The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released a proposal in December 2024 to list the iconic monarch butterfly as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Read more about the proposed listing here.
Input from the agricultural community on this proposal is critical for growers who farm within migratory regions and may be put at risk for repercussions from ‘take’ of this species. Growers and farming organizations are highly encouraged to submit comments, particularly on the potential implications carrying out agricultural practices necessary for farming, pesticide use and protecting the establishment and maintenance of pollinator habitat on farm.
USFWS is reopening the public comment period for 60 days, starting on March 19, 2025, and will close May 19, 2025. Comments that were previously submitted do not need to be resubmitted as they are already incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final listing determination. The comments are in response to this proposal: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-R3-ES-2024-0137-0001
You may upload or type in comments by clicking “comment” in the top left corner, or submit comments here.
The most helpful submissions will include scientifically sound, well-cited factual responses that address support, concerns, and impacts on agriculture. Note that if you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website.
A letter template developed by Western Growers for comments is below. Please use this template as your organization sees fit. Western Growers will also be submitting extended comments and can provide additional key points if needed. Please contact Jeana Cadby, Environment and Climate Director, at ([email protected]) for questions regarding submission or for input on additional, detailed points that can be included in your organization’s comment letters.
—————————————–
To:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
RE: Federal Register docket number FWS-R3-ES-2024-0137
[Organization Name] appreciates this opportunity to comment on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s proposal to list the monarch butterfly as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2024-0137).
[Describe organization here. For example, Western Growers is a non-profit agricultural trade association that represents farmers growing fresh produce in Arizona, California, Colorado and New Mexico. Our members and their workers provide over half the nation’s fresh fruits, vegetables and tree nuts, including nearly half of America’s fresh organic produce. OR Acme Farms has been growing broccoli and romaine hearts for 15 years in Santa Maria, California, and has been maintaining pollinator habitat on all of our farms for the past 10 years.]
We commend the Service for taking this important step to protect and foster recovery of the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species Act. We would like to express our support for the listing of the monarch butterfly as a threatened species and the proposed designation of its critical habitat based on both the observed number of monarch butterflies and the recurring seasonal colonization at overwintering sites along the California coast. We also support the exemptions outlined in the Proposed 4(d) Rule, which include, among others, (1) routine agricultural activities and (2) the establishment, restoration, and management of milkweed and nectar habitats
The Service’s proposed exemptions allow for the continued participation in conservation programs as well as routine agricultural activities, such as cultivation and land management. These exemptions ensure working lands remain a vital part of the solution by providing essential habitat for monarchs to feed and reproduce.
As stated in the draft listing proposal, “Private landowner and general public support are crucial because the species is wide-ranging and needs broad conservation action, from small- to large-scale efforts, throughout [the monarch’s] range.” We are eager to collaborate with USFWS to ensure that growers who are conserving pollinator habitat do not fear repercussions and are not forced to remove existing habitat they foster on farm. For the reason that agriculture can provide key resources to support monarch conservation, it is critical that the Service allows farmers to use the necessary tools and practices they need to provide the freshest, safest, and most affordable produce to feed the world. There are several key areas we have summarized below, namely Critical Habitat, Pesticide Use Considerations, and Ag Land and Ag Practices.
Critical Habitat
Regarding the Critical Habitat designation outlined in the Proposed Rule, we support the identification and protection of overwintering sites and believe that farmers’ participation is essential due to the large area of farmland in proximity to its migratory pathways.
The criteria used to identify the selected overwintering sites as critical habitat is reasonable. Regarding the critical habitat designation, we are in agreement that the best available scientific data must be utilized to support the migratory monarch’s critical habitat designation. Further, we agree that there is insufficient jurisdictional authority and data to justify expanding the critical habitat designation to include breeding and migratory areas outside of the overwintering habitat, which are subject to change due to climate change as stated in proposal. We also concur with the Proposed Rule that nonmigratory habitats should be excluded from the critical habitat designation, as “this kind of habitat in North America is broad and spatially diffuse”.
Further, exemptions in the Proposed Rule are crucial to avoid unintended consequences that could discourage the creation and maintenance of monarch habitats. To effectively promote the creation of monarch habitat nationwide, we suggest the inclusion of the statement that (1) farmers’ participation is essential due to the large area of farmland in proximity to its migratory pathways, and that (2) there must not be the threat of harsh penalties under the Endangered Species Act for this voluntary goodwill.
Pesticide Use Considerations
The Service requested feedback on incorporating pesticide considerations in the Proposed Rule and we respectfully request that pesticides applied in accordance with their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved labels be included under the routine agricultural activities’ exemption and guidance from the vast knowledgebase of localized institutions and extension networks for pesticide use best practices rather than creating new regulations via the Proposed Rule. Additionally, we support an exemption for pesticide use under the 4(d) rule.
Particularly for the western region, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is highly restrictive in terms of allowable pesticides and application methods, more restrictive than any other U.S. state. According to the California DPR’s most recent annual Pesticide Use Report, reported pesticide use in California declined by more than 5% between 2021 and 2022, reflecting a longer-term trend. Guidance and resources to reduce pesticide use and drift for farmers via DPR, EPA, and the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR) to reduce pesticide drift are highly recommended localized and well-researched guidance for pesticide use management, rather than new guidance created via the Proposed Rule.
Further, the EPA, which has the authority to register pesticides, has initiated a comprehensive, long-term approach to identify and implement mitigation measures for pesticides that affect listed species. Existing projects and strategies currently in place (or in the process of being created) under EPA “Workplan to Protect Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides” fully outline mitigations to protect listed species under FIFRA, allowing EPA to meet its ESA obligations. These EPA strategies are put in place to limit adverse impacts on the environment and protected species. Through current rigorous scientific evaluation, the FIFRA registration standard requires the EPA adequately manages risk(s) to non-target species through pesticide labels. These protections are the basis for our support for an exemption under the 4(d) for pesticide use, according to label instructions, exempting incidental take. Introducing additional regulations would lead to dual authorities and likely cause confusion leading to non-compliance due to misunderstanding.
Ag land and ag practices
Finally, we generally support and agree with the incidental take exemptions associated with “Routine agricultural activities…[on] lands already in use for agricultural production” under the “Activities that may maintain, enhance, remove or establish milkweed and nectar plants within the breeding and migratory range that do not result in conversion of native or naturalized grassland, shrubland, or forested habitats” in the 4(d) rule. It is critical that “routine agriculture” as described in the Proposed Rule includes necessary tools and practices to continue to produce fresh produce for the United States and beyond.
We are proud to work with the Service to collaborate and contribute to conservation of the iconic monarch butterfly. Our growers have demonstrated that agriculture and pollinator conservation work hand in hand, and we are grateful for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service support of the agriculture industry. We look forward to continuing our work together as we develop and implement positive solutions to meet our shared goal — thriving pollinator conservation and feeding the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Title]