Music.
Welcome back to the war against weeds podcast. This is Sarah Lancaster, extension weed management specialist at Kansas State University. Our co host for this episode is Alyssa Essman, how are you? Alyssa,
I'm doing well this morning. How are you Sarah?
great! I'm excited for fall, and I'm excited to talk to our two guests that we have today. The first guest I'll introduce is Dr Bill Chism. He is a returning podcaster. So good morning, Bill,
good morning. Thanks for having me today.
And could you remind the audience kind of what your title or what your role is? Why did we choose to talk to you about this topic?
Excellent question. I retired from the EPA after 22 years, and I am currently the chair of the Weed Science Society of America's Endangered Species Act committee, and our role is to try and make science available to the decision makers and try and provide information to our members.
And when I have questions as an extension specialist about anything ESA Bill's my guy. So the other guest we have today is a newcomer to the podcast, Ashlea Frank is a consultant with Compliance Services International. Good morning, Ashlea,
good morning. Thank you for having me.
We're glad you were able to join us. Can you tell the audience a little bit about just kind of your role as a consultant with CSI?
Sure. Yes. I have been with CSI for almost 20 years, and that whole time I've been focused on endangered species, pesticides, agriculture, human health, so all the fun things and I really focus in my role on aggregating data, taking a look at data, and communicating science and providing information to EPA, providing information to fish and Wildlife, as well as other impacted stakeholders and people, folks out there who need to know, might want to know
about the Endangered Species Act and pesticides.
Awesome! So I think Alyssa, I think we picked the perfect guest for the topic today.
Absolutely.
So listeners may or may not be aware, but the EPA recently released a final version of the herbicide strategy to keep them in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, or ESA. And so Bill and Ashlea have been on top of kind of following that and digesting and interpreting that for for use by other folks. So we're going to visit with them about the Endangered Species Act today. So the first question we have kind of teed up, and you guys kind of touched on this
with your introductions. But what is your your experience with the endangered species Act? um, Ashlea, do you want to go first?
Yes, so I'll add to kind of what I said earlier. My experience is in under trying to understand the complexities behind the Endangered Species Act, how it interacts with pesticides, what the regulations are, and how data can help meet those regulations, how data can help those that are impacted understand what they need to do, what's coming out of these regulations, what it means for them, and how they can also be in compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
So endangered species, the Endangered Species Act, has been on the book for books for a long time. So have you been involved in compliance with the endangered species act like for all of your 20 some odd years? Or has your focus on ESA been more recent with some of the the legal challenges for the EPA era on ESA, my
focus has been throughout the 20 years that I've been working on it. So the Endangered Species Act has been around since 1973 So EPA requirement to comply with the Endangered Species Act isn't new. All of these things are not new. It's kind of a new cycle that we find ourselves in. And in my 20 years of experience, I have seen a few different cycles that EPA has been through to try to come up with different work plans or strategies or processes that might help them better
comply with the Endangered Species Act. So this current one that we all find ourselves in is it is unique in the fact that it has a few different components that we haven't seen before in their attempts to better comply with the Endangered Species Act.
So nothing new under the sun.
Nothing new under the sun, just maybe a different just a different leaf that we're starting to uncover.
So okay, and so Bill Ashlea said, EPA. And history in terms of EPA and the Endangered Species Act. So what is your experience?
So I look at my role. I spent a number of years doing pesticide benefits assessments, and I look at my role as partially interpreting regulatory ease into farmer terms. And I think some of my role with the ESA is the same thing. I can listen to the regulators. We spend a lot of time on our website doing descriptions of these and common terms to try and help people. So I'm here trying to interpret these things. Make it so the user, the pesticide applicator,
and the grower, can understand it. In addition, we're trying to help the regulators understand the hurdles for the farmers too. So and I think by having spent a couple decades there, it makes it a little easier for me to chat with them, so that I think that's sort of my role. I was not involved with ESA while I was in the program, but I've certainly become immersed in it afterwards.
So I think I just heard Bill say he's bilingual, so I think that's an important skill set to have, though, taking the technical, the regulatory or academic and the data and making it useful. So Okay, now let's do some level setting for the audience. What is the herbicide strategy? Bill? Do you want to take the first stab at that one?
Sure, and Ashlea can correct me if I'm wrong. I recently gave a presentation on this topic, and I said, you know, I'm only going to have to read this five or six more times and talk to five or six more people that are deeply immersed into it to understand what their herbicide So Ashlea can correct me if I'm wrong. So what their herbicide strategy is saying is, any pesticide application in the US is now going to be targeted to make sure we do not impact a listed species or their habitat.
