| Summary: | Abstract In April 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced a workplan for pesticide registration and reregistration to meet obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which included a menu of suggested mitigation measures to reduce potential for exposure of nontarget species to runoff, spray drift, and erosion. If adopted on registered product labels, it enables a prospective registrant to meet more stringent ESA criteria for registration, even during non‐ESA‐issued interim decisions. This paper identifies and evaluates complexities posed by the mitigation menu approach that could undermine good intentions underlying this new process and uses existing economic considerations to analyze positive and negative externalities. Several points of complexity demonstrate how the mitigation menu approach would benefit from further regulatory development or refinement. Changes should be informed by fundamental questions about the dynamics between landowners and land managers and, crucially, different motivations decision‐makers face in adopting voluntary versus regulatory mitigations.
|
|---|