This quarterly electronic newsletter of FARM & HOME ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS is produced by the staff of the National Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst office. The aim of this newsletter is to inform interested readers about voluntary pollution prevention programs around the nation and about new research and policy impacting the management of environmental risk on farms and in homes. To subscribe or unsubscribe to this online newsletter, for more information, or to contribute to this newsletter, please refer to our website (http://www.uwex.edu/farmasyst), or email editor Mrill Ingram (mingram@wisc.edu.) We welcome comments and feedback!
USDA-CSREES, USDA-NRCS, and the U.S. EPA provide support for our programs.
Farm and Home Environmental Management Programs
Room 303 Hiram Smith Hall
1545 Observatory Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: 608-262-0024
FAX: 608-265-2775
Websites:
http://www.uwex.edu/farmasyst
http://www.uwex.edu/homeasyst
http://www.uwex.edu/AgEMS
http://www.uwex.edu/healthyhome
Do Environmental Management Systems Improve Performance?
ISO 14001, the international voluntary standard for EMSs, was established in 1996. Between that time and the end of 2001, at least 1,645 U.S. businesses and facilities registered with ISO, with registrations increasing at well over 50% a year. Worldwide, an estimated 36,765 organizations were registered.
This increased use of EMS raises an obvious question: Does an EMS, third-party auditing, or ISO certification represent superior environmental performance? According to a recently completed study, the answer is yes, although superior environmental performance requires motivators external to the EMS.
The National Database on Environmental Management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, undertook a study of 83 facilities in 17 states. The research group examined environmental performance at a range of businesses and government facilities, before, during, and after the introduction of an EMS, analyzing performance according to one to ten "environmental performance indicators," or EPIs. The EPIs were tracked for an average of two-and-a-half years. Over 60 percent of the reporting facilities showed improvements in at least half the indicators associated with their EMS objectives and targets. Less than one-third reported any worsening of these environmental indicators. The research also suggests that an EMS may improve an operation's environmental performance by raising the awareness of employees about opportunities for environmental performance improvement in general, not only those indicators singled out for emphasis in EMS objectives and targets.
"These results are more likely for facilities that are subsidiaries of publicly traded corporations, owing to their greater resources, but they occur in privately held and government facilities as well," said Dr. Richard N.L. Andrews of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who helped conduct the study. "The evidence also suggests that these systems are highly variable in their content, priorities and judgments of what is important. The existence of certification of an EMS per se does not necessarily provide any clear information, or information comparable to other facilities, about the facility's actual environmental performance, compliance or rate of improvement."
Interestingly, the report also found that improvements at uncertified facilities were not statistically different from ISO14001 certified operations utilizing 3rd-party auditors, and that there was no significant difference in compliance improvement between facilities that intended to certify to ISO and those that did not. The group did report, however, that motivation matters. Facilities motivated by market considerations were more successful at improving their regulatory compliance rates. Such considerations included using EMS as a marketing tool, the influence of customers, pressure from shareholders, and potential for competitive advantage. Not surprisingly then, the group also found that the eleven facilities that improved their compliance rates were publicly traded or private firms. More than two-thirds of the facilities that had not improved were government installations.
Overall, the report states, most organizations said they were glad they developed their EMS, with 86% reporting that they had reaped benefits. The study was sponsored by the U.S. EPA's Office of Wastewater Management and EPA's Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation and also supported by the Multi-State Working Group on Environmental Management Systems. Copies of the report are available on the web at http://ndems.cas.unc.edu/.
Manure Hauling Crisis In Pennsylvania Calls Attention To The Many Facets Of Waste Management.
Livestock producers in southwest Pennsylvania are learning some lessons that might be useful to other states and producers. Somerset County, like many other rural areas of the nation, has experienced an increase in the number of large-scale animal confinement operations with manure storage tanks or lagoons sized between 1 and 5 million gallons. Commercial haulers for the removal of the manure have become a critical part of how farmers are managing waste from these operations.
The increase in large trucks hauling manure has taken a dramatic toll on road surfaces in the area, however. In response to complaints from local taxpayers about deteriorating road surfaces, the state of Pennsylvania recently asked manure haulers to post a bond similar to what lumber trucks already post.