In order to do that, they're going to put additional what they call mitigations or restrictions on the label. They're going to have mitigations to reduce the impact of spray drift. They're going to have mitigations to reduce the impact of runoff and erosion. And in addition, in the places in certain geographic locations where they have concerns for specific species, they will have additional mitigations in what
they're calling a pesticide use limitation area or a Pula. So once again, working for the government, there's a whole bunch of acronyms related to this program. So yet another set of acronyms, the spray drift mitigations are pretty common.
Go to larger droplet size, lower the boom. Things that we've all talked about, the runoff and erosion mitigations, are very unusual in that you are now going to have to consider what sort of conservation practices you're using on individual fields, and that's new, but one of the things that was very encouraging is recently the USDA NRCS and the EPA agreed to use the NRCS terms So at least growers have a source of
information, and hopefully they're used to those terms. So those would be conservation practices to reduce runoff or erosion. Ashlea, did I leave? That's sort of the high level?
Yeah. No, that's great. Bill, I will just add that the herbicide strategy, as it stands right now, is only related to conventional pesticides, agricultural uses of those conventional pesticides. So it's, it is does have kind of that very it's not a narrow focus, but that focus just on the conventional pesticides and agricultural uses. So it is to
to clarify, Ashlea, before you jump in, conventional is in conventional versus organic or some other designation? Yes. Okay, sorry, thank you.
Can I and Bill, can I just clarify that conventional is part of the opps the office of pesticide programs, jargon, any registration that does not go through the bio pesticides division is called the conventional pesticide, so organic and and even some novel bio pesticides are not part of this process. Okay, yes,
thanks, Bill.
So sorry, Ashlea. I derailed you there.
No, no, thank you. The the herbicide strategy is one of many strategies. So this is not kind of acting in a silo. In that respect. It is one of of many that are under EPA work plan that they came out with a couple years ago. So in thinking about that, you know, it's not just the herbicides, it's going to be insecticides, rodenticides and some other things coming down the line. The other things to add are that these, these mitigations that are are going to be found in this menu of
options. EPA did take some feedback from the public when they had a public comment period on a draft version of this strategy, and they've added some flexibility into the measures so that hopefully it's going to be relatively easy for folks to be able to meet the points required to use the pesticides. They're wanting to on, the uses that they they're wanting to use them on, on a field basis.
So now you're kind of we're jumping into implementation a little bit.
Can I? Can I just interject something? Ashlea brought this up, and it's a good point. They picked what they considered conventional pesticides on agricultural situations, that's about 75 to 80% of all the pounds of pesticide applied in the US. So if you had to target something, that's clearly the place to start and address the largest amount of pesticide usage.
So that's a good segue, because I was thinking. So our next question is to talk about the timeline for implementing the strategy, and I think we might need to look backwards to go forwards there. But do you think Bill, so
the herbicides were first? Is there a and Ashlea, too? Do you guys think there's a benefit or a detriment for weed management or for the weed science community to having had this herbicide program, or the herbicide strategy, be like the first of the sides that were, they're really focused on implementation. Does that question make sense?
Shall I go? Yeah, um, in in our opinion, and I think my committee's pretty uniform about this by being the very first one off the block, and we are trying to be really proactive about this. We I think we're able to give some really good input. If we were the very last one giving inputs really late, a whole bunch of decisions could have been made. So yes, it's painful. Yes, it's going to bring a lot of changes, but I think being one of the first groups through is beneficial to
us. The Weed Science Society of America has has a reputation within the Office of pesticide programs as being very proactive, bringing good science to them and trying to work with them. So I think it was well received that we were trying to be proactive on this topic.
I see you nodding your head, Ashlea, do you agree? Yeah,
I think that's a great point, and that that input and that feedback, I think some of that was is being reflected in what we're seeing come out.
They made major changes. Absolutely, they made major changes between the draft and the final version, and a lot of improvements. And so I think, I think that was really great, and I applaud their work making those changes.
So Ashlea, do you want to step in here now and talk a little bit about just the timeline for implementation of the strategy, both kind of briefly, how did we get here, and then looking ahead for, for example, I was just talking with
my pesticide Coordinator here at K State earlier this week. Like, when are we going to need to start talking with growers specifically, and what am I going to have a pesticide label that I can hold up in front of them and say, This is what the new herbicide labels will look like?
