EPA’s new herbicide framework ushers in a new era of herbicide management.
In late August 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the final version of its Herbicide Strategy. The strategy is intended to bring the agency into compliance with its obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect more than 900 federally endangered and threatened species from herbicides’ potential impacts.
As a result, farmers can expect to see changes in drift and runoff mitigation measures required on labels, as products are registered and reregistered moving forward. This requires a shift in how pesticides are to be managed, down to the field level.
What Does EPA’s Finalized Herbicide Strategy Mean for the Ag Industry?
What Changed From the Draft?
The EPA released its strategy’s first draft in July 2023, receiving over 18,000 comments from the public. The agency spent the next year engaging with farmers, researchers, and agriculture stakeholders to make improvements to the final strategy.
Both versions discussed reducing spray drift, runoff, and erosion, and using Bulletins Live! Two (BLT), said Bill Chism, who chairs the Endangered Species Committee for the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). BLT is an online tool that displays pesticide use limitation areas
(PULAs) for products with active endangered species protection bulletins. “The final strategy is much more flexible,” Chism said. “There are more feasible options for farmers that just weren’t there in the first one. EPA increased the points given for conservation practices, so I think they’ve given us more options.”
This flexibility comes at the cost of increased complexity. “Pesticide applicators will be tasked with ensuring they meet mitigation measures for runoff and drift, as influenced by the pesticide itself, the crop being treated, and even the field where the product is sprayed,” said Stanley Culpepper, a weed science specialist at the University of Georgia.
Using his family farm in North Carolina as an example, that operation raised five crops, with 40 fields, and applied 30 pesticide active ingredients in 2024. “If the herbicide strategy, insecticide strategy, and fungicide strategy were all in place today, following the format of the herbicide strategy, we on the farm would have to potentially make 372 runoff calculations, plus 372 drift buffer calculations, just for our very small farm,” Culpepper said. “So, we have to find ways to simplify this process, allowing us the ability to use these tools.”
Culpepper’s goal working through Extension is to help Georgia farmers get each of their fields to 9 points on runoff mitigation, the maximum number new labels would require. “If we can help our growers get 9 points for all fields, then we meet any expected mitigation requirements regardless of pesticide applied,” he said.
How Can Farmers Best Prepare for New Mitigation Measures?
By now farmers have their plans set for crop rotations this spring. Now is a good time to start thinking through herbicide programs and looking at labels, said Megan Dwyer, director of conservation and nutrient stewardship for the Illinois Corn Association. “The big change is going to be that now you might have to take additional steps,” Dwyer said. “The label might direct you to go somewhere else, like Bulletins Live! Two or the [EPA] Mitigation Menu.” That website provides options farmers can use to reduce erosion and runoff.
Dwyer suggested looking at those websites to familiarize themselves with the process. “Something I wasn’t necessarily prepared for when I went into Bulletins Live! Two was: You don’t just type in a trade name of a herbicide,” she said. “You need the EPA registration number, so you’ll need to have that product label nearby.”
Going through the point calculations gives farmers an idea of what to expect, Chism said. “When a grower goes through the point calculation the first time, it’s going to be onerous,” he said. "But after the first round, I think they’ll be able to see where they have problem fields or problem farms; long-term, what [they can] afford to do with those; and what conversations will be needed with landowners.”
Culpepper recommended grouping similar fields when calculating points. “If you have 40 fields, and for 36 you can use the same mitigation measures, lump them together and do all 36 under one document,” he said. "The four other fields will be done separately, because the mitigation credits needed will be slightly different.”
Dwyer said she was pleasantly surprised when she went through the calculations for her farm. “With the draft strategy, I was extremely concerned, thinking about our roll-ing landscape and limited mitigation options,” she said. “I was looking at the draft thinking, ‘There is no way we could ever get to a 9.’ With the final strategy, many of the conservation practices we are already utilizing are receiving points and many of our fields will be starting closer to 6 points.”