The situation became a crisis in March of this year when the single hauler who carried manure for three counties chose to cease hauling rather than pay the approximate $400 annual bond per truck. Producers were left, well, up a manure lagoon without a paddle. In the short term, the area hauler has been given emergency permission to continue hauling without posting bond. The state legislature is planning on returning to the issue in the fall.
Pennsylvania's experience demonstrates some of the ongoing second-level economic and environmental issues related to the expansion of CAFOs, and also underscores the importance of emergency planning and good community relations for farmers with large operations.
Report from Workshop on Performance-Based Environmental Policies For Agriculture.
According to a recent workshop on agri-environmental policy, a paradigm shift is taking place in how we think about agricultural conservation programming. Performance-based environmental policies for agriculture are likely to be a prominent part of U.S. agri-environmental policy in the coming decades. Agriculture is the leading contributor of nonpoint source pollution to ground and surface water in the U.S. Current policies and programs to control agricultural pollution have focused on voluntary, design-based measures-farm infrastructure, such as manure storage lagoons or stream bank fencing, or implementation of best management practices (BMPs), such as grass buffer strips or nutrient management planning. However, there has been increasing concern over the technical- and cost-effectiveness of these programs, and the uncertainty over whether the ultimate goal--increased environmental quality--is actually achieved.
Performance-based environmental policies for agriculture were the subject of a workshop in Washington, D.C., March 20 and 21, 2003. In his keynote address, Stanley Johnson, vice provost for Extension at Iowa State University, outlined some compelling motivations for agricultural and environmental groups to work together to develop performance-based policies to meet their respective objectives. For producers these motivations include providing predictability, less costly solutions, flexibility and innovation, as well as a social contract with the environmental community. Environmentalists may be motivated by the increased accountability inherent in performance-based approaches.
Both Tom Christensen of USDA, and Clayton Ogg of EPA, emphasized that within their respective agencies, the outlook is toward performance- and market-based watershed-level solutions to agriculturally-related environmental problems.
Other key points from the plenary session presentations include:
Farm Foundation sponsored the workshop, which was organized by Winrock International's Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy, in collaboration with USDA's Economic Research Service, the Center for Sustainable Development at the University of California-Berkley, and Defenders of Wildlife. To read more about the workshop, visit: http://www.winrock.org/events/wallace/PEPA/index.cfm.
Rural Buyer Beware: Assess Your Private Well And Wastewater System.
I have heard horror stories from people who have purchased a country home. One couple I know moved into their home to find that their well and wastewater system needed to be replaced, costing them tens of thousands of dollars. Another friend of mine bought a house where a sinkhole later appeared. After several years of problems he was lucky to sell the property at a loss of many thousands of dollars.
A trend is emerging in today's rural real estate market. Buyers are becoming more aware of the need to assess both their private drinking water and their wastewater system. People are asking more questions regarding their investment in rural property from an environmental perspective (e.g. sinkholes or abandoned wells). Numerous states are beginning to require various types of inspections as this becomes a hot consumer issue.
If you are a buyer you must examine what you are purchasing. Make an accurate evaluation before you buy so you are not plagued with future environmental headaches. When you sell your property in years to come, you can be assured that property transfer assessment will be the rule rather than the exception.
Assessments to help you figure out the questions to ask and how to get answers are available from Home*A*Syst and Farm*A*Syst programs (http://www.wisc.edu/farmasyst/), and are also offered by some university extension and county programs. These resources will encourage you to consider questions about the condition and siting of your spring or well, as well as the sources and results of water testing. If a system is unused, there may be no way to verify that an unused system functions properly. In those cases, the buyer may demand that money to cover repairs should be placed in escrow for at least 6 months, put the system into use, and see how it goes. Buyers also need to consider the wastewater system, including drain fields and septic systems. Conventional septic systems often wear out after 30 years.
The Private Well Testing Act & Other Legislation
New Jersey's Private Well Testing Act, passed in 2002, is one example of emerging laws. This act requires landlords to test private drinking-water wells once a year and provide results to tenants. Starting in March 2003, private well testing for bacteria (total coliform), nitrate, iron, manganese, pH, volatile organic compounds, lead and possibly other parameters is required in the contract of sale of new properties. This is for wells with less than 15 service connections or serving at least 25 individuals. In addition, the closing of title on the sale of a property shall not occur unless the buyer and seller have received and reviewed a copy of the water test results.