Yeah, no, that is a great question, because we, as kind of a task force, I help support going out and communicating and talking about this, and that's the first question we get. When are we going to see this on labels? And it's an excellent question, because we're not really sure we're going to start seeing this, but EPA has said that they are going to try to start incorporating the herbicide
strategy third quarter of 2024, so that's like now. But the important piece is that these strategies are not self implementing, so as soon as they are finalized, it's not as if you're going to see labels out in the marketplace tomorrow with information on them, with restrictions on them based on these strategies. It's still going to go through the process
of EPA, registration process and the review process. So even though EPA has said that they're going to start incorporating the herbicide strategy third quarter, 2024 it's still going to go through the regular review process, which has, in of itself, a opportunity for the public to comment. So there's going to be a proposed interim decision come out. That is another opportunity to provide input on whatever's coming out
of those of the implementation of that. So it's going to be a while before you start seeing labels that have these strategies Incorporated. And I can't define a while.
So my next question, Ashlea was, there are some pretty key active ingredients going through their regular re registration right now. Yeah, if you had a crystal ball, which of those do you think we're going to see be the first one to come out on the other side of this, does that make sense?
That makes sense, and I I hesitate because I don't know. It's just so uncertain right now. And I don't know, Bill, if you have, if you have, a crystal ball that you want to guess on that. But I mean, we do know Atrazine glyphosate, are finding their way through the queue right now and where these strategies are going to fit into the consultation process, or the other pieces of this puzzle is just unclear at this point.
Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead, please.
Oh, I have a question somewhat related to this idea of a timeline, kind of from a different perspective. I first want to thank Bill for putting it in terms that folks like myself can understand so I can talk to our farmers about this. I was on a field day a couple days ago, and I was getting questions about the herbicide strategy. And one of the questions that was asked is, you know, we think about the products getting these added to their labels as they go through
the registration process. But the question was, you know, what if there's a new endangered species added, something like the monarch butterfly that covers a lot of area, does that change the timeline? Will things get pushed through faster? You know, how? How does new species being added to that list kind of influence this whole process?
That's a great question. Because one of since I'm a data person, one of the challenges in all of this is that are the changes to the data. Species are being listed, delisted, often the the ranges of these species are changing. There's new information, new populations that are found. So we're already in this kind of shifting, because these are biological creatures. After all, they are going to move and and change. But it's in, it's it's kind of in the definition of
where EPA starts. And they, in all of the evaluations that they have, they kind of have a start date. This information is current as of this date, and this is the information we're going to use going forward, the question of how things are going to get updated. So once something on is on a label, once something has a pesticide use limitation area in bulletins live and an update needs to be made, it's not clear how that's
going to happen, how that's going to roll out. So those new species getting added there, there is the possibility to amend that registration, to add that species, but that would have to go through a process. So I hate to be the one to say I don't know all the time, but I don't know, because it's so unclear, well, but,
but at the same time, the EPA, with their link to bulletins live too, and active links to mitigation is trying to figure out a way to adapt to that. But the other thing I'd like to remind the audience is that somewhere over 290 species have come off the list. So it's not only being added, but species are coming off. So if, if you were in an area where that species existed and now it's come off the list, then the agency does not have to have additional protections for
that species. So it works both ways. Great question, if I may, I was going to go back to my murky crystal ball and the timeline. So my impression, I think it's going to take, say, two to 15 years. And the reason I say that is if you envision that the agency has made a decision on the label, then. Then the company gets a chance to think about it. They send it out for external comments. There's a timeline for that, and then there's a timeline for we've got to print up new
labels. They've got to be on containers so that that's really kind of a couple years. So the agency will be starting to incorporate that, but until those products are labeled in the warehouse, I don't think most people see it. So that's why we've been internally talking about a couple years, and then I say up to 15 years, because new registrations will have that information. But during the registration review
process. Pesticides have to be reviewed every 15 years. We won't finish all of the pesticides for another 15 years. Now, the really great thing from my point of view, is that mean the users, the growers, the applicators, will start seeing one or two labels with this. They're not going to have 100% of the labels, you know, it's not going to take three years, and 100% of the labels are going to change. So potentially, it gives a user an opportunity to say, Okay, I've got one
pesticide or two out of everything I typically use. What am I going to have to do to adapt to that, to figure this out. So I'm kind of glad it's going to be a phased in approach, because if it was happening all at once, it would be catastrophic. The worker protection standard for gloves and respirators and protective equipment was a date due standard, everything had to be changed by a certain date. If they did that to us with endangered species, it would be
unpleasant to say the least. So anyway, that's my crystal ball. Two to 15 years.
