ESA WORKPLAN

UPDATE:
Nontarget Species
Mitigation for Registration
Review and Other
FIFRA Actions

November 2022 74
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................3
I. Introduction and Document Overview....................................................................................................................5
II. Overall Approach to Registration Review ..............................................................................................................7
III. FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation and Other Proposed Label Language .........................................................8
a. Goal of EPA’s FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation. ....................................................................................... 9
b. What is FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation? ............................................................................................... 10
c. When is EPA using FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation and Other Proposed Label Language?................. 11
d. How to Comment on FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation and Other Proposed Label Language?............... 11
IV. Endangered Species Protection Bulletins..............................................................................................................12
a. What are Bulletins and Pesticide Use Limitation Areas? ................................................................................. 12
b. When will EPA Use Bulletins?......................................................................................................................... 13
c. When will EPA Require a Reference to Bulletins on the General Label?........................................................ 13
d. How to Comment on Proposed Bulletins Language? ....................................................................................... 14
V. Additional Strategies to Expedite Progress on ESA Workplan Initiatives ...........................................................15
a. Strategies for Identifying and Incorporating Early ESA Mitigation Measures Across Groups of Chemicals.. 15
b. Using EPA’s Vulnerable Species Pilot to Extend Mitigation from One Chemical to a Similar One or from
One Vulnerable Species to Other Vulnerable Species. ............................................................................................ 17
c. Regional Strategies. .......................................................................................................................................... 18
d. Approaches for Specific Pesticide Uses............................................................................................................ 18
e. Programmatic Approaches to Consultation. ..................................................................................................... 18
f. Offsets. .............................................................................................................................................................. 19
VI. Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................................19
APPENDIX. Proposed Label Language for Public Comment at www.regulations.gov Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2022-0908 .............................................................................................................................................................21
1. Bulletins Live! Two (BLT) ............................................................................................................................... 21
2. Interim Ecological Mitigation #1: Surface Water Protection Statements and Conservation Measure Pick List
to Reduce Ecological Risks from Surface Water Runoff......................................................................................... 22
3. Interim Ecological Mitigation #2: Surface Water Protection Statement and Conservation Measure Pick List to
Reduce Ecological Risks from Soil Erosion ............................................................................................................ 26
4. Interim Ecological Mitigation #1 and #2: Runoff and Erosion Mitigation Pick List Descriptions .................. 29
5. Interim Ecological Mitigation #3: Reducing Ecological Risks from Spray Drift............................................. 39
6. Pesticide-Treated Seed: Proposed Label Language and Considerations for Future Ecological Mitigation ..... 46
7. Promoting Pollinator Stewardship: Proposed Advisory Language................................................................... 49
8. Ecological Incident Reporting Label Language................................................................................................ 50

2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EPA’s Pesticide Program faces the decades-long challenge of meeting its Endangered Species Act (ESA)
obligations for the large number of actions taken annually under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). To address this challenge, EPA has taken several crucial steps in the last year alone.
In January 2022, the Agency committed to fully complying with the ESA before registering any new
conventional pesticides. And in April 2022, the Agency released a workplan on how it will address this
challenge, including by incorporating protections for ESA listed species earlier in its FIFRA process.
EPA is now releasing this first update to the workplan, which describes the Agency’s efforts to reduce pesticide
exposure to nontarget organisms, including listed species, during the FIFRA registration review process and
through other FIFRA actions. Taken together, these steps will move EPA toward fulfilling its ESA obligations
and making final registration review decisions by providing earlier protections for listed species, while
increasing regulatory certainty for growers and pesticide registrants. The workplan update thus reflects a major
milestone in EPA’s journey to fully comply with the ESA in ways that are protective, implementable, and
transparent.
For most pesticides, registration review is the most important opportunity for EPA to include mitigation for
listed species. On 15-year intervals, EPA must assess each existing pesticide active ingredient to ensure it
continues to meet the FIFRA standard of causing no unreasonable adverse effects. Because most pesticides
were registered without a formal ESA review, the initial registration review is the Agency’s first major
opportunity to incorporate mitigation for listed species and many other nontarget wildlife. Further, registration
review triggers ESA requirements as courts have repeatedly made clear.
EPA’s inability to fully meet the ESA requirements has created a growing number of lawsuits against the
Agency. Existing court-enforceable deadlines, combined with ongoing litigation and settlement discussions,
will require EPA to complete ESA reviews for over 50 pesticides, thus filling the Agency’s ESA workload well
beyond 2030. Yet these cases represent less than 5% of EPA’s future pesticide actions that trigger ESA
obligations. Unless EPA makes substantial progress on ESA compliance, it is likely to face more litigation. The
workplan update represents a major step in this process by proposing a large menu of ecological mitigation
measures that EPA will begin including in registration review actions. This outcome is a win for wildlife in
need of protections, and a win for growers who seek legal certainty about the status of the pesticides they rely
on.
The update consists of four main sections. Section II describes EPA’s overall approach to mitigating ecological
risks in registration review. Moving forward, the Agency will prioritize the issuance of interim decisions (IDs)
based on opportunities to reduce a pesticide’s risk to human health or the environment and to efficiently
complete its registration review cases (e.g., reviewing similar pesticides simultaneously). If a pesticide presents
ecological risks that EPA identifies through its pesticide risk assessment, the Agency expects to include interim
mitigation measures that will reduce exposure to nontarget species, including listed species. These measures can
include ones designed specifically to address ecological risk and any human health protections that also reduce
pesticide exposure to listed species.
In Section III, EPA proposes a menu of mitigation measures that the Agency can use across a range of
pesticides to reduce pesticide exposure to nontarget species. This menu of “Interim Ecological Mitigation”
includes measures to reduce spray drift, surface water runoff, and pesticide transport through erosion. For each
3
chemical in registration review that presents ecological risks, EPA will decide which measures from this menu
to propose based on the risks and benefits of the pesticide. This approach offers not only early protections for
nontarget organisms, including listed species, but also consistent mitigation that could be used across similar
pesticides. Specifically, the approach helps ensure that pesticides with similar exposure pathways, uses, and
ecological risks are treated comparably under FIFRA. The result should be a simpler to implement and more
equitable for the agriculture sector that relies on pesticides. The appendix provides more information on Interim
Ecological Mitigation, and EPA is seeking public comment on that portion of the workplan update.
Although Interim Ecological Mitigation measures are designed to address ecological risks broadly (and thus
will generally appear on pesticide labels nationally), many situations will require mitigation targeting the areas a
listed species occurs. In those situations, EPA will use its web-based system, Bulletins Live! Two (BLT), to
post geographically specific mitigation for individual listed species. Section IV describes the BLT process,
including when EPA will require pesticide labeling to include a reference for users to check BLT before using a
pesticide. Through the appendix, EPA is also seeking public comment on proposed label language that
references BLT.
Section V provides updates on other strategies to expedite implementation of the ESA workplan, particularly
strategies to prioritize mitigation for listed species vulnerable to pesticides and to improve the efficiency and
timeliness of the pesticide consultation process. Crucial steps to advance these strategies include identifying
ESA mitigation for groups of similar pesticides (e.g., herbicides, rodenticides) and developing mitigation to
protect all listed species in certain regions (e.g., Hawaii), thus simplifying future pesticide consultations for
those species. Another important step is to propose early mitigation for certain listed species as part of several
current and upcoming registration review cases (i.e., methomyl, carbaryl, rodenticides, and certain
neonicotinoids). These cases represent the first time that EPA is proposing to include ESA-specific mitigation in
IDs.
The appendix contains proposed labeling language for Interim Ecological Mitigation, BLT, and other initiatives
described in the workplan update. EPA is seeking public comments on the appendix through
www.regulations.gov docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0908.

4
 I. Introduction and Document Overview

In April 2022, EPA released a workplan that outlines strategies and actions for the Agency to meet its
Endangered Species Act (ESA) obligations for certain actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In this first update to the workplan, EPA focuses on planned and proposed steps it
will take during registration review to reduce exposure to listed species as it moves toward fulfilling its ESA
obligations and making final registration review decisions. Most importantly, going forward, any FIFRA
interim decisions (IDs) that EPA issues will include interim mitigation measures that address risks to nontarget
species identified in a FIFRA risk assessment. This update describes the types of FIFRA interim mitigation
measures that EPA has identified to date and how the Agency will decide which ones to include in future IDs
based on the risk and benefits of a pesticide. The update also discusses several current and upcoming initiatives
to expedite pesticide consultations and the adoption of ESA protections for listed species, including early ESA
mitigation for certain highly vulnerable listed species. For concision, this document assumes the reader is
familiar with the ESA workplan, including key ESA and FIFRA concepts.
Historically, IDs for pesticides with identified ecological risks have often included some mitigation to reduce
exposure to nontarget species from pesticides, but those measures were not developed with the specific goal of
advancing EPA’s ESA obligations. Further, those IDs did not describe how the FIFRA mitigation measures
could reduce exposure to listed species. Rather, measures for ESA species were typically identified only in ESA
biological opinions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), which exist for a small number of pesticides that are currently in registration review.
EPA now seeks to narrow this gap by including mitigation for listed species during registration review, in at
least two ways. First is by including FIFRA mitigation to protect nontarget species as part of any IDs it issues
for conventional and biological pesticides that present ecological risks, while the Agency works toward final
registration review decisions. These interim measures could include a selection of the ecological risk reduction
measures described in this update, known as “Interim Ecological Mitigation,” along with measures to address
human health risks that also reduce exposure to nontarget species. An example of the former is a vegetative
strip that absorbs pesticide runoff to reduce exposure to nontarget species. An example of the latter is a
reduction in pesticide application rate to address a cancer risk to humans that also lessens exposure to nontarget
species. Some of the ecological measures will be similar to those that EPA has included in past IDs, while
others are new. In developing interim mitigation measures under FIFRA, EPA considers the risks and benefits
of a pesticide.
A second way to narrow the gap is by including early, targeted ESA mitigation to protect certain listed species.
The forthcoming proposed IDs for rodenticides and carbamates are examples of this approach. Another example
is the new ESA initiatives described in Section V of this document, such as a strategy to identify and develop
mitigation measures for herbicides across multiple agricultural uses. Unlike mitigation to further EPA’s FIFRA
obligations, mitigation to further ESA obligations is governed by the ESA standard, which does not include a
risk-benefit analysis. This is so even when EPA includes that mitigation through registration review. EPA will
strive, however, to propose measures that are practical, implementable, clear, and enforceable.
EPA is pursuing these steps for at least two reasons. First, EPA must adopt more efficient approaches to
meeting its ESA obligations, given the current four- to fifteen-year process to complete ESA consultations for
pesticides. Early mitigation supports this goal by reducing pesticide exposures to species and their habitats,
while EPA works towards full ESA compliance. As the extent of effects decreases, so should the complexity
5
and duration of consultations. For example, if early mitigation significantly reduces or eliminates the probability
of a future jeopardy or adverse modification finding, formal consultation is simplified and listed species receive
earlier protection. Early mitigation should also inform any future ESA requirements to minimize the effects of
incidental take from pesticide use. The ESA workplan describes in greater detail the need for EPA to include
early mitigation, and this update covers one way that EPA is implementing that strategy
Second, courts are increasingly ruling that ESA obligations arise from certain FIFRA actions. Relevant
decisions include Washington Toxics Coalition v. Environmental Protection Agency, 413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir.
2005), Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017), National Family Farms v. EPA,
966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020), and NRDC v. U.S. EPA, No. 20-70787 (9th Cir. June 17, 2022). These and other
decisions underscore the importance for EPA to promote mitigation measures that reduce pesticide exposures to
listed species and furthers the Agency’s ESA obligations. Without those measures, EPA anticipates new
litigation against the Agency and similar adverse court decisions on other pesticides. That outcome could result
in the abrupt removal of the pesticide tools growers need. And it would overwhelm EPA’s workload,
considering that existing court-enforceable deadlines will require EPA to complete ESA reviews for 18
pesticides over the next six years—the most the Agency estimates it can handle during this period based on its
current capacity and processes. Further, ongoing litigation and settlement discussions for other lawsuits cover
dozens of additional pesticides and will likely fill the Agency’s ESA workload well beyond 2030. The steps
discussed in this update are thus needed for EPA to effectively manage its ESA-FIFRA workload and reduce
legal uncertainty about the registration review status of pesticides without a final decision.
The nexus of FIFRA and ESA is exceptionally dynamic and affected by court decisions, agency resources, new
science, lessons learned during implementation, and other factors. This update reflects EPA’s best attempt to
describe in greater detail how it will advance protection of listed species through registration review, with a
focus on conventional and biological pesticides. The Agency, however, implores readers to recognize the
constantly evolving nature of ESA-FIFRA issues and the possibility that unforeseen events may change how
EPA implements the measures outlined in this status update. EPA intends to continue periodically sharing
updates about its ESA-FIFRA progress.

This status update is structured as follows:

• Section II provides an overview of how EPA will further its ESA obligations for registration review and
prioritize higher risk chemicals when it issues IDs.
• Section III describes how EPA will identify FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation for nontarget species
and how the Agency will determine which types of measures to propose in its registration review
decisions. These measures would appear directly on pesticide labels, along with any interim measures to
address human health risks.
• Section IV describes how EPA will incorporate Bulletins Live! Two (BLT) references on labels for
many outdoor use pesticides to expedite the Agency’s ability to incorporate geographically specific
mitigation for listed species.
• Section V describes several broader, programmatic initiatives that EPA is currently pursuing or
considering to help meet its ESA obligations more efficiently. These include mitigation for multiple
species, specific uses, specific types of pesticides, and other programmatic approaches.

EPA will continue developing the mitigation tools described in this update and will consider whether similar
approaches should apply to other FIFRA actions that trigger ESA requirements, such as new active ingredient
registrations, new use registrations, or registration review for antimicrobial pesticides. In particular, EPA plans
6
to incorporate the FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation measures described here for many conventional
pesticide new use registrations.

II. Overall Approach to Registration Review

Moving forward, and in light of the implications of litigation noted earlier, the Agency will prioritize the
issuance of IDs based on opportunities to reduce the pesticide’s risk to human health or the environment and to
efficiently complete its registration review cases, such as by reviewing similar pesticides simultaneously. If a
pesticide presents ecological risks, EPA expects to include interim mitigation measures that will reduce
exposure to nontarget species. These measures could include FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation that also
reduce exposure to listed species (Section III), geographically specific mitigation through Bulletins Live! Two
(Section IV), programmatic approaches to listed species mitigation that EPA is currently developing (Section
V), or other listed species mitigation approaches that EPA has developed (e.g., mitigation approaches informed
by current ESA pilot projects). EPA would include these approaches in future IDs on a case-by-case basis,
including after assessing a pesticide’s risk to nontarget organisms. The interim mitigation measures would also
include any human health protections. In some cases, those protections may also reduce exposures to listed
species and expedite future ESA consultations. As with Interim Ecological Mitigation, any interim mitigation
measures for human health are those that EPA has determined will address specific risks of concern identified at
that point in registration review. EPA will summarize the mitigation measures that are expected to reduce
exposure from the pesticide to listed species in a new ESA section within IDs for pesticides that present
ecological risks.

