EPA Unveils Draft Fungicide Strategy to Protect Endangered Species Across Texas and Beyond

The Environmental Protection Agency has released its draft strategy for addressing how fungicide use affects endangered species, completing a regulatory trilogy that now covers herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides under a unified framework for species protection.

The strategy, published in early May, establishes how the agency will evaluate new fungicide registrations and review existing products through the lens of the Endangered Species Act. When finalized in November, it will apply to all states except Hawaii and could result in new label requirements, buffer zones, and application restrictions for fungicide products used across Texas agriculture.

Unlike a self-implementing regulation, the strategy serves as a guiding document that EPA will apply case-by-case when evaluating specific pesticide actions. The goal is reducing harm to the more than 1,600 species listed under the Endangered Species Act—260 of which the agency has already identified as potentially requiring protection through Pesticide Use Limitation Areas (PULAs).

The draft document identifies 85 listed vertebrates, 39 listed invertebrates including 15 mussel species, and 136 listed plants as potentially affected by fungicide exposure. For Texas growers, this matters because the state's diverse ecosystems—from Gulf Coast wetlands to West Texas grasslands—host numerous protected species that could trigger mitigation requirements.

Spray drift emerges as the primary concern in the draft strategy. Because fungicides can travel off-target during application, potentially reaching species habitats adjacent to agricultural fields, EPA is proposing specific adjuvant requirements to reduce drift distances. Oil emulsion drift reduction adjuvants and polysaccharide (guar gum) products would allow applicators to reduce buffer sizes when spraying near sensitive areas.

Notably, polymer adjuvants did not make the approved list. EPA cited their susceptibility to pump shear after multiple circulations in spray tanks, which reduces effectiveness in later applications—a technical detail with practical implications for growers selecting spray additives.

The strategy's development stems from a settlement agreement between EPA, CropLife America, and environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network. That settlement imposed deadlines for addressing the agency's long-standing failure to meet Endangered Species Act obligations for pesticide reviews.

EPA's own 2022 workplan acknowledged the scope of the problem: despite approving over 1,000 pesticide ingredients and thousands of uses over previous decades, the agency had met its ESA obligations for less than 5 percent of those actions. The resulting lawsuits and court-ordered consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service created a regulatory bottleneck that the strategy-based approach aims to resolve.

For the Texas pest control industry, the fungicide strategy adds another layer of complexity to an already intricate regulatory environment. Pest management professionals who apply fungicides for lawn and ornamental treatments, structural protection, or agricultural contracts will need to track which products receive modified labels under the new framework.

The draft is currently open for stakeholder input. EPA plans to engage with grower groups, certified applicators, federal and state partners, and non-governmental organizations through meetings and webinars before finalizing the document. The agency may also propose label language directing users to its Mitigation Menu website for specific requirements based on location and product.

Texas agriculture faces particular exposure to these changes. The state's massive row-crop operations, extensive ranchlands, and diverse specialty crop sectors all rely on fungicides for disease management. Cotton, corn, sorghum, and wheat producers—as well as the state's growing organic sector—could see application restrictions in areas overlapping with species habitat.

The strategy also raises questions about how EPA will balance species protection with agricultural productivity. Previous herbicide and insecticide strategies generated controversy over buffer zone sizes, seasonal application windows, and the economic impact of restricted chemistries. The fungicide draft suggests similar tensions ahead.

Between now and November, industry stakeholders have an opportunity to shape the final document. Comments submitted during the draft period could influence which mitigation measures make the cut, how PULAs are defined, and what flexibility applicators retain in managing fungal diseases while protecting endangered species.

For a regulatory framework decades in the making, the next six months represent a critical window for getting the details right.