I think that that makes a lot of sense. That thinking one of the things that comes to my mind, and as I talk with you know, farmers in particular around this topic. How does that timeline and working some of these, again,
key molecules through this re registration product? How is that interacting with getting new products to market like I'm thinking about a couple that you know, Alyssa and I have been seeing in our herbicide evaluation programs, and, you know, the companies act like they're they're ready to have them out. We're just waiting for for this registration approval. So do you think there's, is there an interaction going on here that that maybe we need to be aware of, or that we can say,
calm down, it's okay. We're just about through this. Does? Does that make sense?
At least from my point of view, we are seeing some delays with new registrations because of ESA and because of the the point at which they are in the submission process, the review process, and trying EPA, trying to figure out these strategies. So we are seeing some delays of registrations of new products, new uses of existing and I think we will start seeing for some of those new new registrations that
are coming through. EPA has said, you know, they're going to start implementing these strategies on those and those in re-review. So you're you're going to see on these new products, as well as the ones going through that we know that are in the process, in the queue.
So theoretically, if I take that answer and what Bill was saying, by the time these products come to market, it could be the summer of 26 and they would come out in the summer, 26 with these new labels. Is that a reasonable, potentially, okay,
I think clear, clearly, you could see one, one, maybe two products with this earlier, but, but I don't think you're going to see a lot of products. The other thing, as Ashlea pointed out, atrazine and glyphosate are coming through the queue. Oh, my God. What? Over 200 uses with glyphosate? A whole bunch of uses with Atrazine, if, if you think about it from the EPA perspective, if they've got that label 99%
sorted out. Are they going to stop and redo the whole thing for ESA, or are they just going to continue through that's clearly a management decision, but I that's that's kind of a an imponderable that we can never tell from the outside, but I could see, you know, we're almost done with this. You want us to put a halt on everything anyway? So that's clearly a management decision for them to decide. When they're so close, what are we going to do?
Lots of unknowns. Lots of unknowns. Um, okay, so the next. Thing. And this is a pretty broad question, but I think, you know, as I think about Alyssa and I as kind of perspective to this, how does the herbicide strategy affect regulators, registrants, farmers? You could pick one of those three groups to start with, and there's probably players that I missed in that, that list that I put together, but to me, those were the three big kind of groups that need to
be on this. So, Ashlea, do you want to go first? Sure
I'll go first. So I guess I'll pick maybe
registrants first. And we touched a little bit about this, and I think the impacts felt to the registrants right now are in some of those uncertainties, that regulatory uncertainty of what's going to happen, when is it going to happen, and kind of feeling the delays of registration, delays of being able to get things through that they know farmers need, and you know they're they're At that point of really trying to get them through, and it's the ESA sometimes that's holding that
back. So from that registrant standpoint, I think that's where some of the impact is really felt. And EPA has been asking registrants to come to the table in any kind of registration decision or submission come to the table with some mitigations for us to take a look at. So that's kind of another piece that this is impacting from the registrant standpoint, is, what types of upfront mitigations based on ESA should we be offering up? Do we need to offer up? Does it make sense? And then
working through that process. So it's a it's a lot of kind of unknowns and timing and different options that the registrants are kind of thinking through.
So are they having to go back and redo, like data collection packages and things like that? It's What do you think about registrant impacts
more So taking a look at EPA has put out a final guidance document that kind of lays out a few steps that the registrants can go through. Some of it is using some of the data that EPA has put on their public websites, that takes a look at the overlap of species and endangered species, or pesticides and endangered species, and taking a look at some of the data that are coming out of their data packages, combining it together so it's not necessarily producing any
new requirements. It's taking a look at the information and then coming up with suggestions for new mitigations for ESA.
I Ashlea's correct there that they're not only Bill? searching their heads trying to figure out what what we're going to do with the current regulations. I'm I'm positive the impact on their pipeline of new discovery chemicals, they're trying to decide what to do with that, because they may have a chemical with a great fit in the marketplace, and now they're trying to decide what the impact of ESA might have on the
marketplace. So they're, they're doing a lot of head searching, um, one of the groups that that we'll get to the other groups, but one of the groups I just wanted to mention is the pesticide education training program. Those folks, for the very first time, are going to have to start talking about, they've always talked about drift reduction, keep the product on the field, because anything that leaves the field
is not you're losing it. But they're now going to have to start thinking about conservation practices and how to explain that. They're also going to have to think up a checklist. I have some fields. Many growers have many, many fields. What's a nice, methodical way to figure out how to do this? You know, in a practical sense, do I address the drift potential first? Do I address the runoff and erosion
potential first? Anyway? So I think there's going to be a lot of head scratching, a lot of who can we get in to do this training? I'm really hoping NRCS will be willing to help with the training. I'm really hoping the local fish and wildlife, or the equivalent of the Department of Natural Resources, or whoever will be willing to help explain something about these species. My my pet theory, is five years ago, none of us knew there were
endangered species on our fields. Now we know it would be really, I think, beneficial to explain to people what these species are, why the habitat is critical, you know, and what's going on with this species and and only the naturalists can help us with that. So I think they're going to be having a huge workload in the very near future. Sure.