After EPA has fully met its ESA obligations associated with the registration review of a pesticide (including by
incorporating any additional mitigation the Services deem necessary), it will issue a final decision for the
pesticide, including any necessary mitigation measures.

Mitigation to meet FIFRA obligations Mitigation to meet ESA obligations

Interim Ecological Mitigation in IDs Geographically specific mitigation in
(Section III) Bulletins Live! Two (Section IV)
Interim human health mitigation in IDs Species-specific mitigation through ESA
pilot projects (Section V)
Programmatic approaches to ESA
mitigation (Section V)
Reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs)
and reasonable and prudent alternatives
(RPAs) in ESA biological opinions,
following formal consultation with the
Services

Table 1. This document distinguishes between mitigation to advance EPA’s FIFRA and ESA obligations. Further,
mitigation to further FIFRA obligations is generally subject to a risk-benefit analysis. Mitigation to further ESA
obligations is not subject to this analysis. All mitigation included in an ID will be interim and ones that EPA has
concluded will address risks identified at that point in the registration review process.

7
 III. FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation and Other Proposed Label Language

As explained in the ESA workplan, EPA recognizes that establishing mitigation to protect all listed species on a
strictly chemical-by-chemical or species-by-species basis creates an unmanageable workload, results in years-
long delays in protecting listed species, exacerbates the Agency’s legal vulnerability, and creates significant
uncertainty for growers and potential food security challenges if litigation results in the abrupt removal of
pesticides used to grow crops. EPA has thus determined that proposed interim decisions (PIDs) and IDs issued
under FIFRA should move the Agency forward in addressing its obligations under ESA. Thus, EPA will be
placing a greater emphasis on addressing ecological risks while still balancing pesticide benefits and the
potential impacts of mitigation.

As an initial step to accomplish this goal, EPA has developed a menu of FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation
measures for conventional and biological pesticides used on agricultural crops. EPA risk managers will consider
these measures and propose appropriate measures in PIDs after considering the risks and benefits of a pesticide.
EPA also intends to adapt this process to FIFRA decisions not covered by this workplan update, in particular
conventional pesticide new use registrations. These measures will also serve as a starting point for EPA to
develop mitigation for its other strategies to address ESA, discussed in Section V.

The Interim Ecological Mitigation menu of measures for agricultural crops would cover some or all of the
following:

• Surface water protection statements users would follow when precipitation occurs or is forecasted to
reduce ecological risk from movement of pesticides off the field through runoff or erosion;
• Conservation buffers (small areas or strips of land in permanent vegetation designed to intercept
pollutants and manage other environmental concerns) and other conservation measures to reduce
ecological risk from movement of pesticides off the field through runoff or erosion;
• Droplet size, windspeed, and release height limits to reduce ecological risks from spray drift;
• Spray drift buffers from aquatic habitats (e.g., lakes, reservoirs, rivers, permanent streams, wetlands or
natural ponds, estuaries, and commercial fish farm ponds) and conservation areas (e.g., public lands and
parks, Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, reserves, conservation easements).

In addition, EPA is planning to incorporate the web link to the Bulletins Live! Two system (described further in
Section IV), advisory language for insect pollinators for liquid spray applications to crops, and label language
on incident reporting. EPA is also considering proposing seed treatment mitigation to reduce risks to wildlife
from pesticide dust-off from treated seed and ingestion of treated seed.

EPA considers the Interim Ecological Mitigation listed above, and the other label language, as a starting point
for developing mitigation for a pesticide. With regard to the Interim Ecological Mitigation and insect pollinator
advisory language, EPA may propose more or less stringent measures to address ecological risk as part of its
chemical-specific evaluation. In other words, for each registration review case, the chemical review team will
consider these Interim Ecological Mitigation measures and advisory language as a potential starting point for a
PID but may propose additional or different measures to address ecological risks specific to that case.
Conversely, a team may determine that for certain uses of a chemical, these measures are not needed to address
ecological risks specific to that case and propose less stringent measures. For example, if interim mitigation for
human health risks also significantly reduces exposures to nontarget species, or if the registrant has voluntarily
committed to mitigation to significantly reduce exposure to those species, EPA may need to rely less on the
Interim Ecological Mitigation measures.
8
Examples of label language associated with the Interim Ecological Mitigation and other proposed label
language are available in the example label table in the appendix. EPA is requesting comment on these
measures through a 75-day public comment period, as described further in Section III.d. below and the
appendix. Additionally, EPA will propose Interim Ecological Mitigation measures and the other label language
in PIDs, where appropriate, and provide for public comment. The first four of these PIDs are expected to
include some or all of the Interim Ecological Mitigation measures, insect pollinator advisory language, and seed
treatment label language. All four PIDs all are also expected to include BLT and ecological incident reporting
language. These PIDs are for dicloran (DCNA), etofenprox, norflurazon, and the thiophanate-
methyl/carbendazim (TM/MBC) case.

FIFRA compliance and ESA compliance are different. Unlike with mitigation measures specific for listed
species to avoid jeopardizing the species or adversely modifying designated critical habitat (as required under
the ESA for certain FIFRA actions), EPA considered the risks and benefits of pesticides when it developed the
Interim Ecological Mitigation, as described in more detail below. It is crucial for readers to understand that
when these measures are included in IDs, they are not designed to fully address ESA obligations for a pesticide
in registration review. Rather, they are designed to reduce exposure to a variety of nontarget species, including
listed species, while EPA moves toward full ESA compliance and final registration review decisions. Additional
measures may also be necessary when EPA consults, as necessary, with the Service(s) on the pesticide and
receives a biological opinion with ESA-specific measures.

a. Goal of EPA’s FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation.

EPA’s goal in developing Interim Ecological Mitigation measures is to consistently apply ecological mitigation
options to reduce exposure to nontarget species, including listed species, based on the fate and transport
characteristics of the chemical and the toxicological effects, risk, and benefits of the pesticide. Including these
measures in registration review decisions accomplishes four major Agency objectives.

First, they should facilitate future ESA consultation by making early and widespread progress on incorporating
mitigation measures that are similar to the measures the Services have either provided to EPA in recent
biological opinions or are expected to provide in future biological opinions. Early mitigation is thus expected to
shorten the current multiyear consultation process by frontloading mitigation measures that are likely to be
required during consultation. It is also expected to further EPA’s ESA obligations by improving the
conservation status of listed species and possibly reduce the likelihood of a future jeopardy/adverse
modification finding. In general, when a species is protected from threats, its vulnerability to extinction
decreases, which in turn reduces the likelihood of a future jeopardy finding. The full extent of listed species
protection, however, cannot be determined until formal consultation with the Services, when needed, is
completed.

Second, it ensures that pesticides with similar exposure pathways, uses, and ecological risk profiles are treated
comparably under FIFRA. This creates more equity across the pesticide marketplace, which is a common
concern among pesticide registrants. As such, EPA expects that equitable inclusion of these interim measures
will lessen the need to negotiate ecological mitigation with registrants on a case-by-case basis and could create
efficiencies as EPA completes its registration review activities. Another way to view these measures is that EPA
is raising the baseline for ecological mitigation measures and ensuring that the Agency views ecological risk
and mitigation measures consistently across pesticides. EPA has successfully accomplished this in the past for
human health mitigation measures. By establishing cross-pesticide equity for requiring personal protective
equipment (PPE) by pesticide handlers, EPA established expectations for including PPE requirements on labels
9
that registrants now readily meet. EPA anticipates a similar outcome when standardizing Interim Ecological
Mitigation measures across registered pesticides.

Applying similar ecological mitigation to pesticides with similar exposure pathways, uses, and risk profiles also
ensures that, when choosing pesticide products, pesticide users have repeated and consistent incentives to use
pesticides with fewer ecological risks overall. This is because, in general, the mitigation options are more
stringent for pesticides with higher ecological risks than for those with lower ecological risks.

Additionally, some of the measures included in the Interim Ecological Mitigation menu are basic best
management practices to reduce ecological risks that will appear across pesticide labels more consistently.
Users will continue to have options to address their pest pressures, but will also need to more fully consider
needed protections to reduce risks to the environment for riskier chemicals.

Third, Interim Ecological Mitigation supports EPA’s broad strategies to reduce exposure to nontarget species
across pesticide groups and use profiles (e.g., herbicides, insecticides, residential uses, mosquitocide uses).
These efforts would likely also further the Agency’s compliance with the ESA, as described in Section V.

Finally, Interim Ecological Mitigation advances the Agency’s commitment to protect listed and non-listed
pollinators as previously established in the ESA workplan and the EPA Administrator’s June 2022 proclamation
for National Pollinator Week.

b. What is FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation?

FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation is a menu of generalized ecological mitigation and advisory language that
EPA can use across a broad range of pesticides. The menu contains a range of mitigation measures for each
major exposure pathway that can result in ecological risk. The specific mitigation measures for each exposure
pathway range from less to more restrictive. For each pesticide, EPA would propose the appropriate measures
based on a balance of the pesticide’s ecological risks and benefits as required under FIFRA.

EPA developed the Interim Ecological Mitigation menu based on common, national scale exposure pathways
that can result in ecological risk (i.e., runoff, erosion, spray drift). EPA has initially developed measures for
agricultural crop uses and expects to incorporate some or all of the measures into its PIDs, especially the four
upcoming PIDs listed earlier.

Interim Ecological Mitigation is intended to reduce ecological risk to both non-listed and listed species. As
discussed in the previous section, these measures are also expected to improve the conservation status of listed
species and possibly reduce the likelihood of a future jeopardy/adverse modification finding.

EPA’s decisions that include Interim Ecological Mitigation measures must consider the benefits of a pesticide’s
use. EPA designed these measures such that they will vary based on the risk and benefit profiles of the
pesticide. This generally involves more restrictive measures (e.g., larger spray drift buffers) for pesticides that
EPA identifies to have high ecological risk and lower benefits to users. Conversely, for pesticides with
comparable ecological risks and higher benefits to users, less restrictive measure (e.g., smaller spray drift
buffers) would be expected.

Because Interim Ecological Mitigation is a menu of potential mitigation measures, it does not include the
following:
10
• Mitigation measures that are only feasible on a pesticide-by-pesticide basis (e.g., application rate reductions,
reductions in number of applications).
• Mitigation measures specific to individual listed species that are being developed for pilot projects described
in the ESA workplan.
• Mitigation measures being developed for listed species under other initiatives described in Section V.

Like all ecological mitigation under FIFRA, the Interim Ecological Mitigation measures would be incorporated
into product labeling. Example label language appears in the appendix.

c. When is EPA using FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation and Other Proposed Label Language?

EPA intends to include Interim Ecological Mitigation measures when it determines they are appropriate to
address the ecological risk of a pesticide under FIFRA. The measures are intended to be broad and focus on risk
to nontarget species identified in the ecological risk assessment rather than to a particular listed species. Further,
the measures are specific to the exposure route leading to the risks identified in an ecological risk assessment. In
addition to this interim mitigation, EPA has determined that a web link to its BLT system is necessary for most
pesticide labels. Additionally, EPA has determined that incident reporting guidance is necessary for all pesticide
products, and insect pollinator advisory language is necessary for pesticide products with agricultural crop uses.
The appendix contains example label language for these measures and more details on when EPA believes they
are necessary.
EPA has already been incorporating some of these measures through registration review, while others are
relatively new. EPA has regularly included mitigation measures in registration review to address spray drift
such as droplet size, windspeed, release height, and buffers from aquatic habitat. To address run-off, EPA
sometimes requires surface water protection statements, but has not done so in a systematic way across
agricultural pesticides. Although EPA has required conservation buffers (e.g., vegetative filter strips) in several
instances, including for the entire pyrethroid class, the Agency has infrequently used conservation buffers and
other measures to reduce off-site pesticide transport through runoff and erosion across pesticides sprayed on
agricultural crops. Additionally, EPA had rarely included spray drift buffers from wildlife conservation areas
(e.g., National Wildlife Refuges) as mitigation measures in registration review. Now, the Agency intends to
consistently incorporate both types of buffers as Interim Ecological Mitigation to further its FIFRA and ESA
obligations, if the ecological risk and benefit profile of a pesticide warrant these measures.

EPA also plans to use similar measures for other FIFRA decisions that trigger ESA requirements, particularly
new registrations of conventional active ingredients. EPA receives many new use and other FIFRA applications
each year. The Agency recognizes the need to work toward fully meeting its ESA obligations for these actions.

d. How to Comment on FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation and Other Proposed Label Language?

On November 16, 2022, EPA published an OPP Update to announce the availability of the Interim Ecological
Mitigation and other label language discussed above for public comment. EPA has also published the appendix
of this Workplan Update as a separate memo on www.regulations.gov docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-
0908 for a 75-day comment period. EPA particularly welcomes comments on the feasibility of implementing
these measures and how the Agency should adjust measures to account for the risks and benefits of a pesticide.
Because EPA intends to adapt these measures to other FIFRA actions, EPA welcomes comments from

11
stakeholders interested in FIFRA actions not only for conventional registration review cases but also for new
use actions, biopesticides, and antimicrobials.

The public also has an opportunity to see how the Interim Ecological Mitigation measures and other label
language will be incorporated in PIDs going forward in four upcoming PIDs that will go out for public
comment in registration review. The first four of these PIDs are expected to include some or all of the Interim
Ecological Mitigation measures, insect pollinator advisory language, and seed treatment label language. All four
PIDs are expected to include BLT and ecological incident reporting language. These PIDs are for dicloran
(DCNA), etofenprox, norflurazon, and the thiophanate-methyl/carbendazim (TM/MBC) case.

IV. Endangered Species Protection Bulletins

a. What are Bulletins and Pesticide Use Limitation Areas?

As described above, ESA mitigation can take the form of nationwide restrictions on the general pesticide
product label or geographic-specific restrictions located in Endangered Species Protection Bulletins (hereafter
referred to as Bulletins), which are extensions of the general label accessed through a website. EPA is using a
web-based system, Bulletins Live! Two (BLT), to provide timely protections for listed species and to minimize
pesticide product label changes. When using the term “Bulletins” in this document, the Agency is referring to
the additional mitigation a user located in a specific geographic location must follow. When using the term
BLT, the Agency is referring to the web-based system. Where EPA identifies mitigation specific to certain
geographic areas, it uses Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping information typically in combination
with species location information to delineate pesticide use limitation areas (PULAs). PULAs are the spatial
files in BLT that allow users to determine if their intended pesticide application falls within a location that has
additional required mitigation to protect listed species or their critical habitat.

EPA uses BLT only when mitigation applies in a particular geographic region where listed species are present
and, in some cases, only during certain times of the year. A physical label cannot feasibly accommodate all
these lengthy mitigation instructions. Similarly, BLT simplifies compliance by offering an easy way for users to
identify where and when they are subject to the mitigation. Otherwise, users would need to use existing
information from a variety of sources beyond the label to evaluate whether the location of their treatment area
overlaps with an area for which EPA has identified geographically specific mitigation. Then they would need to
read through hundreds of pages of a label to determine which restrictions apply to their treatment area.

