FIFRA, ESA and Pesticide Consultation: Identifying and Overcoming the Complexities from a Growers Perspective

Abstract

This commentary examines why consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been so difficult to align with pesticide actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and proposes grower‑oriented ways to make protections both scientifically credible and practically implementable. The authors outline six interlocking challenges identified by EPA—including workload and staffing constraints, process misalignment, broad registrations affecting many species, methodological/data gaps, and the need for stronger interagency relationships—alongside the National Research Council’s recommendations on harmonized methods, probabilistic risk assessment, and the incorporation of stakeholder data. The paper details growers’ concerns about the accuracy of species and habitat mapping, access to and weighting of pesticide use data, conservative surrogate‑species toxicity assumptions, the real‑world feasibility of mitigation measures (especially for specialty crops and leased land), heavy reliance on models that may not be sufficiently validated for all use scenarios, and communication/usability issues with EPA’s Bulletins Live! Two (BLT). Case examples compare model predictions to field monitoring (e.g., atrazine in Florida; chlorpyrifos and malathion in the Pacific Northwest), highlighting where screening models may overpredict exposure and where tiered, refined approaches substantially improve accuracy. The commentary closes by urging EPA and partner agencies to ground decisions in realistic use scenarios, invest in validated exposure modeling (including air‑blast drift Tier III tools and drift‑reduction technologies), refine geospatial targeting of mitigations, and ensure affected producers have a seat at the table—eschewing one‑size‑fits‑all rules in favor of practicable, crop‑specific solutions.