I think that's a good point. So we've talked to registrants. Should we talk? We've kind of talked around the impact on regulators. But do you guys have any and when I say regulators, I'm thinking about like our state regulators who are going to be responsible for enforcing this, right? They've got this big pile of stuff. We still have a lot of questions around exactly what the stuff is. How is this going to impact our State Departments of Agriculture?
I think it's Yeah, each of those state departments of ag are going to need to figure out, what does this mean for the folks in in these areas, and how, what do we need to do to put the checklists in order, or however that agency wants to approach going about the enforcement piece of this, and some of some of the information that EPA has put in the herbicide strategy, there is a there's a measure that talks about tracking. If you track your mitigations, you get a
certain number, you get a point for that. And then just kind of thinking and connecting that to the regulators at the state level and the enforcement agencies. What does that tracking mean? Does that come into the enforcement piece or not? So I think it's going to be, it's going to be a lot of figuring it out at that state level and what enforcement means for that state.
What do you think, Bill, I think you've had some conversations with some of these folks pretty quickly, right?
I think the state regulators are definitely trying to figure out what they can and can't legally request. Years ago, the Congress passed the paperwork reduction act so the EPA can only ask for certain types of information, so some of the information to support your conservation practices and what you did for drift control may be precluded from being provided the OMB would have to give them permission to collect that. So
they're probably not inclined to do that. So the record keeping is going to be difficult and and I, I, for one, can't imagine a whole raft of new employees headed towards the states, you know, to help them figure it out, to help with training and education, let alone inspections and and verification. So I think it's going to be very difficult. On the other hand, a lot of what we're talking about has been in place with many growers for years. So I think I'm hoping a large number of growers will
just say, you know, I'm doing most of that already. So for them, the transition will not be too difficult and and their impact on the state regulators hopefully will not be that difficult.
So, Bill, you said a word that I had written down in my notes here, and also had had a conversation about extension programming in Kansas around this topic and and so. So check, check my instinct here, but I think that one of the big things that folks like myself and our pesticide safety coordinator is help farmers and applicators get their heads around. What do my application records need to look like? What am I going to be required to provide if I should have a call
from a compliance officer? Does that make sense? Yes. Is that
I I talked to a crop consultant A while back, and she was actively involved in a USDA program where you had to compare your pesticide application information and your conservation practices. She said, the first time she did it, it was just mind boggling. Because you had to have records from this. You had to have records from this. She said, the
second year she did, it wasn't too bad. It's like, oh, okay, I understand who's got the information, how to request it, and etc. But I could see in a lot of users cases, growers, it's sort of like, well, I'm not tracking my conservation practices. I don't have them on a field by field basis. I'm now going to have to, you know, start thinking of them on a field by field basis. And if you have hundreds of fields, then
that's just daunting. So yes, figuring out a nice step wise process to this is going to be critical, and I'm I'm hoping in some of the states that are really proactive on conservation practices, they'll have some good suggestions on how to do that.
Yeah, you're making me think I need to reach out to my contacts at our state and our CS office. Bill Fish and Wildlife was all. Already on my list. Now NRCS is on my list. So did you have any thoughts on the record keeping piece? Ashlea,
I wanted to add that, you know, the ESA component to this does bring a kind of a separate dimension to where, if there is take of an endangered species because of a pesticide application that then brings in Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries, based on the jurisdiction, whichever. So it does bring another level of compliance enforcement and what to do if it's an endangered species that's actually involved in in a potential infraction. So I wanted to note that. So
that's one of the things that I kind of was trying to talk to my guys about early on too. This is no longer, this is a federal regulation, right? That? Yeah, so what does this is kind of a bad question. What does this look like like, let's say Farmer Joe is, how does he know if he has take, had a take, committed a take. I don't know what terminology to use there, but how does he know if he's in violation of that is an individual operator.
That's a good question in there are, there are some examples, and the ones that I know about the knowledge of that take came from a report of an incident. So there was, you know, an actual animal that was reported coming from an incident. Otherwise, it's unclear how that without the knowledge of what endangered species are around you, what critical habitats are around you, because the habitat
component is another piece of this. It's not just the individual species itself, but it's also designated critical habitat, which is a little bit more difficult to kind of think through and decipher. What does that mean for an individual grower. So without the knowledge of what endangered species are around you and what those habitat types look like, it's very unclear how any kind of an infraction would be reported.