Pesticide applicators are required to visit the BLT online database, when directed by a product label, and follow
any mitigation specified in a Bulletin for the application area. When users are directed to follow them on a
pesticide label, Bulletins are enforceable mitigation measures under FIFRA. Bulletins are not intended to
replace or override any additional restrictions that a state may impose. Thus, applicators need to be aware of and
follow pesticide restrictions according to both state and federal requirements.

Below is the BLT language that EPA has been requiring on certain pesticide labels to implement Agency
actions (including implementation of biological opinions from the Services) that require geographic specific
mitigation for listed species or their critical habitat. The Agency is proposing some minor revisions to this
language and is seeking stakeholder feedback on the overall clarity of the language and workability for
applicator planning purposes (see Appendix). Pesticide labeling generally has allowed users to obtain the
Bulletins information up to six months prior to the application date. EPA believes a six-month window allows
adequate time, in most cases, for pesticide users to plan their pesticide applications. In addition to mitigation in
12
certain geographic areas, Bulletins may also specify mitigation during certain times of the year depending on
the listed species that need protection. Thus, the BLT language states that users must use the Bulletin valid for
the intended application month, if mitigation measures are specified by month.

“Endangered Species Protection Requirements: It is a Federal offense to use any pesticide in a manner
that results in an unauthorized “take” (e.g., kill or otherwise harm) of an endangered species and
certain threatened species, under the Endangered Species Act section 9. When using this product, you
must follow the measures contained in the Endangered Species Protection Bulletin for the area in which
you are applying the product. You must obtain a Bulletin no earlier than six months before using this
product. To obtain Bulletins, consult http://www.epa.gov/espp, call 1-844-447-3813, or email
[email protected]. You must use the Bulletin valid for the month in which you will apply the product.”
Although the BLT system has been in place for many years, there may be applicators who are unfamiliar with
this system. Using the online tool to determine if mitigation is required for a particular treatment area may be a
new step that many users will need to take prior to an application. However, the Agency anticipates that over
time and with wider implementation, BLT will become a familiar tool that is integrated into a user’s planning
process for pesticide applications. In February 2022, EPA released an improved version of BLT1, which allows
users to more easily find the information they need for a particular pesticide product. The Agency has also
developed a tutorial2 that explains how to use the online system. In addition, the general label language
referring users to BLT provides a phone number and email address for those needing technical assistance.

b. When will EPA Use Bulletins?

In general, EPA prefers to provide directions for pesticide use directly on the general label. This allows users to
read the directions without taking the extra step of visiting the BLT online system and acquiring the Bulletins
for the pesticide. FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation measures would appear directly on labels. However,
EPA acknowledges that this mitigation is likely insufficient to fully meet its ESA obligations in many cases. As
EPA continues to make progress on its commitments in the ESA workplan, EPA may determine that additional
mitigation is necessary to protect listed species or their critical habitat for certain pesticides or pesticide uses. If
this mitigation is geographically specific, EPA expects to create a Bulletin to communicate these measures.
EPA recognizes that, in a variety of situations, Bulletins are the best approach, and sometimes the only feasible
approach, to implement required mitigation to minimize the effects of pesticides to a listed species or critical
habitat. For example, Bulletins are most appropriate for species with a very narrow range that require mitigation
not applicable to other species. For many species, EPA may require a combination of general label mitigation
(e.g., reducing runoff) and Bulletins that offer additional protections when a pesticide is used within an area
known to include the species (species range) or to protect a specific portion of critical habitat or areas important
to species recovery.

c. When will EPA Require a Reference to Bulletins on the General Label?

To help meet its ESA obligations in registration review, EPA expects that including Bulletins language is
necessary for most outdoor use pesticide labels. EPA believes this language will also streamline label

1
https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/endangered-species-protection-bulletins
2
https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/bulletins-live-two-blt-tutorial

13
amendments when future mitigation for listed species is determined to be necessary by EPA or in conjunction
with the Services to meet ESA obligations. Even if Bulletins are needed to protect only one listed species from
the effects of a particular pesticide, the reference to check BLT would still be needed on the general label. This
language also minimizes the need for registrants to request amendments to their labels to add a reference to
BLT after completing consultation with the Services. Each round of label amendment submission, review, and
approval creates additional work for both EPA, pesticide registrants, and state agencies to register amended
pesticide products.

To reduce user confusion in situations when they visit the BLT website and find that EPA has not yet
established geographically specific mitigation for a pesticide, EPA has added information to the BLT website
that explains why a user may not see any geographically specific mitigation for the product they are applying.
The updated BLT website explains that a user’s search may not show any Pesticide Use Limitation Areas
(PULAs) for one of two reasons: 1) EPA has not yet completed the process of identifying whether additional
geographically specific mitigation is needed, or 2) there are no additional geographically specific mitigation
measures required for the time and location indicated by the pesticide applicator. As EPA continues to identify
early ESA mitigation for listed species, the Agency will update BLT with additional PULAs that may apply to
specific pesticides in the future. Thus, a pesticide applicator will need to check BLT within six months of each
application.

d. How to Comment on Proposed Bulletins Language?

In many cases, EPA will be proposing to include a reference to the BLT system prior to creating a Bulletin.
Registrants and stakeholders may be concerned about opportunities to comment on these future Bulletins. In
addition, stakeholders will have an opportunity to comment on proposed mitigation measures through a variety
of actions. For example, when EPA conducts public outreach on the vulnerable species pilot (Section V.b.),
there will be an opportunity to provide input on any proposed Bulletin mitigation measures. Stakeholder
feedback is critical to improving EPA’s understanding of how pesticides are used, the ways in which they may
affect listed species, and how effects to listed species can be mitigated while preserving the beneficial uses of
the pesticides to the extent possible.

An important opportunity to comment on future Bulletins is through the EPA pilot chemicals (i.e., carbaryl,
methomyl, rodenticides, neonicotinoids), which focus on early mitigation for certain listed species while formal
consultation with the Services is pending or ongoing. For each of these pilot chemicals, the Agency is
identifying certain listed species that likely need protection and is proposing mitigation for those species. The
proposed mitigation is intended to reduce (through avoidance and minimization) potential exposures and effects
to the pilot species, such that EPA would be able to predict that these pesticides would not have a likelihood of
jeopardy or adverse modification. Further, the mitigation may be developed by EPA, proposed by registrants, or
both. The intent of these pilots is to help stakeholders better understand how proposed mitigation for these
species would allow EPA to address any predicted likelihood of jeopardy or adverse modification for the pilot
chemicals. Although mitigation to further ESA obligations cannot include a risk-benefit analysis, EPA has
qualitatively assessed the potential impacts of the proposed mitigation to pesticide users to identify the
mitigation that is less burdensome to users while still providing the necessary protections.

For each of these pilot chemicals, EPA will be taking public comment on the proposed ESA mitigation
measures through individual chemical PIDs or revised PIDs. After considering comments received on the
proposed mitigation, EPA will finalize the mitigation and provide it to the Services for their jeopardy and
adverse modification determinations. Although this early mitigation effort starts with the set of pilot chemicals
14
noted here, EPA anticipates that the identified mitigation measures would likely apply to other pesticides that
are used in areas where these pilot species are located.

The ESA workplan also identifies several other pilot projects to provide earlier protections for listed species.
These pilots include the EPA Vulnerable Species Pilot Project to identify early mitigation for listed species that
EPA has determined are particularly vulnerable to pesticide effects. See Section V for more information on
these pilots and upcoming opportunities for public feedback on proposed mitigation measures.

V. Additional Strategies to Expedite Progress on ESA Workplan Initiatives

The ESA workplan described various strategies to improve EPA’s capacity to meet its ESA obligations.
Strategy 2 focuses on improving approaches to identifying appropriate ESA mitigation measures, especially for
species facing the greatest risk from pesticides, as well as developing a process for implementing these
protections (i.e., on pesticide product labeling). Strategy 3 focuses on improving the efficiency and timeliness of
the pesticide consultation process in coordination with the Services. Consistent with 50 CFR 402.40(b)(1), EPA
may include in any effects determination its prediction as to whether an action has a likelihood of jeopardy or
adverse modification. EPA is gaining experience with making these predictions and including them in its effects
determinations and biological evaluations, with the goal of proactively identifying ESA mitigation to address
the potential for a future jeopardy or adverse modification finding.

Besides the actions described earlier, EPA has identified several additional approaches to further advance these
strategies:

• Strategies for identifying and implementing early ESA mitigation across groups of chemicals (e.g.,
herbicides, rodenticides, insecticides)
• Bridging of mitigation measures from one chemical (representative) to a similar one or from one vulnerable
species to other vulnerable species
• Regional-specific strategies (e.g., specific measures for use of a pesticide in Hawaii)
• Approaches for specific pesticide uses (e.g., adult mosquitocide)
• Programmatic approaches to ESA consultation
• Offsets (also known as compensatory mitigation)

The following describes EPA’s current thinking on these additional approaches. EPA also expects to provide
opportunities for public input on these strategies as the Agency continues developing them.

a. Strategies for Identifying and Incorporating Early ESA Mitigation Measures Across Groups of
Chemicals.

Herbicides

EPA’s first effort is focused on herbicides (“Herbicide Strategy”). EPA is identifying and developing mitigation
measures for herbicides that are appropriate across multiple agricultural uses. EPA’s process involves
developing mitigation measures across a main taxa (e.g., plants, invertebrates) identified as being the most
likely to be adversely affected from the pesticide group. The goal of the Herbicide Strategy is to develop a
broad approach to address spray drift and runoff transport from treated fields to minimize exposure to listed

15
plants from herbicides (pesticides that target plants that are pests). This strategy would also protect potential
effects to those listed species that rely on plants. The goal of the mitigation measures is to address initial
predictions of the likelihood of jeopardy or adverse modification to listed plants and listed species that rely on
those plants, such that the EPA would be able to predict that there would not be a likelihood of jeopardy or
adverse modification. It is important to note that the Services make the final jeopardy or adverse modification
determinations through the consultation process.

Because individual herbicides do not necessarily share the same fate properties and potential for effects, EPA
expects to develop two or more suites of mitigation measures to apply broadly to herbicides with similar fate
and effects profiles. EPA is also developing criteria that EPA’s risk managers would use to determine when
such mitigation measures are needed and appropriate. To identify chemical criteria, EPA plans to consider the
properties of herbicides including their physical-chemical-fate properties (e.g., binding to soil, persistence) and
potential effects (e.g., magnitude of exposure relative to available toxicity data). Among other things, EPA
plans to evaluate the criteria and mitigations measures for representative herbicides to better ascertain the
appropriateness of the criteria and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

EPA plans to issue a draft Herbicide Strategy for public comment by summer 2023. EPA expects to include in
the draft Herbicide Strategy potential ways to implement these mitigation measures. After review of public
comments received and incorporating any needed changes, EPA plans to issue a final Herbicide Strategy by
spring 2024. When finalized, EPA believes this strategy could lead to protections for hundreds of listed plants
and many of the listed and non-listed species that depend on the plants.

As EPA gains more experience with chemical specific predictions of the likelihood of jeopardy and adverse
modification, EPA plans to similarly develop strategies for other pesticide groupings such as insecticides
(which would focus on listed invertebrates) and fungicides. These strategies should simplify and expedite
formal consultations, help standardize mitigation, and accelerate ESA compliance and thus reduce EPA’s legal
vulnerabilities.

Rodenticides

The ESA workplan described how EPA is developing early mitigation for a subset of species where EPA
predicts a likelihood of a jeopardy or adverse modification finding for one or more of the registration review
pilot pesticides if mitigation is not undertaken. One of these pilots is for rodenticides, which will focus on
addressing effects to mammals and birds that consume rodenticide bait (primary consumers) and to birds,
mammals and reptiles that consume primary consumers (secondary consumers). More specifically, EPA has
developed mitigation measures for three representative species (one mammal primary consumer, one bird
primary consumer, and one secondary consumer of a primary consumer), and one designated critical habitat. In
developing and applying mitigation measures for these species, EPA recognized that not all rodenticides have
the same effects. In addition to describing the pilot and the mitigation measures for the selected species, the
PIDs will also describe EPA’s plans for potentially expanding those mitigation measures to the other
approximately 90 listed species potentially affected by rodenticides. When this plan is described, EPA will
consider it the Rodenticide Strategy.

There are some differences between the Herbicide Strategy and the Rodenticide Strategy. One main difference
is that EPA has committed to issuing final biological evaluations for all rodenticides by November 2024 and to

16
initiate consultation, where needed.3 As such, the goal of the Rodenticide Strategy is to identify early mitigation
measures for all listed species and all 11 rodenticides for which EPA predicts the likelihood of a future jeopardy
or adverse modification finding by the Services. Doing so will inform any ESA consultation with the Services
as they make these formal findings and should expedite those findings.

After considering public comment on the mitigation measures for the three pilot species described in the
rodenticide PIDs, EPA expects to issue a single draft biological evaluation for all 11 rodenticides for public
comment (November 2023). EPA expects the draft biological evaluation to include mitigation measures for the
approximately 90 listed species potentially affected by rodenticides along with predictions of any future
jeopardy or adverse modification findings after accounting for the identified mitigation measures. EPA also
intends to describe how it expanded the mitigation measures from the three pilot species to other species in the
draft biological evaluation as well as the criteria that risk managers would use to apply those measures in future
FIFRA actions. In November 2024, EPA expects to issue its final rodenticide biological evaluation for all 11
rodenticides and to initiate consultation, as necessary. EPA also expects this consultation to be programmatic—
its first complete group consultation (all rodenticides at once). Grouping these rodenticides allows EPA to apply
analyses more readily across pesticides and species and reduce the number of associated documents, analyses,
and review that would be required to produce 11 individual BEs along with up to 11 individual multi-year
consultations with the Services. EPA estimates that grouping rodenticides will save EPA up to 70 full-time
equivalents of work over 5 to 10 years. Also, without grouping these evaluations, the consultations for each
rodenticide would be spread out over time (potentially 10 years or more), which could lead to inconsistencies in
the evaluations, data, and any needed mitigation measures to protect listed species.

b. Using EPA’s Vulnerable Species Pilot to Extend Mitigation from One Chemical to a Similar One
or from One Vulnerable Species to Other Vulnerable Species.

The ESA workplan describes EPA’s Vulnerable Species Pilot, which involves identifying mitigation for
approximately 25 species with limited ranges and where pesticides have already been identified as a stressor to
the species. EPA expects to develop geographically specific mitigation for these species that would be
incorporated into BLT. By Summer 2023, EPA plans to conduct public outreach on the mitigation identified for
the first set of species in the Vulnerable Species Pilot and explain how EPA envisions applying those measures
to certain pesticide actions. By the end of calendar year 2023, EPA expects to complete this phase of the pilot.

