ESA Herbicide Strategy Draws Ag's Ire

LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- An extended 30-day comment period on EPA's draft herbicide strategy for endangered species ended on Oct. 22, and farmers and other experts in agriculture took the added time to vent to the agency.

In July, the EPA released the strategy framework of a plan the agency said will help compliance with the Endangered Species Act as it relates to herbicides, after decades of legal battles.

EPA initially granted a 60-day comment period and then extended it by 30 days to Oct. 22.

On Sunday, a group of 226 ag interest groups and businesses both on the national and state level, submitted comments to EPA. The national groups include the likes of the Agricultural Retailers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, American Soybean Association, among others.

"This complex, unworkable proposal would result in significant new, costly regulatory burdens for millions of U.S. agricultural producers," the groups said.

"Others would simply be unable to comply with the proposal, undermining their continued access to herbicides. As a result, we are concerned this proposal could jeopardize the continued viability of farming operations across the United States.

"We understand EPA has legal obligations related to the Endangered Species Act and support the agency meeting its statutory requirements. Further, we recognize EPA has committed itself to an aggressive timetable via court settlement for implementing the herbicide strategy and other ESA-related pilots and strategies. However, if implemented as proposed, the herbicide strategy would be disastrous for U.S. farmers and our rural communities."

The American Soybean Association also submitted a separate letter signed by nearly 1,500 farmers who called on the EPA to scrap the proposal.

"For many producers there are not sufficient options to comply with the proposal, while for others it would impose significant costs on their operations," the farmers said in the comment letter.

"This will not only harm our nation's rural communities but will also negatively affect the U.S. and global consumers who rely on our ability to produce affordable and sustainable food, fuel, fiber and other goods. We strongly urge EPA to withdraw this complicated, harmful, and unworkable strategy."

The strategy in part calls for, among other things, farmers and other landowners to implement mitigation measures depending on their geographic location and proximity to endangered species.

The mitigation measures are intended to reduce spray draft, runoff and soil erosion. They would be required to be implemented for proximity to endangered species and/or their designated critical habitats.

Instead of requiring a certain number of mitigation measures, the EPA herbicide strategy outlines a system where herbicide users need to achieve a minimum number of "efficacy points."

EPA assigned one to three points to each option in its menu of mitigation measures. The number of points required will vary based on the herbicide and the field location. As many as nine points may be required of some products if the use occurs within a pesticide use limitation area.

The ASA farmers letter said the strategy was "incredibly complex" and would be "difficult for individual producers and applicators to even determine if lands are under regulation" or what their compliance obligations will be.

That complexity, the farmers said in the letter, could make it difficult to continue to combat the proliferation of weeds.

"If not properly managed, weeds can cause catastrophic yield losses and even total crop failure," the farmers said.

"However, we are greatly concerned the herbicide strategy as proposed would significantly undermine producer access to herbicides and their important production and environmental benefits."

One of the major concerns for ASA farmers is they say the proposed strategy is too prescriptive on implementing conservation practices that could benefit endangered species.

"Most of the runoff reduction practices EPA offers are not suitable for certain regions or crop types, leaving many producers simply unable to comply," the letter said.

"For individual producers with sufficient compliance options, the practices proposed can be very costly and might require the annual investment of millions of dollars across hundreds or thousands of their acres to continue using herbicides."

Also, in comments to the agency, Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig said he was concerned about the EPA mandating certain conservation practices as a remedy.

The state of Iowa has come under scrutiny in the past decade for implementing a statewide voluntary conservation plan to address nutrients runoff from farms.

Naig said that program has been successful because it is voluntary.

"Iowa has seen tremendous interest and participation in our conservation programs, which are voluntary, non-regulatory, and which are proven to be successful at reducing the amount of nutrients that ultimately make their way into the Gulf of Mexico -- a goal we share with the EPA," Naig said in the letter.

"I fear that this new regulatory approach will have a chilling effect on the positive relationship and trust that we have built with Iowa farmers. We do not want to lose the momentum and progress that we have built at a time when we are scaling up and accelerating our state efforts to get more practices on the ground."

Naig asked the agency to consider the economic effects he said the plan could have on agriculture in particular and in rural areas in general.

"Impacted stakeholders are likely to see significant costs both monetarily and in terms of time required to comply with the new regulations," Naig said in the letter.

"EPA should conduct an economic analysis to determine these costs and better understand how this decision will impact applicators and regulatory officials tasked with enforcing the changes."

Otis Howe, executive director of the Arkansas Crop Protection Association, told the agency the strategy would "impose huge regulatory burdens on nearly every herbicide user" in his state.

In a comment letter to the EPA, Howe said many Arkansas producers could "simply not be able to comply with the proposal, while others would face significant cost increases" on their farms.

Howe said his association believes the biggest problem with the proposal has to do with endangered species themselves.

"Very little data or knowledge of their actual locations or presence of their habitat exists," he said.

"This strategy would be much more effective if we had a better grasp on the locations of endangered species, then effects on those specific locations could be minimized."

Like other commenters, Howe called the strategy "incredibly complex" and that it would be difficult for individual producers to determine if certain lands are under regulation or what exactly compliance obligations would be.

"Many of the exemptions EPA proposes are not practical and will apply to few agricultural lands, leaving most under regulation even if herbicide use at those sites does not pose a genuine risk to endangered species," he said in the letter.

"Broad-brush regulation does not work for everyone. This herbicide strategy does not account for variability based on farm location."

Doug Miyamoto, director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, said in a letter to the agency that the strategy raises many concerns for farmers and ranchers in the West.

In particular, he said states like Wyoming have concern that the strategy will lead to more weeds and increased wildfire risks and added burdens to farmers who use both public and private lands for livestock grazing.

"Cheatgrass outcompetes almost all native habitat if not treated on a landscape level," Miyamoto said in a letter to the agency.

"Not only does cheatgrass outcompete native flora, it also creates the opportunity for devastating fires and the spread of annual invasive species to occur. Herbicide treatments for cheatgrass and other annual invasive grasses is a necessary tool used by livestock producers to reestablish native rangelands and habitat. The framework restricts opportunities to treat and thus encourages the spread of annual invasive grasses, which will in turn reduce habitat for all wildlife."

Robyn Stewart, an Extension agent at the University of Georgia, said the strategy suffers from a lack of information about species' locations.

Without accurate maps, she said, the strategy would harm agriculture while not necessarily protecting species.

"Therefore, in order to protect both listed species and our family farms," Stewart wrote in comments, "identifying the exact locations of listed species, habitats and agriculture fields potentially treated with a pesticide allows for a scientific determination of the exact locations of 'sensitive sites' where protections may be needed. Currently, the process of using outdated range maps or maps based on historical habitat/populations is flawed and unacceptable."

Stewart said the University of Georgia and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have developed a protocol to identify where species' habitats and farm fields overlap.

"Georgia's ESA pilot program research documents that to protect two salamander species from Enlist Duo, mitigation measures should be considered on less than 3,526 field acres," Stewart said.

"The current restriction for Enlist Duo prevents its use on 951,557 acres, a restriction lacking scientific merit. When considering the potential impacts to agriculture and the livelihoods that depend on the ability to use pesticides on their farms to protect their yields, it is critical that accurate, scientifically sound information is used to determine where restrictions are needed and where they are not.

"The current loss of both family farms and agricultural land is highly alarming when considering our nation's security and the need to feed and clothe a growing world's population. Overly aggressive regulations lacking scientific merit will not further steward pesticides."

Read more on DTN:

"EPA Proposes New Ag Herbicide Rules," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @DTNeeley

(c) Copyright 2023 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.