Okay on this topic of infractions, I think one question that comes to mind is, you know, a lot of times growers, at least in our area, have someone make those applications for them. Yeah. And so in that case, who then is liable for this record keeping and tracking and making sure we're in compliance before certain things are applied. What are some thoughts on that situation?
Well, I would say this would just be added, not just this would be another component to the responsibilities that those applicators have currently. So where those responsibilities lie would still be on the applicator there?
Well, and, and, and I just want to point out that's a great question, because if you're working with NRCS or some other conservation group, and you're working with a pesticide applicator, they suddenly are going to have to have joint access to records in a way that was never even thought of before. So how we're going to build those bridges for those groups to talk together is,
yeah, and I'm thinking right now, Bill, how, what level of complication this adds to like a lot of our land is rented or crop shared, or whatever, so that that tenant landowner relationship just became a lot more difficult to manage when we start thinking about this piece as well.
Yes, definitely. So,
not that I have any answers about how to manage that. Um, so, okay, so that's maybe a good segue to talk about farmers. We've been talking about record keeping. We've been talking about incidents and and that kind of stuff. So how do you you two see this affecting the day to day operations of farmers? Maybe beyond the record keeping piece that we've kind of been talking about.
I'll take a first stab, and then Bill, maybe you can, can help add to it. So again, just want to note again, that there these strategies aren't self implementing. So it's not going to be tomorrow that this is going to happen. And we kind of talked about it being kind of a roll out, of starting to see these come out kind of rolling. So I think the very first impact is going to be felt. You know, once these are starting to show up on labels in the need to go and look at a
website, the need to go and look at bulletins live too. So. If you are in a pesticide use limitation area or not, if the chemicals you're using on the use site that you're using it on is included in the bulletin or not. So there's going to be some additional steps to take before that application is made and going through and making sure that the pesticide you're wanting to use on the use site that you're wanting to use it
on, that you're meeting the points. So I think the first feeling is going the first touch point is going to be at checking and an additional piece of of that kind of requirement, and with EPA adding the flexibility into the measures, the hope is that a lot of additional things might not be needed, and a lot of changes to how applications are currently made might not be
needed. So I think the hope is that that impact is going to be the ensuring that you're going to the website, making sure that you're checking and if additional things are needed, then putting those in place.
I like that hopeful optimism,
but I mean, I think it is going to be a time piece, so we'll require some additional time,
yes, and so then, and then again, tying that back into how you document that you've checked and that you're you're for sure, going to be okay. Bill,
one of the one of the unknowns I wanted to point out is the number of points you need changes by crop, by pesticide, and the distance for your buffer changes by crop and by pesticide. So one of the things we've asked the EPA, would they consider creating a database so a user or extension could go in there and say, for my crop, here's some pesticides that only need six points. I think I can get six points easily. It's on a zero to nine scale. Or it's like, how if, if
I've got nine points, I can use anything on the list. So anyway, a database so they could say, okay, in my situation, what products can I easily use? Because it would be nice to have not only the mitigation points for runoff and erosion, but also the buffer distance too. Because I think in in some cases, the buffer distance is going to be a hindrance as well. So if there was some central depository for that, that would be great. And at the same time, the EPA isn't going to have to put everything
on that database. I'm, I'm, we're envisioning it going on the database through the next 15 years.
Yeah. So that's back to your point that the the gradual nature of this rollout is really beneficial for all the parties involved, yeah,
but, but I think for the for the farmer, even if he isn't doing applications, he's going to potentially be the bridge between his conservation practices and the application, because he's the only source of a lot of that information, or the a farmer can always ask the conservation groups, can You give me a readout of all the conservation practices by field? Someone else may not be legally allowed to ask for that. Yeah,
the farmer and the landowner have to be on the same page there, because, right? Sometimes those contracts are with the farmers. A lot of times, so those contracts are with the landowner. So, yeah, that's interesting. Okay, any other thoughts on on impacts before we ask you guys to polish your crystal ball? Alyssa, you look like you've got a question.
I do have a question here. I'm not sure it totally relates really to what we're talking about. But I think one of the concerns when it comes to talking to farmers about this, you know, I know, I know this is dissimilar from the Dicamba situation, necessarily, but I think the concern is, you know, we're buying a lot of times our seeding chemicals ahead of time. What's the risk of making these purchases and then having a registration come through at some point that
changes? You know, my options for the following year. Is there any thoughts on that sort of timeline factor in terms of trying to plan ahead for weed management and crop management.