The species included in this pilot represent an initial set of species. Based on lessons learned from incorporating
mitigation for these pilot species, EPA expects in 2023 to begin developing a plan to expand the Vulnerable
Species Pilot to include additional species, including by considering how similarities and differences among
species may affect the mitigation. For example, EPA may consider if the mitigation developed for the pilot
species applies to other species in the same area (e.g., multiple mussel species in the same river). As another
example, EPA may consider adapting the mitigation for the poweshiek skipperling and Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly to other vulnerable listed butterflies or incorporating mitigation for other listed mussels in the same
area as the ones in the pilot. As part of the outreach on the first set of vulnerable species (by Summer 2023),
EPA also plans to describe any proposed expansion of the pilot to include additional species. EPA expects to
make a final determination in 2024 on whether and how it could expand the approach used in the Vulnerable
Species Pilot to other selected vulnerable species. The protections identified in these pilots for species with

3
BEs for brodifacoum, bromadiolone, warfarin, and zinc phosphide are subject to settlement agreement (Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD) v. EPA, No. 11-cv-00293-JCS (N.D. Cal.): “megasuit”). As stated in Appendix A of the Workplan, EPA expects to
complete BEs for the remaining rodenticides along with these four active ingredients as part of a grouped assessment for efficiency.
17
limited ranges and where pesticides have already been identified as a stressor to the species would supplement
the other mitigation strategies discussed in this document. In other words, these tailored protections would be
additional to any FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation described in Section III. These strategies should
simplify and expedite formal consultations, help standardize mitigation for these vulnerable species, and
accelerate ESA compliance and thus reduce EPA’s legal vulnerabilities. Additional information on this pilot can
be found at: https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/implementing-epas-workplan-protect-endangered-and-
threatened-species-pesticides.

c. Regional Strategies.

EPA is also exploring mitigation measures to address the effects of pesticides on listed species on a geographic
basis. A Hawaii strategy is one that would clearly create significant efficiencies in the consultation process. The
FWS has jurisdiction over approximately 1,600 species and hundreds of critical habitats. Of these species,
approximately 40% are in Hawaii. As a result, when EPA conducts ESA analyses for pesticides with usage or
proposed usage in Hawaii, the workload associated with these uses alone is significant. At the same time, there
are important agricultural and human health pesticide needs in Hawaii, and some pesticide uses benefit listed
species (e.g., by removing competitive invading species). EPA can increase efficiency by evaluating Hawaii as
a whole rather than pesticide-by-pesticide or species-by-species. For example, most listed species in Hawaii are
only found above 2,000 feet in elevation where very little agriculture occurs. By identifying the areas and
species where no additional protections are likely needed, EPA and its federal partners can focus their efforts on
mitigation for the smaller percentage of other species most in need of protection. EPA and its federal partners
envision developing a broad set of mitigation for pesticide uses in Hawaii (and the criteria that EPA’s risk
managers would use to determine when the mitigation is needed and appropriate) along with geographically
specific mitigation for some narrow range species that would apply if the pesticide use overlaps with those
areas. EPA is currently working on developing a Hawaii strategy and plans to post additional information on
this effort on its website soon, including opportunities for public input. Based on what EPA learns in developing
a Hawaii Strategy, it may identify other regions to focus mitigation efforts.

d. Approaches for Specific Pesticide Uses.

EPA also plans to explore strategies for certain pesticide uses, particularly non-agricultural ones. During the
malathion consultation, EPA and FWS worked with the American Mosquito Control Association (AMCA) to
develop mitigation measures for malathion when used as a mosquito adulticide. EPA is considering expanding
this mitigation measures to other mosquito adulticides. As another example, EPA is exploring a strategy to
develop broad mitigation measures to minimize exposure to listed species from outdoor pesticide residential
uses. EPA welcomes collaboration from various pesticide user groups—particularly non-agricultural groups
whose pesticide uses might not be as familiar to EPA—that may be interested in developing strategies for their
uses.

e. Programmatic Approaches to Consultation.

The ESA workplan discussed various approaches to improving the consultation process. One approach is
programmatic consultations as defined in the Services’ ESA regulations as “consultation addressing an agency's
multiple actions on a program, region, or other basis” (50 CFR § 402.02). In fact, the example in the workplan
involved considering programmatic consultation for all pesticides that share similar use patterns in a region—
18
exactly what EPA is embarking on with the Hawaii strategy described above. While all of the strategies
described in this section would create efficiencies and earlier mitigation measures, incorporating those strategies
into programmatic consultations with the appropriate Service would further solidify these approaches and
streamline pesticide consultations. This approach would also increase regulatory certainty for pesticide
registrants and users for the species/pesticides covered by the strategy and would minimize the problem of
imposing disparate mitigation requirements across pesticides with similar use patterns.

As an example, EPA’s Herbicide Strategy will be an opportunity for EPA and FWS to consider a partial
programmatic consultation. By consulting with FWS on the mitigation measures designed to address the main
taxa affected by herbicides (plants), existing and future consultations would be much more efficient. One way is
for the mitigation to result in not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) findings for species that would otherwise
have received likely to adversely affect (LAA) findings from herbicide uses. Another way is to reduce the
likelihood of a potential jeopardy or adverse modification finding for species that would otherwise likely
receive an LAA finding from herbicide uses. In other words, the mitigation needs for these species would
already be partly or fully addressed prior to any future consultation for an agricultural herbicide. For future
herbicide biological evaluations and consultations, EPA and FWS would focus on potential effects not
addressed in this strategy (e.g., effects to animals on the treated field or newly listed species). As described
earlier, EPA’s rodenticide strategy will be another opportunity for programmatic consultation with FWS.

Finally, EPA is actively collaborating with NMFS to explore programmatic consultation opportunities. Because
the number of listed species under their jurisdiction is significantly smaller than those under FWS jurisdiction,
EPA and NMFS are exploring a full programmatic consultation for all conventional pesticides and all NMFS
species. As EPA and NMFS develop an approach to conducting such a consultation, EPA will provide
additional information on its website.

f. Offsets.

EPA continues to welcome proposals to incorporate offsets (also known as compensatory mitigation) into
pesticide consultations, including for registration review actions. Any action that includes offsets will need to
follow the Services’ offset policies, particularly the mitigation hierarchy of first avoiding impacts, then
minimizing, and finally offsetting. Through the various pilot projects and other initiatives described above, EPA
expects to work with the Services to identify species that may be particularly amenable to offsets, especially if
avoidance and minimization are highly infeasible or if offsets could substantially improve the conservation
outcome for the species.

An offset program for a species could address EPA’s ESA obligations for current and future FIFRA actions that
affect the species. Offsets may also be useful in other FIFRA actions beyond registration review. In this way, an
offset can function as a programmatic approach to mitigation that covers multiple pesticides and even multiple
species (e.g., offsets that restore habitat for multiple species).

VI. Next Steps

EPA will continue to provide updates on its progress in meeting the commitments in the ESA workplan and its
ESA obligations in registration review. EPA plans to update its ESA workplan website at least quarterly to
communicate progress on existing and future ESA initiatives. As EPA embarks on new initiatives, it will update
its webpages to describe the effort, provide a tentative timeframe, and describe opportunities for public
19
comment on the effort. As described in this document, current and near-term public comment opportunities
include:

• The proposed mitigation language in the Appendix of this document;

• The PIDs for dicloran (DCNA), etofenprox, norflurazon, and the thiophanate-methyl/carbendazim
(TM/MBC) that will include some of the FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation measures;
• The ESA registration review pilots for methomyl, carbaryl, rodenticides, and certain neonicotinoids that will
include early ESA mitigation for certain species;
• EPA vulnerable species pilot; and
• EPA strategies for herbicides and rodenticides.

These and other opportunities for public feedback will help EPA determine how to implement its workplan in
ways that improve process efficiencies, deliver the greatest conservation benefit, and provide regulatory
flexibility to users.

20
APPENDIX. Proposed Label Language for Public Comment at www.regulations.gov
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0908

This appendix provides additional details on proposed label language including Bulletins Live!
Two (BLT) language, FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation, and other label statements the EPA
may consider in registration review, including PIDs and other Agency actions. Through
comments on this appendix and individual PIDs in the future, EPA is seeking feedback from the
public on the following issues related to this label language: feasibility, user impacts, efficacy,
appropriateness (supported by accompanying data), compliance or enforcement issues, and
improvements to clarify language for users while still retaining the intent and efficacy of the
language.

1. Bulletins Live! Two (BLT)

As discussed in Section IV of this Workplan Update, EPA expects to regularly propose language
for pesticide labels instructing the product’s users to access the Bulletins Live! Two (BLT)
website to obtain geographically specific mitigation for listed species or their designated critical
habitat. EPA is proposing to revise the standard language referencing BLT to improve
understanding of the language. EPA seeks feedback on these proposed revisions, which appear in
the table below. Additionally, EPA is requesting specific feedback on the following questions:
• Is the label language below on how to obtain Bulletins through BLT clear? Is it easy to
understand what actions are required of users, and when?
• Does 6 months give stakeholders enough time to plan for planting and other needs?
• If your comments suggest the answer is no for either of these questions, please include
suggestions for alternative language and any appropriate data to support your
suggestions. EPA also welcomes affirmative comments on the proposed revisions.
Criteria for
Proposed Revised Label Language
Description Placement on Label Proposing
for Pesticide Products
Mitigation
End Use Products
Endangered Species “ENDANGERED AND Directions for Use, See
Protection THREATENED SPECIES under the heading “Description”
Requirements PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS: “ENDANGERED AND column
To be proposed for all It is a Federal offense to use any THREATENED
products, excluding those pesticide in a manner that results in an SPECIES
unauthorized “take” (e.g., kill or PROTECTION
• labeled/registered
otherwise harm) of an endangered REQUIREMENTS”
solely for residential
use; or species and certain threatened species,
• where exposure is under the Endangered Species Act
negligible or there section 9. When using this product,
are no toxic effects you must follow the measures,
expected across uses including any timing restrictions,
included on a label contained in the Endangered Species
(e.g., cattle ear tag, Protection Bulletin for the area where
fly baits) you are applying the product. Before

21
 Criteria for
Proposed Revised Label Language
Description Placement on Label Proposing
for Pesticide Products
Mitigation
End Use Products
using this product, you must obtain a
Bulletin at any time within six months
of the day of application. To obtain
Bulletins, consult
http://www.epa.gov/espp. For general
questions or technical help, call 1-844-
447-3813, or email [email protected].”

2. Interim Ecological Mitigation #1: Surface Water Protection Statements and

Conservation Measure Pick List to Reduce Ecological Risks from Surface Water
Runoff
EPA has identified through its review of FIFRA registration and registration review actions that
there may be a need for additional mitigation measures to address ecological risks associated
with pesticides that move off-field when they dissolve in surface water runoff. These additional
measures would generally apply to pesticides with agricultural crop uses and an organic carbon
partitioning coefficient (Koc) less than or equal to 1000 L/kg (highly to moderately mobile
according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) classification
scheme) in one soil tested. Soils across the US are varied, and pesticides may be more prone to
leave the field in surface water runoff on some soils than others. To better address off-site
ecological risks across all soils, and because more restrictive mitigation is typically needed to
reduce pesticide transport from surface water runoff than erosion, EPA is proposing surface
water runoff mitigation (instead of erosion mitigation) across all soils for pesticides that are
highly or moderately mobile in one or more soils. Additional Koc criteria for one of these
specific measures are described in more detail below.
These mitigation measures include surface water protection statements users would follow when
precipitation occurs or is forecasted, as well as a pick list of conservation measures a grower
must select from and use to reduce pesticide runoff from the field. Depending on the specific
ecological risk, the benefits, and the use of the pesticide, EPA may propose one or more
measures from a pick list of options to address risks. EPA will consider the user impacts of these
mitigation measures when determining whether to propose and subsequently include them, as
required under FIFRA. Overall, EPA intends to propose less stringent pick list mitigation when
the benefits of a pesticide are higher for a given level of ecological risk. Conversely, EPA
intends to propose more stringent pick list mitigation when the benefits of a pesticide are lower
for a given level of risk.
The two surface water protection statements in the table below are intended to reduce the amount
of pesticides that moves off a treated field due to a runoff-producing rain event. The first
proposed surface water protection statement prohibits applications during rain events. This is a

22
common-sense measure that ensures the pesticide application will be effective against the target
pest while reducing ecological risks associated with pesticide movement via runoff.
The second proposed surface water protection statement prohibits applications of mobile or
highly mobile non-persistent pesticides within 48-hours (two days) of a runoff-producing rain
event. In a modeling exercise using the rain-restriction feature of the Pesticide in Water
Calculator (PWC)4, EPA found that a 48-hour rain restriction resulted in a 10 - 40% decrease in
1-in-10 year daily average runoff-only estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) in the
EPA standard farm pond with a 30-40% decrease for the most mobile or least persistent
pesticides (EPA 2022). The rain restriction provides additional time for the pesticide to degrade
in soil or on foliage and meaningfully reduces the amount of the pesticide that can be transported
off-field in runoff. Mobile or highly mobile in this context means pesticides with a Koc of 100
L/kg or less (mobile or highly mobile according to the FAO classification scheme) that are
expected to readily move off the treated field via dissolved runoff. Non-persistent in this context
means pesticides that degrade in the soil or on foliage with half-lives (amount of time needed to
degrade a chemical by 50%) of less than two days. EPA expects that prohibiting applications
within 48 hours of a rain event would be less effective for persistent and immobile pesticides.
The runoff reduction measure pick list in the table below includes a number of measures that
reduce runoff and pesticide loads in runoff, including vegetative filter strips (minimum of 30-
foot width), cover crops, field borders, and riparian buffer strips/zones (forest or herbaceous),
no/reduced tillage, contour buffer strips, and vegetative barriers. These measures are expected to
decrease runoff and pesticide loads in runoff by reducing channelized flow to water bodies,
increasing pesticide degradation, increasing infiltration of pesticide-contaminated water into the
soil, and increasing binding of pesticides to soil and vegetation. The pick list measures also
include contour farming and terrace farming/field terracing, which decrease runoff flow velocity
and thereby enhance infiltration of pesticide-contaminated water into the soil. Grassed
waterways and grassed/vegetative ditch banks are included as options because they reduce
pesticide runoff by re-routing the flow of runoff through a vegetated area, thus increasing
infiltration of the pesticide-contaminated water into the soil. Sediment/water retention ponds and
constructed wetlands are also included as options, because they retain runoff in a vegetated water
body, increasing pesticide degradation and binding. Mulching with natural materials is included
as an option because it reduces pesticide runoff by promoting binding to vegetated materials and
microbial degradation. Finally, strip-cropping and alley cropping increase infiltration of
pesticide-contaminated water into the soil by systematically arranging vegetation and crops such
that vegetation that slows surface water runoff is alternated with crops that may not slow runoff.
The pick list measures were included based on their potential to reduce dissolved runoff. There
are numerous factors that contribute to the efficacy of any one of these measures, and, for many,
efficacy may vary considerably depending on those factors. As an example, the efficacy of
vegetative filter strips varies depending on the type of vegetation grown in the vegetative filter
strip, the density of the vegetation, the width of the vegetative filter strip, whether channelized
flow paths are able to form over the width of the vegetative filter strip (Caron, Lafrance, and

4
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/models-pesticide-risk-assessment#PWC

23
Auclair 2012; Krutz et al. 2005; Mickelson, Baker, and Ahmed 2003; Poletika et al. 2009), the
flow-rate, and the field to VFS ratio, (Arora, Mickelson, and Baker 2003; Boyd et al. 2003)
among other factors.
Because EPA wants to ensure a consistent level of efficacy for the pick list measures when they
are implemented, EPA has developed proposed descriptions for each of them. Pesticide labeling
would require one or more of these measures be in place, as defined in the labeling, prior to
using the pesticide product. The pick list measure descriptions proposed to be used as labeling
are located in Section 4 of this appendix. They are based on descriptions developed for previous
pesticide proposals or decisions and incorporate some of the feedback received during prior
public comment periods. These descriptions are subject to change based on EPA’s further
evaluation of comments from previous proposals, as well as public comments received on this
appendix. EPA intends to post these descriptions on its website, and product labels would
reference the website.
EPA seeks feedback on the example label language in the table below. Additionally, EPA is
requesting specific feedback on the following questions:
• Regarding the surface water protection statements, are there additional criteria for
proposing mitigation that EPA should consider?
• Are the descriptions of the pick list mitigation measures in Section 4 clear? If not, please
suggest alternative language.
• Are there other measures that are effective in controlling dissolved runoff that should be
included in the pick list? Please include supporting data with any suggestions.

