in agriculture and protected species. Her talk shed light on the complex balancing act between protecting biodiversity and supporting agricultural production: a challenge that continues to shape the future of pesticide regulation.

In today's agricultural landscape, pesticides are used to kill, repel, or control damage from pests. However, before a pesticide can be used, it needs to be registered with the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). To do so, registrants need to provide the EPA with several categories of data including product chemistry, toxicology, ecological effects, environmental fate, and residue chemistry. Kruegers' talk focused on the two critical areas for ecological risk assessment: ecological effects and environmental fate. In short, investigations of the ecological effects of a pesticide identifies taxonomic groups that are affected by exposures; while environmental fate identifies the levels of exposure that could occur in the environment.

These assessments are important for endangered and threatened species because they form the basis for EPA’s assessment of potential effects to species protected under the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) established protections for all organisms listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). During the registration or renewal of a pesticide, the EPA must assess its effects to any of the ≥1,762 listed species and determine additional mitigations that are needed to protect these species. These mitigations will then be added to the pesticide label or in geographic-specific regions through bulletins where applicators must look before using the pesticide.
​
For example, FWS recently completed their assessment for Malathion, an organophosphate primarily used for mosquito control (EPA, 2024). For one specific endangered species in the Chesapeake Bay, FWS determined from June to August it was necessary to restrict its use to ground application under specific windy conditions and required a 50 ft buffer from specific protected areas (i.e., Chesapeake Bay headwaters). In special cases, if applications are necessary to control mosquito populations for public health concerns, the applicator must coordinate with the local FWS Ecological Services field offices to determine the best application measures to minimize harm. These geographic specific measures can be found in EPA’s Bulletins Live! Two (BLT) website. When EPA has finalized pesticide labels with ESA requirements, the label will direct applicators to the BLT website for the applicator to determine if the bulletin applies to their application area. Very few pesticide labels have completed the ESA assessment process with EPA however over time, more and more labels will contain this language so it is always important to check the product label for new requirements.

Figure 1. Screenshot from Bulletins Live 2 outlining restricted application areas in pink of Malathione 5 EC under the purview of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Figure 2. Screenshot from Bulletins Live 2 outlining restricted application areas in yellow of various pesticides under the purview of the National Marine Fisheries Service (PC: Annie Krueger).

​The various regulations posted on bulletins (Figure 2) and labels can quickly get confusing and overwhelming for a farmer or applicator, which is why Dr. Krueger offers various workshops to open conversations with and answer questions from farmers using these pesticides. In March alone, Dr. Kruegar offered workshops (Figure 3) across Oregon and Washington involving specialty crops, wine grapes, hops, seed crops, hazelnuts, small berries, cane berries, potatoes, bulbs, turf, vegetables, and more. These workshops offered an introduction to runoff and erosion mitigations, explored the role of conservation and agriculture communities in ESA pesticide mitigation implementation, and worked through challenges interpreting label and bulletin language. Additionally, the workshops acted as a needs assessment to determine what farmers needed to successfully implement pesticide mitigations. Dr. Krueger is a part of a team of individuals offering workshops and conducting research in various states across the US, all with the goal of finding a way for pesticides and agriculture to coexist with protected species.  

Image 3. Dr. Krueger conducting a workshop with a group of farmers and pesticide applicators (PC: Annie Krueger).

Looking forward, Dr. Krueger expressed uncertainty for the future in the pesticide ESA space highlighting recent developments since the current administration change. In early April, the federal rulemaking platform (regulations.gov) included a new area for “Deregulatory Recommendations”, offering a location for individuals to share their deregulatory ideas. Unlike a standard public comment period within the federal rulemaking process, these submissions are not publicly available and there is no indication on how these recommendations may be used to change federal rules. Additionally, later in April, the FWS and NMFS rescinded the current definition of ‘harm’ in the ESA, removing consideration of effects to habitat under the new definition. There is no indication if this definition would apply to the Act in its entirety, or only pertain to certain sections of the Act. On top of these changes, frozen/canceled grant funds, frozen conservation payments, and staffing cuts to federal partners significantly impact the ability for people to build solutions for agriculture and conservation communities.
​
Dr. Krueger reminded us that despite so much uncertainty, there are statutory requirements when it comes to assessing risks of pesticides to the environment. And under the ESA, the EPA is legally required to  assess effects of pesticides on threatened and endangered species before a registration decision can be issued.  Given these legal requirements, there will continue to be a need to find solutions for agriculture and protected species. Ultimately,  Dr. Krueger emphasized the importance of collaborating with local and regional agricultural and conservation communities to find workable solutions.