You know that that's an excellent point. I hadn't thought about asking the office of pesticide program has a schedule for when decisions will be completed. They've stopped updating that because of ESA and things being held up. Sorry, that web page is so hard to find. Maybe we need to ask them to make that easier, because So, for example, if the EPA says we will have a final decision done by four. The first quarter of 2025 then the user needs to think about, Okay, how many
months before we will actually see a label? So in addition to the timeline, a disclaimer explaining that it'll probably take a year before you will see any of these changes on a label, so that there's some way to warn people a change is coming. Because if you know if your product isn't on the list, because they only do it one to two years out, if your product isn't on the list, then you've got, seemingly, a long time before you need to worry about that. That's an excellent point.
Yeah, I know it seems like some of the conversation around the Dicamba really brought this idea of timing to the attention of of the EPA, and that farmers right now are being pressured to make their their seed and fertilizer and other herbicide input purchases for summer of 25 they don't even have the 2024 crop out of field yet. So it's everything is, I think maybe pushed further ahead than, than, than what folks realize if they're not involved in the
business on the back end. So that's a really good question. Also,
yeah, EPA has said it takes about 18 months from the time of a final decision to seeing labels in the marketplace with any measures so, and I know that doesn't directly answer your question, but there is that period of 18 months, and in terms of the the bulletins that are in bulletins live those there's a statement, at least The current statement reads, it's a six months in advance. So you can visit the site six
months in advance. Check out where your location is. Check out if you the product you're using has a bulletin or not, and you're good for the next six months.
And is that something maybe we should consider in our record keeping is making note of when you checked bulletins live, too, and keeping track of that sort of information,
that would be a good idea. And there's on bulletins live. There's the ability to print a bulletin and it has your application date and it has a date on the bulletin, so kind of built in there for you, yeah? So
that needs to just be part of their record keeping. Yeah? Something that would be wise. Farmers that have moved to electronic record keeping for all this stuff are going to be significantly less affected than farmers who are not using very electronic based record keeping systems. So any other thoughts around impacts, and you guys are probably going to, like, totally dodge this next question, and that's okay, because I will do if I were you
to finish off your thoughts about the impacts. Office of pesticide programs is working on a calculator. I think it's a spreadsheet for helping people figure out runoff and erosion. I have not seen that. I'm I know some people have seen that. That would be helpful to make it a more mechanical process, and we're hoping they will also develop one for spray
drift mitigation. That way a user there's two things a user could use this to sort of figure out how many points can I get, or what's my spray drift buffer going to be, but two more importantly, they would get a consistent answer, because they're all ideally using the same spreadsheet. So one of the things is, I applaud the EPA for doing that. I hope they make it easy to use, because I would rather only have one group providing those spreadsheets, so we don't get multiple answers.
This is a really complicated topic, so anyway, I applaud them for working on that.
That'll be good to see those those documents as they come out. So okay, thoughts on impacts, because I think really that's the most important part of this conversation. This conversation. So lots of heads nodding, but Okay, so one of the conversation points that comes up just, you know, as we think about recording this in September of of 2024 it's an election year, and everything in our society kind of gets just
different in an election year. Do you think there is the potential for changes in how this rollout happens, just because we're in a situation where we could be switching administrations and switching legislatures things of that nature. How does, how does that? How does that play into the regulatory side of things?
Well, I'm gonna let Bill tackle the most part of that, because it's unclear. But. But I do want to say what is, what is clear to me is that we need to have a process that is administration proof that can last its way through any administration, because growers need to have access to the tools that they need to have access to without interference from the courts. So that's, that's kind of the statement I want to make about that. Yeah,
I've been saying I've got whiplash from watching these, some of these regulations change, and it needs to stop for the farmers.
So absolutely, I keep reminding people, our current Congress can't even pass a budget. This is budgets are clearly very difficult, very time consuming process changing the Endangered Species Act, after 50 years, Congress has never attempted to do that. They have not. They've made minor changes, but they have not attempted to do that. I I'm not sure they would have the moral fortitude to change this. And then two, as Ashlea pointed out, would they be able to change it
in such a way it would stand up in the courts? I mean, the current situation for the EPA is they made multiple attempts to implement the the ESA, they were not successful. They were sued repeatedly, and finally, the court has told them, you're going to do this, and they've dictated the timeline. They, in fact, they through negotiations, they dictated the process and the timeline. So I think it would be very difficult for Congress to put a small bandage on this and think they were done
with it. And then the problem comes up with the level of uncertainty. Alyssa talked about, you know, how are growers making decisions when the courts could come in two months from now and overturn anyway? So I I would like us to have some process in place that we can all point to on a consistent basis.