Proposed Label Language for Placement on Considerations for

Description
Pesticide Products Label Proposing Mitigation
End Use Products
Surface Water “SURFACE WATER Directions for Pesticides applied to
Protection PROTECTION STATEMENT Use –Under agricultural crops with Koc <
Statements • Do not apply during rain. the Restriction 1000 in one soil tested that
• Do not apply when a storm or Use are applied by liquid spray or
To be considered for event likely to produce runoff Restriction granules and that have
products delivered via from the treated area is Section ecological risk due to
liquid spray forecasted (by NOAA/National dissolved runoff.
applications to crops Weather Service, or other
that do not require similar forecasting service) to
production in flooded occur within 48 hours following Only include “storm event”
fields or streams. application.” bullet when Koc ≤ 100 in
one soil tested, AND either
aerobic metabolism or foliar
degradation half-life is < 2
days

Notes:

24
 • A pesticide with a Koc ≤
100 is highly mobile in
soil, primarily moving
across and through soils
in water.
• An aerobic metabolism
half-life is the time it
takes for half of the
applied pesticide to
degrade in soil.
• A foliar degradation
half-life is the time
required for half the
concentration of the
pesticide to be reduced,
degrade, metabolize, or
otherwise dissipate after
application to foliage.
Dissolved Runoff “RUNOFF MITIGATION Directions for Pesticides with Koc < 1000
Mitigation Use – Under in one soil tested that are
Users of this product must access the Restriction applied by liquid spray or
To be considered for
[website address] and follow the or Use granules and that have
products delivered via
instructions in the descriptions for Restriction ecological risk due to
liquid spray or
one of the following mitigation Section dissolved runoff.
granular applications
measures:
to agricultural crops
that do not require • Vegetative filter strip (30 ft Note:
production in flooded minimum width)
• A pesticide with a Koc <
fields or streams. • Field border
1000 readily moves
• Field terracing/ contour buffer
across and through soils
strips
in water.
• Contour farming
• Cover cropping
• No/reduce tillage
• Grassed waterways
• Riparian buffer zone/ riparian
herbaceous zone
• Vegetative/grassed ditch banks
• Runoff retention pond/ water
and sediment control basin/
sediment catchment basin/
constructed wetland
• Strip cropping
• Vegetative barriers
• Mulching with natural materials
• Alley cropping”

References for Section 2

Arora, Kapil, Steven K Mickelson, and James L Baker. 2003. “Effectiveness of Vegetated Buffer
Strips in Reducing Pesticide Transport in Simulated Runoff.” Transactions of the ASAE
46 (3): 635.
25
Boyd, Paul M, James L Baker, Steven K Mickelson, and Syed I Ahmed. 2003. “Pesticide
Transport with Surface Runoff and Subsurface Drainage through a Vegetative Filter
Strip.” Transactions of the ASAE 46 (3): 675.
Caron, Emmanuelle, Pierre Lafrance, and Jean-Christian Auclair. 2012. “Temporal Evolution of
Atrazine and Metolachlor Concentrations Exported in Runoff and Subsurface Water with
Vegetated Filter Strips.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32 (4): 935–43.
Krutz, LJ, SA Senseman, RM Zablotowicz, and MA Matocha. 2005. “Reducing Herbicide
Runoff from Agricultural Fields with Vegetative Filter Strips: A Review.” Weed Science
53 (3): 353–67.
Mickelson, SK, JL Baker, and Syed I Ahmed. 2003. “Vegetative Filter Strips for Reducing
Atrazine and Sediment Runoff Transport.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58
(6): 359–67.
Poletika, NN, PN Coody, GA Fox, GJ Sabbagh, SC Dolder, and J White. 2009. “Chlorpyrifos
and Atrazine Removal from Runoff by Vegetated Filter Strips: Experiments and
Predictive Modeling.” Journal of Environmental Quality 38 (3): 1042–52.
US EPA. 2022. “Preliminary Analysis of the Effectiveness of a 48-Hour Rain Restriction to
Reduce Pesticide Runoff.”

3. Interim Ecological Mitigation #2: Surface Water Protection Statement and

Conservation Measure Pick List to Reduce Ecological Risks from Soil Erosion
EPA also intends to more regularly propose mitigation measures to address ecological risks
associated with transport of pesticides off the field through soil erosion. These measures would
apply to pesticides with agricultural crop uses and an Koc over 1000 L/kg, which is considered
slightly mobile, hardly mobile, or immobile (according to the FAO classification scheme) in all
soils tested.
These mitigation measures include a surface water protection statement users would follow when
precipitation occurs, as well as a pick list of conservation measures a grower must select from
and use to reduce pesticide runoff from the field. Depending on the specific ecological risk, the
benefits of the pesticide, and the use, EPA may propose one or more measures from a pick list of
options to address risks. EPA will consider the user impacts of these mitigation measures when
determining whether to propose and subsequently require them, as required under FIFRA.
Overall, EPA intends to propose less stringent pick list mitigation when the benefits of a
pesticide are higher for a given level of ecological risk. Conversely, EPA intends to propose
more stringent pick list mitigation when the benefits of a pesticide are lower for a given level of
risk
The surface water protection statement in the table below is intended to reduce the amount of
pesticide that moves off a treated field via erosion during a rain event. Applying pesticides when
it is not raining is a common-sense measure that ensures the pesticide application will be
effective against the target pest while reducing ecological risks from erosion.
The baseline pick list for soil erosion is the same as for surface water runoff, with the exception
that the minimum vegetative filter strip width for erosion is 20 feet instead of the 30-foot
minimum for runoff. This narrower vegetative filter strip may be adequate to address erosion

26
(off-site movement of pesticide bound to sediment) because sediment is more easily retained in a
vegetative filter strip than surface water runoff (Dosskey, Michael G, MJ Helmers, and Dean E
Eisenhauer. 2008). The actual proposed strip width may be greater than 20 feet for some
pesticides, as 20 feet is the minimum to effectively address erosion. Vegetative filter strips, cover
crops, field borders, and riparian buffer strips/zones (forest or herbaceous), no/reduced tillage,
contour buffer strips, vegetative barriers are expected to decrease off-field movement of
pesticides through erosion by reducing channelized flow to a water body, increasing
sedimentation, increasing binding of pesticides to soil and vegetation, and increasing pesticide
degradation. Contour farming and terrace farming/field terracing decrease erosion by decreasing
runoff flow velocity, which increases sedimentation. Grassed waterways and grassed/vegetative
ditch banks reduce off-field movement of pesticides through erosion by re-routing the flow of
runoff through a vegetated area, which increases sedimentation. Sediment/water retention ponds
and constructed wetlands capture agricultural effluent and allow for sedimentation, binding, and
degradation in a constructed environment. Mulching with natural materials reduces pesticide
transport via erosion by reducing off-site movement of soil, promoting binding to vegetated
materials, and by promoting microbial degradation. Finally, strip-cropping and alley cropping
increase sedimentation by systematically arranging vegetation and crops such that vegetation
promoting sedimentation is alternated with crops that are less likely to reduce erosion.
The above pick list measures are included based on their potential to reduce erosion. As with
surface water runoff, there are numerous factors that contribute to the efficacy of any one of
these measures. The data EPA reviewed demonstrate that the efficacy of a particular practice can
vary considerably.
Because EPA wants to ensure a consistent level of efficacy for the pick list measures when they
are implemented, EPA has developed proposed descriptions for each of them. Pesticide labeling
would require one or more of these measures be in place, as defined in the labeling, prior to
using the pesticide product. The proposed descriptions appear in Section 4 of this appendix. They
are based on descriptions developed for previous pesticide proposals or decisions and incorporate
some of the feedback EPA received during prior public comment periods. These descriptions are
subject to change based on EPA’s further evaluation of public comments from previous
proposals and on this appendix. EPA intends to post these descriptions on its website, and
product labels would reference the website.
EPA seeks feedback on the example label language in the table below. Additionally, EPA is
requesting specific feedback on the following questions:
• Are the descriptions of the pick list mitigation measures in Section 4 clear?
• Are there other measures that are effective in controlling erosion that should be
considered?
• Although artificial mulches are commonly used in agriculture, EPA is limiting mulches
to natural materials. Should EPA also consider artificial mulches as a pick list measure?
If so, to what extent do artificial mulches reduce erosion? Please provide references for
supporting data.

27
 Proposed Label Language for Placement on Considerations for Proposing
Description
Pesticide Products Label Mitigation
End Use Products
Surface Water “SURFACE WATER Directions for Pesticides applied to
Protection PROTECTION STATEMENT Use –Under the agricultural crops with Koc >
Statements • Do not apply during rain.” Restriction or 1000 in all soils that are applied
Use Restriction by liquid spray or granules and
To be considered for Section that have ecological risk due to
products delivered via soil erosion (movement of the
liquid spray pesticide when it sorbs to soil).
applications to crops
that do not require
production in flooded Note:
fields or streams. A pesticide with Koc’s > 1000
is strongly adsorbed onto soil
and organic matter.
Erosion Mitigation “EROSION MITIGATION Directions for Pesticides applied to
for Soil-sorbed Use – Under agricultural crops with Koc >
Pesticides Users of this product must access the Restriction 1000 in all soils that are applied
the [website address] and follow or Use by liquid spray or granules and
To be considered for
the instructions in the Restriction that have ecological risk due to
products delivered via
descriptions for one of the Section soil erosion (movement of the
liquid spray
following mitigation measures: pesticide when it sorbs to soil).
applications to crops
that do not require • Vegetative filter strip (20 ft
production in flooded minimum width) Note:
fields or streams. • Field border
A pesticide with Koc’s > 1000
• Field terracing/ contour
is strongly adsorbed onto soil
buffer strips
and organic matter.
• Contour farming
• Cover cropping
• No/reduce tillage (residue
management)
• Grassed waterways
• Riparian buffer zone/
riparian herbaceous zone
• Vegetative/grassed ditch
banks
• Runoff retention pond/ water
and sediment control basin/
sediment catchment basin/
constructed wetland
• Strip cropping
• Vegetative barriers
• Mulching with natural
materials
• Alley Cropping”

Reference for Section 3

28
Dosskey, Michael G, MJ Helmers, and Dean E Eisenhauer. 2008. “A Design Aid for
Determining Width of Filter Strips.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63 (4):
232–41.

4. Interim Ecological Mitigation #1 and #2: Runoff and Erosion Mitigation Pick List
Descriptions
This section describes the runoff and erosion mitigation pick list measures referenced earlier.
These descriptions identify the minimum requirements (indicated in bold text) for each measure.
The descriptions do not provide the prescriptive design elements for these measures. To better
understand the descriptions, it may be useful for individuals to first understand the basics of
sheet flow or concentrated flow. Sheet flow is when water flows in a thin layer. The greater the
distance that water must flow (and based on field topography), the more that sheet flow will
become concentrated flow, which can lead to significant sediment erosion.

Because implementation of specific mitigation measures varies by crop and location, pesticide
users adopting one or more of these measures would be encouraged to consult with local
specialists experienced in planning, building, and maintaining these mitigation measures.
Additionally, some measures may have specific state and/or local laws and regulations that must
be followed.

The descriptions of the mitigation measures included in this appendix are adapted from the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Writers’ Manual for CAFOs
and literature listed under “Description References” below. For further discussion and
consideration of the application of these mitigation measures, see EPA’s webpage on non-point
source pollution reduction in agriculture and National Management Measures to Control
Nonpoint Pollution from Agriculture (Chapter 4).

Vegetative Filter strips (on-field)

Filter strips are managed on-field areas of grass or other permanent herbaceous vegetation that
intercept and disrupt flow of runoff, trap sediment, and reduce pesticide concentrations in water.
Generally, a filter strip can vary in width (typically 20 to 120 feet wide). However, minimal
distances for effective vegetative filter strips are 20 feet for sediment runoff and 30 feet for water
runoff. Filter strips are usually planted with native grasses and perennial herbaceous plants.
Nutrients, pesticides, and soils in the runoff water are filtered through the grass, potentially
adsorbed by the soil, and potentially taken up by the plants. The effectiveness of filter strips to
reduce pesticide loading into an adjacent surface water body depends on many factors, such as
topography, field conditions, hydrologic soil group, antecedent moisture conditions, rainfall
intensity, properties of the pesticide, application methods, width of the filter strip, and types of
vegetation within. Therefore, risk reductions obtained from the use of filter strips may vary. Its
use can support or connect other buffer practices within and between fields.

29
Establish and maintain vegetative filter strips such that the area immediately upslope must
eliminate or substantially reduce concentrated flow and promote surface sheet flow runoff.
The design and maintenance must consider a 10-year lifespan for the vegetative filter strip.
Where there is water moving across a field that is likely to move soil, structural elements
must be added within the field to prevent erosion and promote sheet flow across the filter
strip.

This may be most easily achieved by aligning rows as closely as possible so that they are
perpendicular to the slope. Use of water bars or berms to break up the concentrated flow and
divert concentration flow back into the field is another useful tool to promote sheet flow.
Reduced tillage practices, especially near the field border strip, will result in less sediment
loading and the best performance of a vegetative filter strip.

Permanent filter strip vegetative plantings must be harvested or mowed as appropriate

(producers enrolled in conservation programs need to follow specific mowing and
maintenance restrictions) to encourage dense growth and maintain upright growth.

