ARTICLES

A history of narrowly framed approaches has resulted in obstacles to pesticide registrations while not fully delivering on the intent of both the ESA and FIFRA. Ideally, the desired objective is effective registration of needed crop protection products, with equitable, well-coordinated and meaningful conservation outcomes where appropriate. Instead, however, the historical landscape reads like this: regulatory agencies do not effectively coordinate FIFRA risk assessments with ESA population-level assessments; while in the meantime, the pursuit of “no effect” conclusions for listed species through higher-tier science, label mitigation and deliberation in court has resulted in major uncertainties and inefficiencies for product registrations. These strategies are terminal and outdated. In short, change is the only way forward.

For a crop protection product to be commercially viable it must be effective, scientifically sound, and legally defensible. In the US, an existing dysfunctional alignment of the two regulatory laws that govern crop protection products– the Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)–combines with corporate habits of siloed departments and narrow use of intellectual disciplines. In a climate of increasing public scrutiny and pressure, the recipe is for standstill–stilted or stalled innovation; regulatory logjams, and toothless, watered down, meaningless conservation activities.

While both FIFRA and ESA regulations consider effects to the environment, they were not initially developed with process compatibility in mind. The result is a long history of two regulations that may have worked well on their own, but when it comes to shared outcomes, the processes have fallen short, leaving farmers with less products and species with unattended conservation needs. In this article we provide a short history of this issue to date as a platform for shared understanding and advancing progress.

Reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) and reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) have been the primary mechanism utilized to date by the consulting agencies in pesticide Biological Opinions. However, the full suite of conservation measures (avoidance, minimization, and offsetting) have not been applied. Here we show how we developed an effects analysis to quantify residual, unavoidable impacts following avoidance and minimization measures, thereby improving the proposed project action in ESA section 7 consultation(s), and including the use of offsets to address residual, unavoidable effects to listed species.

As more pesticides move through the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) endangered species biological evaluation toward formal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation, a revised technological platform with an expanded scope is needed to effectively communicate both Federal Fungicide Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and ESA-related application instructions to end users. Here we discuss critical elements and digital platforms that would better meet the needs of both FIFRA registration and ESA Section 7 label instructions, including 1) spatial resolution, 2) temporal resolution, 3) proximity to sensitive habitat, 4) application technologies, 5) environmental conditions constraints, and 6) possible application reporting features.

Creekbank Associates reviews and critiques the current FIFRA registration ESA process through the lens of the March 2020 Carbaryl Draft Biological Evaluation (DBE), providing recommendations to inform and advance the Section 7 consultation and including methodologies for identifying best-fit conservation measures with an equitable, transparent framework for all registrants.

Creekbank Associates proposes a smarter methodology to improve conservation outcomes through better use of real-world data, increased understanding of healthy species dynamics, and agility in the diagnostic process. Presented August 2020 at the ACS virtual conference and expo.

Registration of crop protection products, particularly challenges related to achieving compliance with endangered species conservation laws, continues to be complicated and could affect availability of crop protection tools for production agriculture. In this video, Creekbank discusses strategies for meeting both FIFRA and ESA regulatory compliance requirements through the use of avoidance, minimization, and offsetting conservation measures, and the associated opportunities for ecological restoration service providers. Presented at the 2020 National Mitigation Banking & Ecosystem Banking Conference.