Yeah, I think that's probably the general consensus, right? So last question, this is a bonus question. Alyssa laughs because it's kind of quirky, and I'm going to modify the way we've been asking this question for this podcast. Ashlea and Bill, how do you see the potential for regulations to affect farmers access to potential silver bullets for weed management in the future.
Okay? Well, I'm an optimist, and I'm going to say no, I don't think that this, that the Endangered Species Act, will have a negative impact on that silver bullet. I think that there are ways that we can find solutions that work, if we can target the protections that are needed for the endangered species where they are needed, while still allowing these tools. I think these things can work in in harmony with each other, and really find ways to to have the solutions we need.
So I'm going to say no, I don't think the ESA will will harm a silver bullet or prevent. Yeah, prevent.
I'm going to take sort of the other tack, um, I think the ESA is putting additional pressure on conventional pesticide applications. I think it's going to be an impetus for new methods of controlling weeds, harvest, weed seed destruction, some of the robotic spraying equipment, some of the electronic electrocution. Anyway, I think it's going to be an impetus for newer methods of controlling
weeds that don't use pesticides so much. The other thing is, over the last several years, the majority of pesticide manufacturers have moved into genetically modified crops this. This is specifically for herbicides. They moved into genetically modified crops. Two reasons, it's much cheaper. It's about half the cost. And two, the certainty of getting a registration is much higher. You have a new active ingredient.
Oh, my God, am I going to find out in year seven of development, it's a cancer causing agent, in which case it just all goes out the window. Don't know that. So the certainty of going over to a GMO crop is much higher and the cost is lower. So a lot of companies are not spending as much in pesticide development as they used to. So this is not helping.
This is not helping. Things. So I'm hoping that some of those alternative control methods will be available and help in buffer areas and and other things like that.
I think those are both very well stated positions. I can't find anything to disagree with either, either end. So how about you, Alyssa, what do you think?
I tend to agree with both. I think there is, you know, space for solutions and creativity. I have concerns about accessibility. In Ohio, we have a large Amish and plain population. How are we expecting those folks? You know, rural broadband an issue. There's a lot of, you know, accessibility issues that come up when it comes to things like bulletins
live too, that I worry about working through. So I do think it places some pressure on, you know, a process that's already quite complicated, communication is going to have to get better between all these groups. And like Sarah mentioned, the landowners, the applicators, the farmers, right? We are going to have to come together, but maybe that's an opportunity for us to work more closely in an area like weed management that is very important in agronomic crop production.
I think that's a great place to wrap this episode. Ashlea and Bill, thank you so much for coming on. We want to give you guys a chance. Ashlea, you can go first. Do you have any resources that you would like to point the listeners to? Yes. So so drum roll please, Bill. What do you think
the first place I would point listeners to is EPA does have an endangered species website, and on that website you can find all of the information that we've kind of talked about, the strategies there the work plan, and they have some story maps. So there's a lot of resources on EPA website, the task force that I mentioned, the fifth for endangered species, Task Force, which is another acronym, but it's festf.org we've got a website that we are revamping currently that will
house information. It's going to have present we do presentations, we do webinars for different venues, so it'll have access to that information and other links, comment periods that are opening that you may want to contribute to that kind of information. So I'd point you there too. One more Well, I was gonna say and Bill's, bills. Ws, but I didn't want to steal his thunder, are some resources that folks need to be aware? Thank you. We
the Weed Science Society of America has a website for endangered species. Wssa.net, cheese, WSS a.net backslash endangered species. We have a presentation that Ashlea helped make. We have really basic definitions, a lot of epa jargin. We have links to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Have a great website that lists all the species. And I keep saying, if, if you don't know you have species in your state, it's hard
to know how to protect them. They have great links. National Marine Fisheries Service has a website, and they also have links to their list of species and and we have some other links there that might be of value. So we're trying to get information out and give the educators a starting point.
So I appreciate the effort that bill, you've put into the website, your leadership on this subject in general, and we appreciate you spending the time to talk with us today. And Ashlea, thank you so much. It's been nice to meet you, and we're very grateful for your insights and that you're willing to share your experiences with us, and maybe
we'll chat again at some point in the future. So thanks to the listeners and thanks to all of our other supporters, we'll see you guys next time you (music.) Thanks for listening to the war against weeds podcast. We appreciate your listening. We appreciate support from the north central IPM center, and we appreciate the collaboration with the Crop Protection
Network. At crop protectionnetwork.org you can find the war against weeds podcast as well as other podcasts and a variety of other information related to crop protection. Thanks again for listening, and we hope to see you next time you.