Extension specialists in Michigan began banging the drum about upcoming changes in pesticide use related to the Endangered Species Act in late October. Every week, a message alerting pesticide applicators about new requirements led off the Michigan State University crops newsletter.

MSU Extension staff Teresa Crook and Saltanat Mambetova coordinated a training course consisting of six hour-long winter sessions. The goal is to provide one-on-one training for farmers to learn how to use U.S. EPA’s new Bulletins Live! Two website related to the ESA.

EPA is in the early stages of implementing its recently approved Herbicide Strategy and ensuring compliance with the Endangered Species Act, on the books for over 50 years. Lawsuits filed by environmental groups and the subsequent court settlements resulted in EPA adopting a strategy to comply with the ESA.  

In the weeds

Usually, writers strive to keep their readers “out of the weeds,” avoiding the nitty-gritty details. This article delves “into the weeds,” literally and figuratively, on purpose. See the document Application of EPA’s Runoff and Spray Drift Mitigations Through Scenarios That Represent Crop Production Systems in Support of Endangered Species Strategies.

Aaron Hager, Extension weed science specialist at the University of Illinois, suggests reading the document — just not at bedtime. Although it consists of lots of fine print, it outlines how mitigation strategies to ensure compliance with ESA regulations work, using practical terms. For example, there are sample scenarios for meeting requirements in Clinton County, Ind.; Buchanan County, Iowa; and Ness County, Kan.

Related:Endangered Species Act is changing weed control: What to know

EPA prepared three “maximum point” scenarios for three fields in Buchanan County, Iowa. Nine points is the maximum number any pesticide must accumulate to mitigate potential impacts on endangered species or their habitats. EPA sources note that not all herbicides will require nine points.

EPA shows two scenarios for Field 1. Note that in both scenarios, the field starts with five points due to semipermanent and permanent factors recognized by EPA. In scenario 1a, the farmer meets requirements through reduced tillage and long-season cover crops. In 1b, the farmer still practices reduced tillage but installs a grass waterway on an adjacent field to fulfill the nine-point requirement.

In Field 2, the farmer picks up an additional point for tile, which empties into a nearby ditch, and finishes meeting requirements by using reduced tillage and what EPA calls a “short-duration” cover crop.

Related:EPA restrictions on new product raise concerns

Field 3 has tile drainage with a controlled outlet emptying into a pond, keeping runoff on the farm. EPA did not find a potential for impact on endangered species populations, so no additional mitigation is needed in this field.

Easier on flat fields

“If you have flat land, like in many parts of the ‘I’ states, you get two points for slope under 3%,” Hager says. “After seeing EPA’s final rules, I believe most farmers can meet these mitigation requirements without making unrealistic changes.”

For example, in EPA’s example of a flat field in Clinton County, Ind., that is nonirrigated without tile, the farmer could meet the maximum possible nine-point requirement with reduced tillage. If the field is tiled without a controlled outlet, he or she could achieve maximum points with short-duration cover crops in any tillage system.

“Other things come into play,” Hager acknowledges. “You must also visit Bulletins Live! Two within six months of application and follow any additional restrictions listed there.”

EPA also allows for mitigation by reducing application rates. In the Midwest, with tough weeds like waterhemp, that may not be a smart option. Plus, note that these are field-by-field, not farm-by-farm, strategies.

“The whole field may not be included in a pesticide use limitation area, or PULA, as EPA calls it,” Hager adds. “And drift protection is needed on the downwind side, not necessarily the whole field.

“The bottom line is that most farmers should find ways to meet these requirements. It’s not a cause for panic. My advice is to check where you stand on point requirements for mitigation now, field by field.

“Don’t wait. If there is a field where you need a grass waterway or structure to qualify, you can plan. These requirements aren’t going away.”