In fact, 91 of Illinois’ 102 counties are automatically given 2 points, Dwyer said. “Depending on your slope, if you have field tile, if you are non-irrigated, those things all give you points.”
The EPA has provided tools to help farmers work through the new requirements, Chism said. “They have a worksheet for conservation programs, and they also have a calculator,” he said.
What Can Farmers Expect With Drift Buffers?
Culpepper doesn’t mince words when it comes to buffers for drift mitigation. “There’s no way we can remain sustainable if we can’t produce our crops on the whole field,” he said. “For ground rigs, EPA currently suggests that a 230-foot downwind buffer is the worst-case scenario.”
Boom height and droplet size should be where the focus begins, Culpepper recommended. “If I can get 230 feet down to zero by making a better application, then that improves pest management and reduces time spent searching through labels to understand various drift buffers required for each product,” he said.
Other mitigations, such as drift reduction agents, specialized application equipment, and managed areas adjacent to the treated field, can also help reduce the buffer. “You have opportunity, you have flexibility; you just have to be creative in the process,” Culpepper said.
Dwyer pointed to the new Liberty Ultra label as an example of a low-risk pesticide. “Liberty Ultra has an automatic 10-foot buffer if it’s a ground application; 50 if it’s aerial,” she explained. You can get those reduced by changing droplet size, what’s downwind from that buffer, and boom height. ”
Familiarizing yourself with BLT, knowing what it means, and how to use it is also a good first step, said Leah Duzy, a principal consultant for Compliance Services International, a global environmental and regulatory consulting firm advising agricultural stakeholders on pesticides and ESA.
Six months before applications, farmers can get on BLT to check products and whether they fall into PULAs. If they do, additional mitigation measures may be needed, Duzy said, and pointed to dicamba labels as a well-known example. “There’s portions of the country in a dicamba PULA already,” she said. “If you’re inside a PULA, it’s potentially additional mitigations.”
PULAs may vary from one pesticide to the next, so Duzy stresses that just because you are in a dicamba PULA doesn’t mean that automatically applies to every other product. “When you look it up on BLT, you’re choosing by active ingredient,” she reminded, “so it’s only applicable to that active ingredient.”
What Records Should Be Kept for Runoff Mitigation Measures?
Most farmers who apply their own pesticides are familiar with the record-keeping needed to protect themselves in the case of a drift complaint. However, runoff mitigation is a new beast. Questions remain, not only about recordkeeping but also how states might handle enforcement in the instance of a complaint.
Dwyer recommended keeping as many records as you can, whether holding on to cover crop seed tags or sales receipts. Not only are those records helpful in the worst-case scenario of a com-plaint but they also count as one point in the mitigation measure. “Records are not required within the strategy, but it’s an easy way to get an extra point keeping documentation,” she said.
Culpepper recommended printing off the mitigation measures calculator as a means of recordkeeping.
What Questions Remain?
The species included in the Vulnerable Species Action Plan (VSAP), an additional framework that EPA will use when considering Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) actions for conventional pesticides, such as new chemical registrations and registration review, have been finalized. However, details are still pending on PULAs and specific mitigation measures. We have to watch that curveball,” Culpepper said. “We may have to work with those fields very directly and specifically, depending on the species and the location.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently recommended adding the monarch butterfly as a threatened species. How this plays out will impact future pesticide registration and re-registration. “They still have to go through the process of listing it,” Duzy said. “If there is an impact, it won’t be immediate. There will be a delay, depending on specifics of the listing decision.”
While changes to herbicide labels have been made, the rollout won’t be all at once, Chism said; the EPA will update label requirements, as products are registered and reregistered. This allows farmers to figure out a little at a time, work through this first year and make long-term decisions. “It’s not every single product they’re using they have to figure out points for,” he said. “It’ll only be one or two products this year.”
Culpepper offers this challenge to farmers: “Look how much effort has gone into protecting and trying to prevent the loss of the tools you need in your toolbox. It’s critical you are committed to doing your part and apply these products on target and keep them there.”
Agriculture