We’ve been harsh critics of the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent proposals to regulate pesticides, herbicides and rodenticides.

In an agreement signed last week between EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, EPA said it will try to align its new pesticide regulations with USDA conservation standards.

We applaud any effort to ameliorate a terrible plan, but we’ll wait for more details to celebrate.

How did we get here?

The Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network filed a lawsuit in 2011, alleging the EPA violated the Endangered Species Act by approving 382 active pesticide ingredients. The suit was referred to by the EPA as the pesticide “megasuit.”

Under the settlement, EPA agreed to drop its chemical-by-chemical, species-by-species approach to evaluating how pesticides affect protected species. Instead, the agency will develop separate “strategies” for herbicides, rodenticides, insecticides and fungicides.

Rather than evaluating pesticide products separately, the EPA agreed to impose restrictions on groups of farm chemicals.

The settlement committed the agency to 27 “pilot projects” that restrict pesticide use to protect threatened or endangered species in parts of 29 states. Those projects, in turn, could be expanded to include other species over greater areas.

The settlement was met with widespread criticism from farm and commodity organizations, state regulators and manufacturers. The plan’s biggest critic turned out to be the Department of Agriculture, which predicted catastrophic impacts on the country’s farmers.

USDA said the pilot program would circumvent the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which requires EPA to analyze the costs and benefits of using a pesticide.

More problematic, it warned the EPA’s proposed strategy for regulating herbicides would be hard to follow, obstruct agricultural production and may motivate farmers to sell land to developers.

“The proposed spray-drift, runoff and soil-erosion mitigations will be an obstacle to the continuing production of agricultural crops in some areas of the U.S.,” USDA said.

No ringing endorsement there.

In the face of withering criticisms, EPA said it would pull back and work with stakeholders to develop a more viable plan. Its memorandum of understanding with USDA is a result of that effort.

The EPA said in a statement that working with the USDA will help it safeguard endangered species from pesticides while keeping crop-protection products in the hands of farmers.

Under its original plan, EPA was to assign points for various measures farmers could take to protect the environment from impacts of chemicals. Without adequate points — and critics said the preliminary plan would be nearly impossible to meet — farmers wouldn’t be allowed to spray.

According to the new agreement, the EPA will identify Natural Resources Conservation Service practices that will count toward protecting endangered plants, fish and wildlife.

The EPA did not commit to embracing all NRCS practices, so the practical effect is unclear. But, it appears the agency will allow at least some existing standard practices to meet new label requirements.

Stakeholders should not drop their guard. Until the details are known, we have to assume the plan still endangers agricultural production.