The maintenance program must keep vegetation tall in spring and early summer to help slow
runoff flow, maximize disruption of concentrated flow, and reduce the chance of structural
damage. Regular maintenance must also include inspection after major storms, removal of
excess trapped sediment, and repair of eroding areas.

Grassed Waterways (on-field and off-field)

Grassed waterways are natural or constructed vegetated channels designed to direct surface
water, flowing at non-erosive velocities, to an outlet that is not likely to erode (e.g., another
vegetated channel, an earth ditch). Grassed waterways are used to prevent significant erosion. In
concentrated flow areas, grassed waterways can act as an important component of erosion
control by slowing the flow of water and filtering sediment.

Other benefits of grassed waterways include the safe disposal of runoff water, improved water
quality, improved wildlife habitat, reduced damage associated with sediment, and an
improvement in overall landscape aesthetics. Grassed waterways are usually planted with
perennial grasses, preferably native species where possible. Some common grass species used
in waterways are Timothy, tall fescue, perennial ryegrass and Kentucky bluegrass.

The user must establish a maintenance program to maintain waterway capacity, vegetative
cover, and outlet stability. Do not damage vegetation by machinery, herbicides, or erosion.
Grassed waterways must be inspected regularly, especially following heavy rains. Any
damage or disruptions must be repaired immediately by filling, compacting, and reseeding.
Sediment deposits must be removed to maintain capacity of grassed waterway. Maintain a
healthy, dense, and functional grass strip. Runoff outflow must be directed to a system such
as another grassed waterway, an earthen ditch, a grade-stabilization structure, a filter strip,
water or sediment basin, or other suitable outlet with adequate capacity to handle the
runoff and prevent significant erosion.

30
Field Border (off-field)

A field border is defined as a strip of permanent vegetation established at the edge or around the
perimeter of a field. A field border can reduce runoff-based erosion and protect soil and water
quality by slowing the flow of water, dispersing concentrated flow, and increasing the chance
for soil infiltration.

Use of a field border can support or connect other buffer practices within and between fields.

Establishment and maintenance of the field border and land immediately upslope of the
border must aim to eliminate or significantly reduce concentrated water flow and promote
surface sheet flow runoff.

To prevent significant erosion within a field border, concentrated flow must be broken up
or redirected. This may be achieved by aligning the field border and planting rows as closely
as possible in a direction that is perpendicular to the slope. Use of water bars or berms to
divert concentrated flow back into the field is another useful tool to break up the concentrated
flow and promote sheet flow into the border.

A field border must have a minimum width 30 feet for the purpose of reducing pesticides in
runoff and be composed of a permanent dense vegetative stand. This stand must be
composed of stiff upright grasses. Non-woody flowering plants may also be included in a
well-managed border.

Reduced tillage practices, especially near the field border strip, will result in less sediment
loading and the best performance of the field border in reducing runoff.

Inspect field borders after major storms and repair eroding areas.

Cover Crop (on-field)

A cover crop is a close-growing crop that temporarily protects the ground from wind and
water erosion. Common cover crops include cereal rye, oats, clover, crown vetch, and winter
wheat or combinations of those crops. Cover crops are most often used when low residue-
producing crops are grown on erodible land. Cover crops increase soil stability, reduce
runoff, and reduce erodibility of field soils.

The cover crop must be planted and remain on the field up to the field preparation for
planting the crop.

Crop insurance allows for cover crop flexibilities and producers should be mindful of those
flexibilities and guidelines.

Planting directly into a standing terminated, mowed, or rolled cover crop will provide the
greatest benefit for reducing runoff. Cover crops may be used in conjunction with reduced

31
tillage practices to further reduce surface runoff from production fields.

Contour Buffer Strips (on-field)

Contour buffer strips are strips of permanent herbaceous vegetation, primarily of perennials
such as grass, alternated with wider cultivated strips that are farmed on the contour. Contour
buffer strips help to manage runoff and trap sediment. Because the vegetated buffer strip is
established on the contour, runoff flows evenly across the entire surface of the strip, reducing
water and sediment erosion. The vegetation slows runoff, helping the water to soak into the soil
and reducing erosion. Sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants are filtered from the runoff as it
flows through the strip, thereby improving surface water quality.

The specific recommendations for establishing buffers vary from site to site.

Contour buffer strip widths must be a minimum of 15 feet. Wider distances may be
appropriate based on variables such as slope, soil type, field conditions, climate, and erosion
potential. Contour buffer strips are unsuitable in fields where irregular, rolling topography makes
following a contour impractical.

To ensure maximum performance, the integrity of the buffer must be maintained for the
entire width and length, including:

- The contour buffer must be harvested or mowed, reseeded, and fertilized as necessary to
maintain plant density and vigorous plant growth.
- Vegetation must be kept tall in spring and early summer to help slow runoff flow,
maximize disruption of concentrated flow, and reduce the chance of structural
damage.
- Regular maintenance must also include inspection after major storms, removal of
trapped sediment, and repair of eroding areas.

Contour Farming (on-field)

Contour farming is the use of ridges and furrows formed by tillage, planting, and other farming
operations following the contour to change the direction of runoff from directly downslope to
across the slope. The disruption of downslope flow slows the runoff velocity and allows for
more time for runoff to infiltrate the field soils, thereby reducing runoff.

The effectiveness of contour farming to reduce soil erosion and increase infiltration of runoff
is dependent on several factors including the amount of rainfall, the grade and height of row
ridges, the steepness and length of the slope, the crop residue and surface roughness, and the
soil hydrologic group.

Contour farming is an option on slopes between 2% and 10%, with a minimum ridge
height of 1 inch, in areas with 10-year rain events less than 6.5 inches/24 hours, and with a

32
length of slope between 100 and 400 feet.

In areas with heavier rainfall events, and/or fields with steeper or longer slopes, the function
of the ridges to hold back the runoff is lessened and may result in structural failure along
the contour. In those cases, the efficacy of this practice is potentially compromised.

Establish and maintain the direction of rows as close to the angle of the contour as possible.

Coupling the practice with reduced tillage practices will result in the best performance of
contour farming.

Contour Strip Cropping (on-field)

In contour strip cropping, a field is managed with planned rotations of row crops, forages,
small grains, or fallow in a systematic arrangement of equal width strips following the contour
across a field. Crops are typically arranged so that a strip of grass or forage crop (low erosional
risk because of their fibrous root system) is alternated with a strip of row crop (high erosional
risk; e.g., corn). The crops are planted across the slope of the land, as in contour buffer strips.
This practice differs from contour buffer strips in that it allows for crops to be planted across
100% of the field area.

Plant row crops on less than half the field and, at a minimum, 50% of the slope must be
planted with low erosional risk plants (e.g., grass plants because of their fibrous root
system).

The low erosional risk crops reduce erosion, slow runoff water, and trap sediment entering
through runoff from upslope areas. This practice combines the benefits of contouring and
crop rotation.

Contour strip cropping is not as effective if the row crop strips are too wide and are an option
on slopes of -<10%. Establish and maintain the rows as close to the contour as possible.

Coupling the practice with reduced tillage practices will result in the best performance of
contour strip cropping.

Terrace Farming (on-field)

Terraces are described as a stair-stepping technique of creating flat or nearly flat crop areas
along a gradient. They can be constructed as earth embankments or a combination of ridge
and channel systems. A terrace is an earthen embankment that is built across a slope to
intercept and store water runoff. Some terraces are built level from end to end to contain water
used to grow crops and recharge groundwater. Others, known as gradient terraces, are built
with some slope or grade from one end to the other and can slow water runoff. Both help to
reduce soil erosion by slowing the velocity of runoff and increasing the time for water

33
infiltration. On the field, terraces can be used as a part of an overall system based on the
topography of the land. Additionally, an earthen ridge or terrace can be constructed across the
slope upgrade from a field area to prevent runoff from entering the area or to direct runoff
from one area of production to a common runoff collection area. Reduced tillage practices will
result in less sediment loading and the best performance of a terraced farming system.

The ends of terraces, including turnrows, must be structured and maintained to prevent
concentrated flow from damaging the function of the terrace. If runoff outflows are
necessary, the runoff must be directed to a system such as a grassed waterway, a grade-
stabilization structure, a filter strip, water or sediment basin, or other suitable outlet with
adequate capacity to handle the runoff and prevent gully formation.

Strip Cropping

In strip cropping, a field is managed with planned rotations of row crops, forages, small
grains, or fallow in a systematic arrangement of equal width strips. Crops are typically
arranged so that a strip of grass or forage crop (low erosional risk because of their fibrous root
system) is alternated with a strip of row crop (high erosional risk; e.g., corn). This practice
differs from contour strip cropping in that rows do not need to be planted along a contour,
which allows strip cropping to be used on land without a contour.

Alternate strips of row crops considered high erosion risk with strips. A minimum of
50% of the field must be planted with low erosional risk crops or sediment trapping
cover.

The low erosional risk crops reduce erosion, slow runoff water, and trap sediment entering
through runoff.

Strip cropping is not as effective if the row crop strips are too wide and must only be
implemented on slopes -<10% slope.

Coupling the practice with reduced tillage practices will result in the best performance of strip
cropping.

No Tillage/Reduced Tillage (on-field)

This category of practices includes conservation tillage practices such as no-till, strip-till,
ridge-till, and mulch-till.

Each of these involves year-round management of the amount, orientation and distribution of
crop and other plant residue on the soil surface, while limiting the soil-disturbing activities
used to grow and harvest crops in systems where the field surface is tilled, raked, or left
undisturbed prior to planting. For each tillage practice below, more than 30% of the
surface must remain covered with plant residue.

34
 - No-till/strip till: In these systems, the soil is left undisturbed from harvest to planting.
Planting or drilling is accomplished using disc openers, coulter(s), and row cleaners. Weeds
are controlled primarily with crop protection products.
- Strip till: In these systems, the soil is left undisturbed from harvest to planting except for
strips up to one-third of the row width. (The strips could involve only residue
disturbance or could include soil disturbance.) Planting or drilling is accomplished using
disc openers, coulter(s), row cleaners, in-row chisels, or rototillers; cultivation can be
used for emergency weed control. Other common terms used to describe strip-till, include
row-till, and slot-till.
- Ridge-till: Ridge-till is a system in which seeds are planted into a seedbed prepared by
scraping off the top of the ridge. The scraped-off ridge usually provides an excellent
environment for planting. Ridges are formed during cultivation of the previous year’s crop.
Ridge-till operations consist of planting in the spring and at least one cultivation to recreate
the ridges for the next year. Rows remain in the same place each year and any crop residue
on the ridges at planting is pushed between the rows.
- Mulch-till: This system uses full-width tillage involving one or more tillage trips, which
disturbs the entire soil surface but leaves a uniform layer on crop residue on the soil
surface and is done before or during planting. Tillage tools such as chisels, field
cultivators, discs, sweeps, or blades are used. Weeds are controlled with crop protection
products or cultivation or both.

Vegetative Barriers (on-field)

Vegetative barriers are narrow, permanent strips of stiff-stemmed, erect, tall and dense
vegetation established in parallel rows on the contour of fields to reduce soil erosion and
sediment transport. These buffers function similar to contour buffer strips and may be especially
effective in dispersing concentrated flow, thus increasing sediment trapping and water
infiltration. Because the vegetative barrier, typically comprised of grasses, is established on the
contour, runoff is restricted, reducing sheet flow and erosion from concentrated flow. The grass
slows runoff, helping the water soak into the soil and reducing erosion. The specific
recommendations for establishing the vegetative barrier vary from site to site.

Barrier widths are determined by variables such as slope, soil type, field conditions, climate, and
erosion potential but must be a minimum of 3 feet wide. To ensure maximum performance, the
pesticide user must maintain the integrity of the barrier for the entire width and length,
including:
- The barrier must be harvested, mowed, reseeded, and fertilized as necessary to maintain
plant density and vigorous plant growth.
- The maintenance schedule must keep vegetation tall in spring and early summer to help
slow runoff flow, maximize disruption of concentrated flow, and reduce the chance of
structural damage.
- Regular maintenance must also include inspection after major storms, removal of trapped
sediment, and repair of eroding areas.

35
Vegetated Ditch Banks

A vegetated ditch bank is a sloped channel, planted with vegetation (grass or otherwise) that
transports surface water at such a rate that it does not erode soil to an outlet that is not likely to
erode.
- The bottom width of the (trapezoidal) vegetated ditch bank must be less than 100 ft.
- The side slope of the vegetated ditch bank must be flatter than a ratio of 2:1 horizontal:
vertical.
- The depth/capacity of the vegetated ditch bank must accommodate peak runoff volume
expected from a 10-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm.
- Vegetation must be selected such that the vegetation will achieve an adequate density,
height, and vigor, and is stable to peak runoff volume expected from the 10-year
frequency, 24-hour duration storm.

Maintenance must include ensuring a healthy grassed or vegetative surface within the vegetated
ditch bank, inspections after major storms and repair to damaged areas, as well as removal and
redistribution of excess sediment back to the field.

Riparian buffers (herbaceous and forest buffers)

These buffers are similar in that they reduce erosion and, at minimum, maintain water quality.
Vegetation for both buffers must be tolerant to intermittent flooding and saturated soil and
be managed until established in the transitional zone between a field and an aquatic
habitat. Herbaceous buffers must consist of non-woody vegetation and must have a
minimal width of 2.5 times the width of the stream or 35 feet if adjacent to a larger water
body. Forest buffers must be planted to trees and shrubs and must have a minimal width of
35 feet from the waterbody.

Management of Surface and Subsurface Water on the Field

There are several conservation practices that involve management of surface and subsurface
water on the field. However, for any of these practices to be an acceptable runoff mitigation
strategy, a sediment basin must be used in conjunction with practices managing surface and
subsurface runoff (described below). Growers who wish to use any of these practices must
follow all state and local laws and regulations and adhere to any requirements associated
with conservation programs in which they are participating.

Sediment basins: Sediment basins are used to capture runoff (with sediment) leaving the field,
such that sediment has adequate time to settle out of the water column. Sediment basins are
constructed by creating an embankment, excavating a dugout, or both such that the basin has an
outlet. Basins are not stand-alone practices and should be used in conjunction with other
runoff/erosion practices like:
- Subsurface drainage: This is a practice where an underground pipe is installed to collect and
move excess water from a field.

36
- Tailwater recovery systems: These systems are intended to collect, move, and temporarily
store runoff water so that it can be reused later.
- Drainage water management: This conservation practice involves managing the flow of
surface and subsurface drainage systems by changing the elevation of outflow.

Water and sediment control basins: This practice is effective for managing runoff, trapping
sediment, and reducing gully erosion. Basins are described as an earthen embankment or basin,
or a combination ridge and channel, constructed across the slope of a minor drainage area in a
field. Control basins must also have an outlet so that water can be released in a manner that does
not lead to damage.

Ponds are similar in function to sediment basins, as they can allow time for the sediment to settle
from sediment-laden runoff drained from a field. They are also similar in design to sediment
basins but have a dam as an outlet.

