An Environment Protection Agency pesticide plan has drawn opposition from the USDA.

SALEM — The USDA warns the Environmental Protection Agency’s “pilot project” restricting pesticides in parts of 29 states will have severe economic consequences for farmers.

The EPA’s proposal discards weighing the risks and benefits of spraying pesticides in favor of significant restrictions for all outdoor uses, according to USDA pest management policy director Kimberly Nesci.

In some cases, the restrictions will pose threats to the regional production of important crops, Nesci stated in a letter to EPA chief pesticide regulator Jan Matuszko.

The USDA’s warning echoes state agricultural officials in red and blue states who say the EPA’s plan to protect 27 species by banning or limiting pesticides represents a fundamental shift in U.S. pesticide policy.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act requires EPA to analyze the costs and benefits of using a pesticide.

The EPA’s pilot program is meant to comply with the Endangered Species Act, including by involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in how pesticides are applied.

“This approach deviates from EPA’s history of risk-based decisions under FIFRA and will have severe economic consequences for some farmers and rural communities in which they operate,” Nesci wrote.

The EPA has not set a timeline for implementing the pilot project, which the agency announced in June, but has set some milestones in a settlement pending in U.S. District Court for Northern California.

If Magistrate Judge Joseph Sero approves the settlement, the EPA will be committed to implementing the project. The EPA also will commit to deciding whether to expand the project to other species by Sept. 30, 2024.

The Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America sued the EPA alleging the agency wasn’t complying with the ESA.

The EPA will pursue the pilot project even without the settlement, EPA spokesman Jeffrey Landis said in an email.

“EPA is in the process of reviewing public comments, determining if revisions are needed, and will incorporate any such changes, as applicable, in the final updated mitigations,” he said.

The proposed settlement demonstrates EPA’s intent to protect other endangered species threatened by pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity attorney Jonathan Evans said in an email.

“If EPA doesn’t take better steps to protect endangered species and comply with the law, it will run up against the same problems that have landed the agency in court numerous times,” he said.

Western Oregon and Western Washington are among the regions most affected by the plan. The EPA has designated more than 2 million acres as “pesticide use limitation areas” for Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies.

Growers would have to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service three months before spraying and might have to take measures such as cutting pesticide use by 40%.

The Washington and Oregon agriculture departments criticizes the proposal, as does the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.

The EPA is abandoning its mandate under FIFRA to analyze the costs and benefits of pesticides and instead is mirroring the European Union’s “precautionary principle,” the association’s CEO, Ted McKinney, said in comments to the EPA.