Constructed wetlands: Water-tolerant vegetation is used to create a manmade wetland that can
provide for the biological treatment of water to improve water quality.

Maintenance of basins and ponds must include the following: ensuring a healthy vegetative
surface to maintain the structural integrity of the basin/pond; inspections after major
storms, repair to damaged areas, and removal of any obstructions that interfere with flow
around inlets; and removal and redistribution of excess sediment back to the field.

Mulching with Natural Materials

This practice is used to reduce runoff and erosion. Natural mulches should be applied such that
mulch provides a minimum of 70 percent ground cover. The minimum depth of mulch must
be 2 inches such that the mulch will remain during heavy rain or winds. Vegetation-based
mulches must have a carbon:nitrogen ratio greater than 20:1. If mulch needs to be held in place,
appropriate measures must be used (e.g., tacking, crimping) so that the mulch remains on the
field. The mulch must be periodically inspected to ensure that the mulch is intact and
repair/reinstall mulch as needed.

Alley Cropping

Alley cropping is effective at reducing surface water runoff and erosion. This practice involves
trees or shrubs being planted in single or multiple rows where other commodities (i.e.,
agronomic or horticultural crops or forages) are planted in the alleys of the trees or shrubs.
Trees or shrubs must be planted on or near the contour. The vegetation in the alleys must
be established in conjunction with the trees/shrubs to be effective against water erosion. For
wind erosion, tree/shrubs must be planted perpendicular to erosive wind patterns. Additionally,
the species of trees/shrubs planted must have deep root systems that assist in water infiltration
and rapid growth rates. When possible, growers must adopt no-till/reduced tillage practices.
During the period of establishment, tree/shrubs must be maintained/replaced as needed.

37
Description References

Arora, K., J.L. Baker, S.K. Mickelson, and D.P. Tierney. 1993. Evaluating herbicide removal
by buffer strips under natural rainfall. Paper No. 93-2593. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI 49085
Arora, K., S.K. Mickelson, and J.L. Baker. 1995. Evaluating vegetative buffer strips for
herbicide retention. Paper No. 95-2699. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, MI.
Asmussen, L.E., A.W. White Jr., E.W. Hauser, and J.M. Sheridan. 1977. Reduction of 2,4-
D load in surface runoff down a grassed waterway. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 6(2):159-162.
Blanco-Canqui, H., and S.J. Ruis. 2020. Cover crop impacts on soil physical properties: A
review. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 84:1527-1576.
https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20129
Boyd, P.M., L.W. Wulf, J.L. Baker, and S.K. Mickelson, 1999. Pesticide transport over
and through the soil profile of a vegetative filter strip. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers. ASAE Paper no. 992077.
Cole, J.T., J.H. Baird, N.T. Basta, R.L. Huhnke, D.E. Storm, G.V. Johnson, M.E. Payton, M.D.
Smolen, D.L. Martin, and J.C. Cole. 1997. Influence of buffers on pesticide and nutrient
runoff from bermudagrass turf. Journal of Environmental Quality, 26:1589- 1598.
Dosskey, Michael G., M.J. Helmers, and D.E. Eisenhauer. 2008. A design aid for determining
width of filter strips. Biological Systems Engineering: Papers and Publications, 40.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosysengfacpub/40
Fawcett, R.S., B.R. Christensen, and D.P. Tierney. 1994. The impact of conservation
tillage on pesticide runoff into surface water: a review and analysis. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, 49(2):126-135.
Fawcett, R.S., D.P. Tierney, C.J. Peter, J.L. Baker, S.K. Mickelson, J.L. Hatfield, D.W.
Hoffman, and T.G. Franti. 1995. Protecting aquatic ecosystems with vegetative filter
strips and conservation tillage. Proceedings of the National Agricultural Ecosystem
Management Conference. New Orleans, LA, December 13-15, 1995. Conservation
Technology Information Center, West Lafayette, IN.
Groh, T.A. 2021. Concentrated Flow Paths: An Introduction. Available at:
https://extension.psu.edu/concentrated-flow-paths-an-introduction
Haruna, S.I., N.V. Nkongolo, S.H. Anderson, F. Eivazi and S. Zaibon. 2018. In situ
infiltration as influenced by cover crop and tillage management. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 73 (2) 164-172. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.2.164
Hoffman, D.W. 1995. Use of contour grass and wheat filter strips to reduce runoff losses of
herbicides. Proc. Austin Water Quality Meeting, Texas A & M Univ., Temple, TX.
Magette, W.L., R.B. Brinsfield, R.E. Palmer, and J.D. Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment
removal by vegetated filter strips. Transactions of the ASAE, 32(2):663-667.
Meyer, L.D., S.M. Dabney, and W.C. Harmon. 1995. Sediment-trapping effectiveness of stiff-
grass hedge.Transactions of the ASAE, 38(3):809-815.
Mickelson, S.K. and J.L. Baker. 1993. Buffer strips for controlling herbicide runoff losses.
932084. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Misra, A., J.L. Baker, S.K. Mickelson, and H. Shang. 1994. Effectiveness of vegetative buffer
strips in reducing herbicide transport with surface runoff under simulated rainfall. Paper

38
 No. 942146. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Misra, A.K. 1994. Effectiveness of vegetative buffer strips in reducing herbicide transport with
surface runoff under simulated rainfall. Ph.D. Dissertation, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA.
Patty, L., B. Real, and J.J. Gril. 1997. The use of grassed buffer strips to remove
pesticides, nitrate and soluble phosphorous compounds from runoff water.
Pesticide Science, 49:243-251.
Rankins, A., Jr., D.R. Shaw, M. Boyette, and S.M. Seifert. 1998. Minimizing herbicide and
sediment losses in runoff with vegetative filter strip. Abstracts Weed Science
Society of America, 38:59.
Reichenberger, S., M. Bach, A. Skitschak, and H. Frede. 2007. Mitigation strategies to
reduce pesticide inputs into ground- and surface water and their effectiveness: A Review.
Science of the Total Environment, 384:1-35.
Tingle, C.H., D.R. Shaw, M. Boyette, and G.P. Murphy. 1998. Metolachlor and metribuzin
losses in runoff as affected by width of vegetative filter strips. Weed Science,
46:475- 479.
Webster, E.P. and D.R. Shaw. 1996. Impact of vegetative filter strips on herbicide loss in
runoff from soybean (Glycine max). Weed Science, 44:662-671.

5. Interim Ecological Mitigation #3: Reducing Ecological Risks from Spray Drift
For many years, EPA has proposed and subsequently required application restrictions to reduce
spray drift. These have commonly included windspeed restrictions, minimum droplet size
restrictions, and release height restrictions. In instances where ecological risks of aerial
applications have been high and these risks outweighed the benefits, EPA has proposed and
subsequently required aerial application prohibitions. The table below includes example
language for these measures that is regularly included in EPA decisions. EPA expects to
continue to propose this language in its applicable regulatory actions.
In addition to these measures, EPA intends to propose spray drift buffers more regularly, as the
benefits warrant, to further reduce ecological risks associated with spray drift. These include
spray drift buffers to aquatic habitats when there is risk to non-target aquatic species due to spray
drift, as well as spray drift buffers to wildlife conservation areas when there is risk to non-target
terrestrial species due to spray drift. EPA is also proposing a few exemptions to these spray drift
buffers. The first exemption is when a10-foot windbreak is used. For this exemption to apply, the
windbreak must have single to multiple rows of trees and shrubs planted linearly between the
field and the protected area in a manner that fully partitions the two areas. When established in
this manner, a 10-foot windbreak would substantially reduce pesticide deposition reaches the
protected habitat.
The second exemption is for pesticide applications made for conservation purposes in or around
aquatic habitats. While EPA wants to assure that pesticide exposures do not adversely impact
non-target species in aquatic habitats, there are many instances where pesticides are useful to
protecting species in and around aquatic habitats. This exemption benefits species by allowing
those applications.

39
The third exemption is for pesticide applications made by conservation area personnel in the
conservation area. Similar to the second exemption, EPA understands that public and private
conservation area landowners may need to use pesticides to further conservation goals and are
not likely to use pesticides in ways that are detrimental to non-target wildlife in the conservation
area.
The fourth exemption is for landowners of applicators who have completed an ESA section 7
consultation with the FWS and/or NMFS and is using a pesticide product consistent with that
consultation. In this instance, pesticide applications consistent with the consultation should
adequately protect non-target wildlife from pesticide exposures.
The efficacy of spray drift mitigation, including spray drift buffers, is well-established
quantitatively. Based on the combinations of application restrictions and spray drift buffer
requirements described in the table below, EPA expects pesticide deposition resulting from spray
drift to be reduced by 50% to 90% for aerial applications, 90% to 99% for ground boom
applications, and 60% to 90% for airblast applications.
EPA seeks feedback on the example label language for this mitigation detailed in the table
below. Additionally, EPA is requesting specific feedback on the following questions:
• EPA is exploring using wind-directional buffers more broadly as they are less impactful
to users by reducing the instances where spray drift buffers are needed to minimize
ecological risk. A wind-directional buffer means that a user need only apply a drift buffer
in the direction the wind is blowing, rather than all sides of a fields. Should EPA shift to
requiring wind-directional buffers to reduce spray drift associated with aerial, ground
boom, and/or airblast applications? Why or why not? Please be specific and support your
position with data where available. Further, are there circumstances where it is more
desirable to have wind-directional buffers than others? Historically, to address ecological
risk (and human health risk) under FIFRA, EPA has required spray drift buffers that
apply to all sides of a field that are adjacent to a water body and/or conservation area,
regardless of the wind direction. More recently, however, wind-directional buffers have
been proposed as mitigation measures to address listed species exposure (e.g., methomyl
PID) and have been included in FWS and NMFS biological opinions for malathion. The
spray drift buffers in the table below apply to all sides of a field that are adjacent to
aquatic habitats and/or conservation areas; however, pending public comment on wind-
directional drift buffers, EPA may propose wind-directional buffers. Example language
for a wind-directional buffer would be the following:
o “Do not apply within [X] feet of aquatic habitats (such as, but not limited to,
lakes, reservoirs, rivers, permanent streams, wetlands or natural ponds, estuaries,
and commercial fish farm ponds) when the wind is blowing toward the aquatic
habitat.”
o “Do not apply within [X] feet of any conservation areas (e.g., public lands and
parks, Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, reserves, conservation
easements) when the wind is blowing toward the conservation area.”

40
 o Exemptions for the 10-ft windbreak, applications for conservation purposes, and
applications covered by a completed ESA consultation would still apply to wind-
directional buffers.
• Should EPA consider reduced distances for spray drift buffers when other drift reduction
technology is used (e.g., drift reducing agents/adjuvants)? If so, to what extent do other
drift reduction technologies reduce spray drift such that buffer distances can be reduced?
Please provide references for supporting data.
• With regard to spray drift buffers for conservation areas, is the list of examples of
conservation areas representative of areas to be protected? Do you have suggestions for
alternative or additional descriptions?

Proposed Label Language for Placement on Considerations for

Description
Pesticide Products Label Proposing Mitigation
End Use Products
Application Method Restrictions Pesticides applied to
Prohibition • “Do not apply through aerial Section Under agricultural crops
(e.g., aerial) application” Directions for Use resulting in high
or ecological risks from
aerial spray drift where
Note: EPA has • “Do not apply spray via aerial
there are low benefits
regularly proposed and application”
to the use of the
subsequently required pesticide via aerial
this language on labels application.
when it has
determined that the
risks of aerial
applications outweigh
the benefits.
Spray Drift “MANDATORY SPRAY DRIFT Directions for Use, Pesticides applied to
Management MANAGEMENT in a box titled agricultural crops via
Application “Mandatory Spray liquid spray using
Restrictions Aerial Applications: Drift aerial equipment with
To be considered for • Do not apply during temperature Management” ecological risk due to
products that are inversions. under the heading spray drift.
applied as liquid with • Do not release spray at a height “Aerial
aerial equipment. greater than 10 ft above the Applications”
ground or vegetative canopy,
Note: EPA has unless a greater application height Placement for
regularly required this is necessary for pilot safety. these statements
language on labels • Applicators must select nozzle should be in
consistently over the and pressure that deliver medium general directions
past several years. or coarser droplets in accordance for use, before any
with American Society of use-specific
Agricultural & Biological directions for use.
Engineers Standard 641 (ASABE
S641).

41
 Proposed Label Language for Placement on Considerations for
Description
Pesticide Products Label Proposing Mitigation
End Use Products
[For 15 mph windspeed restriction]

• If the windspeed is 10 miles per

hour or less, applicators must use
½ swath displacement upwind at
the downwind edge of the field.
When the windspeed is between
11-15 miles per hour, applicators
must use ¾ swath displacement
upwind at the downwind edge of
the field.

[For 10 mph windspeed restriction]

• Do not apply when windspeeds
exceed 10 miles per hour at the
application site.
• The boom length must not exceed
[EPA to choose 65% or 75%
based on risks and benefits] of
the wingspan for airplanes or
[EPA to choose 75% or 90%
based risks and benefits] of the
rotor blade diameter for
helicopters.

OR
• Do not apply when wind speeds
exceed 15 mph at the application
site. If the windspeed is greater
than 10 mph, the boom length
must be 65% or less of the
wingspan for fixed wing aircraft
and 75% or less of the rotor
diameter for helicopters.
Otherwise, the boom length must
be 75% or less of the wingspan
for fixed-wing aircraft and 90% or
less of the rotor diameter for
helicopters.”

Spray Drift “MANDATORY SPRAY DRIFT Directions for Use, Pesticides applied to
Management MANAGEMENT in a box titled agricultural crops via
Application “Mandatory Spray liquid spray using
Restrictions Airblast Applications: Drift airblast equipment
To be considered for • Sprays must be directed into the Management” with ecological risk
products that are canopy. under the heading due to spray drift.
applied as liquid with • Do not apply when wind speeds “Airblast
airblast equipment exceed [10 or 15] miles per hour Applications”
at the application site.

42
 Proposed Label Language for Placement on Considerations for
Description
Pesticide Products Label Proposing Mitigation
End Use Products
• User must turn off outward
Note: EPA has pointing nozzles at row ends and
regularly required this when spraying outer row.
language on labels • Do not apply during temperature
consistently over the inversions.”
past several years.

Spray Drift “MANDATORY SPRAY DRIFT Directions for Use, Pesticides applied to
Management MANAGEMENT in a box titled agricultural crops via
Application “Mandatory Spray liquid spray using
Restrictions Ground Boom Applications: Drift ground boom
To be considered for • Do not release spray at a height Management” equipment with
products that are greater than [typically 2-3 ft] feet under the heading ecological risk due to
applied as liquid with above the ground or crop canopy. “Ground Boom spray drift.
ground boom • Applicators must select nozzle Applications”
equipment and pressure that deliver medium
or courser droplets in accordance
Note: OPP EPA has with American Society of
regularly required this Agricultural & Biological
language on labels Engineers Standard 572 (ASABE
consistently over the S572).
past several years. • Do not apply when wind speeds
exceed [10 or 15] mph at the
application site.
• Do not apply during temperature
inversions.”

Spray Drift Buffer to Aerial (non-ULV): Directions for use Pesticides applied to
Aquatic Habitats – Under the agricultural crops via
• “Do not apply within [typically Restriction or Use liquid spray with
To be considered for 50-150] feet of aquatic habitats
products that are Restriction Section aquatic risk due to
(such as, but not limited to, lakes,
applied as liquid with spray drift.
reservoirs, rivers, permanent
aerial (except Ultra streams, wetlands or natural
Low Volume/ULV ponds, estuaries, and commercial
applications for fish farm ponds).
mosquitocides),
groundboom, or
airblast equipment Ground:

• “Do not apply within [typically

15-50] feet of aquatic habitats
(such as, but not limited to, lakes,
reservoirs, rivers, permanent
streams, wetlands or natural
ponds, estuaries, and commercial
fish farm ponds). When using a
hooded spray boom, do not apply

43
 Proposed Label Language for Placement on Considerations for
Description
Pesticide Products Label Proposing Mitigation
End Use Products
within [10-30] feet of these
protected areas.”

Airblast:

• “Do not apply within [typically

15-25] feet of aquatic habitats
(such as, but not limited to, lakes,
reservoirs, rivers, permanent
streams, wetlands or natural
ponds, estuaries, and commercial
fish farm ponds).”

All Application Methods Above:

• “Applications are exempted from

this spray drift buffer requirement
when:
1) A 10-ft high windbreak is
established between the field
and the aquatic habitat. For
this exemption to apply, the
windbreak must have single
to multiple rows of trees and
shrubs planted linearly
between the field and the
aquatic habitat in a manner
that fully partitions the two
areas;
2) The application is conducted
for conservation purposes
(e.g., to control invasive
species) by federal, state, or
local personnel or persons
under their direct
supervision; or
3) The landowner or applicator
has completed an ESA
section 7 consultation with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or the National
Marine Fisheries Service on
the use of the product.”

Spray Drift Buffer to Aerial (non-ULV): Directions for use Pesticides applied to
Wildlife – Under the agricultural crops via
Conservation Areas • “Do not apply within [typically Restriction or Use liquid spray with
50-150] feet of any conservation Restriction Section terrestrial risk due to
For products that are areas (e.g., public lands and parks,
applied as liquid with spray drift.
Wilderness Areas, National

44
 Proposed Label Language for Placement on Considerations for
Description
Pesticide Products Label Proposing Mitigation
End Use Products
aerial (except Ultra Wildlife Refuges, reserves,
Low Volume/ULV conservation easements).”
applications for
mosquitocides),
Ground:
groundboom, or
airblast equipment • “Do not apply within [typically
15-50] feet of any conservation
areas (e.g., public lands and parks,
Wilderness Areas, National
Wildlife Refuges, reserves,
conservation easements) unless
using a hooded spray boom.
When using a hooded spray
boom, do not apply within
[typically 10-30] feet of these
protected areas.”

Airblast:

• “Do not apply within [typically

25-50] feet of any conservation
areas (e.g., public lands and parks,
Wilderness Areas, National
Wildlife Refuges, reserves,
conservation easements).”

All Application Methods Above:

• “Applications are exempted from

this spray drift buffer requirement
when:
1) A 10-ft high windbreak is
established between the field
conservation area. For this
exemption to apply, the
windbreak must have single
to multiple rows of trees and
shrubs planted linearly
between the field and the
aquatic habitat in a manner
that fully partitions the two
areas;
2) The application is conducted
by conservation area
personnel or persons under
their direct supervision; or
3) The landowner or applicator
has completed a consultation
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or the National

45
 Proposed Label Language for Placement on Considerations for
Description
Pesticide Products Label Proposing Mitigation
End Use Products
Marine Fisheries Service on
the use of the product.”

6. Pesticide-Treated Seed: Proposed Label Language and Considerations for Future

Ecological Mitigation
The table below contains example instructions for seed treatment products currently being
included in PIDs for pesticides registered for use in treating seed. Consistent with EPA’s
September 28, 2022 response to the treated seed petition filed by Center for Food Safety, these
instructions will continue to be updated as EPA reviews currently registered pesticides. EPA also
intends to issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to explore the option of a
FIFRA section 3(a) rule to allow for enforcement of the misuse of pesticide-treated seeds.
As part of EPA’s review of labels in registration review and to inform the ANPRM, EPA is
considering a number of additional or changed instructions as options for reducing potential
exposures to terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates associated with treated seed uses. Examples
of several options being considered are described in the following bullets. EPA requests
comment on these options and any other ideas for reducing exposures to terrestrial vertebrates
and invertebrates.
• Reducing pesticide dust-off: EPA is considering measures to reduce the potential for
exposures to insect pollinators from treated seed dust-off. Reducing dust-off from treated
seeds reduces the amount of the pesticide that abrades off the seed and that can contact
insect pollinators.
o For example, the Agency is considering whether to include instructions relating to
requiring use of dust-reducing techniques and ways of measuring the efficacy of
those techniques. One dust-reducing technique under consideration is applying a
seed coating during treatment of the seed. If EPA proposes the use of this
technique, a corresponding threshold for dust reduction and a means to measure
the efficacy of the seed coating in dust-off reduction would be needed. An
example of a measurement tool is the Heubach test, which measures the abrasion
potential. Another dust-reducing technique under consideration is the use of
fluency agents. Fluency agents increase flowability of treated seeds out of the
hopper for more efficient planting, creates easier clean up, and reduces dust-off.
EPA seeks comments on techniques and measurements that might be referenced
in instructions to reduce dust-off. Labeling instructions do not currently address
dust-off and thus instructions of this kind would be new.
• Burying spilled pesticide-treated seed: EPA is considering additional measures to reduce
exposures to terrestrial vertebrates from ingestion of treated seed. Such measures could
involve ensuring limited access to pesticide-treated seed that has been spilled during
loading and planting by requiring a minimum depth for burying treated seeds spilled
during loading and planting (such as in row ends). Current labels generally refer to
covering or collecting spilled seeds.

46
 o A 2-foot depth for burying treated seeds appears to be a practical measure for
growers to avoid disturbance during plowing that may also address risk to birds
and mammals from eating treated seed. In some cases, a 2-foot burial depth has
already been required (e.g., at 7 CFR § 301.89-12). EPA is interested in
information on common practices for burial of spilled treated seed and the
estimated impacts or concerns if including a set depth (e.g., 2-foot depth).
• Disposing of excess seed after planting: Other measures being considered to reduce
exposures to terrestrial vertebrates from ingestion of treated seed, and to reduce potential
groundwater or surface water concerns, include additional instructions relating to
disposal of excess treated seed that would not be stored and used for future plantings.
Such measures could include labeling instructions for the grower to contact the registrant
for information on appropriate disposal and amended registration terms and conditions to
require registrants to create disposal plans and educational materials for growers. A
registrant disposal plan could include disposal options and bar or condition certain
methods of disposal such as combustion or composting. Current instructions, as described
in the table below, refer generally to burying excess seed away from water bodies.

Placement
Description Proposed Label Language for Pesticide Products
on Label

End Use Products

Seed Treatment Dye “REQUIRED DYE STATEMENT  Directions

Statement for Use
Seed treated with this product must be visually identifiable from
untreated seed by the use of an approved colorant or dye to prevent
accidental use of treated seed as food for humans or feed for animals.
Refer to 21 CFR, Part 2.25. Any colorant or dye added to treated seed
must be cleared for use in accordance with 40 CFR, Part
153.155(c).” 

Seed Treatment For products “Use of On-Farm Treated Seed (when treated seeds are not for Directions
allowed for on-farm seed sale or distribution) for Use
treatment (not for distribution or
sale of the seed) • Store treated seed away from food and feedstuffs.
• Do not allow children, pets, or livestock to have access to
treated seeds.
• Plant treated seed into the soil at no less than [INSERT
RECOMMENDED OR REQUIRED MINIMUM DEPTH].
Ensure that all planted seeds are thoroughly incorporated by
the planter during planting. Additional incorporation may be
required to thoroughly cover exposed seeds.
• Treated seeds exposed on the soil surface may be hazardous
to wildlife. Cover or collect treated seeds spilled during
loading and planting (such as in row ends).
• Dispose of all excess treated seed by burying seed away from
bodies of water.
• Do not contaminate bodies of water when disposing of
equipment wash water.”

47
 [Note to registrant: All other requirements regarding the use of the
treated seed, which include, but are not limited to, instructions relating
to endangered species protection, environmental hazard statements,
maximum use rates, soil incorporation depth, plant back intervals,
personal protective equipment, and storage and disposal statements,
remain and must be listed.]

Seed Treatment Seed “Commercial Seed Treatment and On-Farm Seed Treatment Directions
Bag/Container Labeling (when treated seeds are to be sold or distributed) – Seed Bag for Use
Labeling Requirements”
For products allowed for
commercial seed treatment and
on-farm seed treatment (to
“The Federal Seed Act requires that bags containing treated seeds
appear on seed bag tags when
shall be labeled with the following statements:
treated seeds are to be sold or
distributed) • This seed has been treated with (insert name of active
ingredient of pesticide).
• Do not use for food, feed, or oil purposes.”

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires that bags

containing treated seeds shall be labeled with the following
statements. Any seed treated with [PRODUCT NAME] that is
sold or distributed without these statements is an unregistered
pesticide, in violation of FIFRA section 12.

This seed has been treated with [INSERT PRODUCT NAME(s)

(EPA REG. NO(s))] containing [INSERT NAME(S) OF ACTIVE
INGREDIENT(S)].
• The contents of this bag are for planting purposes only. Do
not use for food, feed, or oil purposes.
• Store treated seed away from food and feedstuffs.
• Do not allow children, pets, or livestock to have access to
treated seeds.
• Plant treated seed into the soil at no less than [INSERT
RECOMMENDED OR REQUIRED MINIMUM DEPTH].
Ensure that all planted seeds are thoroughly incorporated by
the planter during planting. Additional incorporation may be
required to thoroughly cover exposed seeds.
• Treated seeds exposed on the soil surface may be hazardous
to wildlife. Cover or collect treated seeds spilled during
loading and planting (such as in row ends).
• Dispose of all excess treated seed by burying seed away from
bodies of water.
• Do not contaminate bodies of water when disposing of
equipment wash water.
• Dispose of seed packaging or containers in accordance with
local requirements.”

[Note to registrant: All other requirements regarding the use of the

treated seed, which include, but are not limited to, instructions relating
to endangered species protection, environmental hazard statements,

48
 maximum use rates, soil incorporation depth, plant back intervals,
personal protective equipment, and storage and disposal statements,
remain and must be listed on the seed bag tag.]

7. Promoting Pollinator Stewardship: Proposed Advisory Language

EPA is proposing to include revised advisory language for insect pollinators in its FIFRA
actions. This advisory language distills the most important information growers need to know to
voluntarily reduce risk to insect pollinators. The language is intended to raise awareness of
potential hazard to bees and other insect pollinators. Although this language is advisory, the goal
is to promote use best management practices that applicators may consider to reduce exposures
to bees, particularly managed pollinators. This language is consistent with EPA’s pollinator
protection strategic plan.
Because the proposed pollinator language is advisory, EPA will not use it to refine its risk
assessments for insect pollinators. EPA may consider mandatory mitigation to address on-field
insect pollinator risk as part of proposed FIFRA actions and/or through its ESA mitigation
strategies.
The pollinator hazard statement below would apply when there is acute risk to insect pollinators
from agricultural crop uses of the pesticide. The language in the statement is derived from
language in EPA’s Label Review Manual and appears on many labels already. Additionally, the
Agency is proposing a statement outlining best management practices for pollinator protection.
EPA intends to propose this statement when the ecological risk assessment identifies acute or
chronic risk to insect pollinators from agricultural crop uses of the pesticide. EPA seeks feedback
on the example label language in the table below.

Considerations for
Proposed Label Language for Pesticide Placement on
Description Proposing
Products Label
Language
End Use Products
Pollinator [EPA to choose either statement depending Environmental Pesticides applied
Hazard on whether the pesticide displays residual Hazards under the to agricultural crops
Statement toxicity: Heading when there is acute
For all products “Pollinator risk to insect
applied to Hazard pollinators.
Extended residual toxicity not displayed:]
agricultural Statement”
crops.
“This product is [highly/moderately] toxic to
bees and other pollinating insects exposed to
direct treatment on blooming crops or weeds.”

[Extended residual toxicity displayed:]

49
 “This product is [highly/moderately] toxic to
bees and other pollinating insects exposed to
direct treatment or to residues in/on blooming
crops or weeds.”
Best “Best Management Practices for Pollinator Directions for Use Pesticides applied
Management Protection – Under the Best to agricultural crops
Practices for Following best management practices (BMPs) Management via liquid spray
Pollinator can help reduce risk to pollinators. To protect Practices header when there is acute
Protection wild and managed pollinators, the following after Resistance or chronic risk to
For all products BMPs should be implemented: Management insect pollinators.
delivered via section
• Develop and maintain clear communication
liquid spray with local beekeepers to help protect honey
applications to bees. To the extent possible, advise
agricultural beekeepers within a 1-mile radius 48-hrs in
crops. advance of the application, and confirm
hive locations before spraying.
• Avoid applications when bees are actively
foraging.
• Apply pesticides in the evening and at night
when fewer pollinators are foraging.
• Use Pollinator Protection Plans when they
are available. These plans are developed by
stakeholders within their respective
states/tribes to promote communication
between growers, landowners, farmers,
beekeepers, pesticide users, and other pest
management professionals to reduce
exposure of bees and other pollinators to
pesticides.
• Report suspected pollinator pesticide
poisonings via EPA’s Pesticide Incident
Reporting website:
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-incidents.
For additional resources on pollinator BMPs and
Pollinator Protection Plans, visit
https://www.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/tools-
and-strategies-pollinator-protection.”

8. Ecological Incident Reporting Label Language

EPA expects to regularly propose language for pesticide labels that would provide product users
with consistent guidance on how to report ecological incidents, including bee kills. EPA has
proposed and subsequently required ecological incident reporting language on some labels in the
past, and ecological incident reporting has been included as a reasonable and prudent measure in
biological opinions issued by the Services that EPA is required to implement. EPA seeks
feedback on the example label language in the table below. Additionally, EPA is requesting
specific feedback on the following question:
• Are users or other people having any issues reporting bee or other ecological incidents to
EPA?

50
 Placement on Criteria for
Description Proposed Label Language for Pesticide Products Label Proposing
Mitigation
End Use Products
Ecological “REPORTING ECOLOGICAL INCIDENTS: For Directions for All products
Incidents guidance on reporting ecological incidents, including Use, under the with outdoor
Statement bee kills, see EPA’s Pesticide Incident Reporting heading uses
To be proposed website: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-incidents” “Reporting
for all products Ecological
with outdoor Incidents”
uses

51