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse recently completed a survey of state requirements for pre-sale inspection protocols for onsite wastewater systems during property transfers. Here is some of what they found: In Idaho, lending institutions require a home loan survey or mortgage survey of the water and sewer system. For wells and septic systems the local district health department (for a fee) performs this survey. Any septic tank and drainfield permits and applications are reviewed in the office and location or as-built drawings are brought to the home for the parcel review. While the well production test is in progress the drainfield and septic tank locations are evaluated. Lending institutions also require proof of having the tank pumped within the last 3 years, or the tank is pumped out at the expense of the owner.
In Iowa, some counties that have time-of-transfer inspection ordinances typically require sellers or realtors to have the inspection done prior to the sale of the property. In Louisiana, the seller of the home contacts the local parish office to find out if the system was ever permitted, and if so, what type of system was installed. In Massachusetts all onsite systems must be inspected by a state certified inspector.
Nebraska and Oklahoma do not have any state regulation requiring inspection, but in Nebraska the State Health Department will inspect the well and septic system and take a water sample for $100. In Oklahoma the assessment is performed if requested by the lending institutions.
Conclusion
As more people purchase rural property, the need to evaluate wells, springs and wastewater systems is emerging. This is especially true as people invest their savings in property instead of the stock market. Banks and lending institutions are becoming proactive in requiring property examination of private water and wastewater systems since it is in their best interest. Buyers are well advised to pursue some sort of environmental property assessment or escrow account options. Caveat emptor, buyers beware that you may be buying some future liabilities. Cover your assets when you purchase rural property by finding out exactly what you're paying for.
For more information on drinking water browse the Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst online library at: http://www1.uwex.edu/ces/farmasyst/library/librarysearch.cfm. Other useful websites include: http://www.groundwater.org; http://www.epa.gov/safewater/; and http://www.well-aware.org.
Rob Arner, lives in Edinburg, VA. He can be contacted at rarner@shentel.net.
Updates on the Livestock Environmental Management Systems Project.
The new Virginia Poultry Environmental Management Systems website is up and active. It was created as a result of producer requests to make electronic versions of EMS template forms available. The site can be found at http://poultryems.ag.vt.edu/. These materials, tailored for Virginia poultry producers, include an assessment tool and guidebook.
In Iowa, Jim Venner reports that he is working with 42 producers to pursue a modified EMS on farms. Jim held two group meetings in March and is now planning on visiting the farms for one-on-one visits over the summer to pursue the EMS process. "I'm another set of eyes for these producers, and am encouraging good documentation," Venner explains. He reports that the project has had a good reception from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
According to John Harrison from Utah State University, 2,632 Animal Feeding Operations have been inventoried in the state. Of these, 332 are potential CAFOs; 98 have a comprehensive nutrient management plan in progress, 21 have started to implement their plan, and approximately 50 have them completed. There are 54 actual CAFOs, forming the main target group for EMS development. USU is receiving $73,000 in federal funds to support producers in developing management plans. Harrison will work with a team including representatives from the Farm Bureau, conservation districts, NRCS and DEQ in order to assist producers in developing plans. "The plans will be more and less complex depending on the needs of the producer," Harrison explains. "The EMS is the overarching umbrella for the plans."
For more about the Livestock EMS project, including updates on activities in all pilot states, please visit: http://www.uwex.edu/AgEMS/livestock/.
**"Dairy Whole-Farm Nutrient Management: The Diet Connection."
A new curriculum has been designed to help minimize nutrients in feed that can contribute to excess nutrients in the environment. The nutrient management training tool, for farmers, students in agriculture, and related agribusiness professionals, focuses on dietary management. The curriculum includes a PowerPoint presentation, speaker notes, and supplemental publications on dairy diets and nutrient management planning. For more information or to request a copy contact Leah Nell Adams at (608) 265-2379 or lnadams@wisc.edu.
**New Publication: "Recycling Agricultural Plastics in New York State."
Emissions from open burning of plastics are much greater than from controlled incineration (e.g., 20 times as much dioxin, 40 times as much particulate matter), and these emissions pose risks to human health. Learn more from this 30 page report, available online at http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/erap/C&ER. For print availability, contact Environmental Risk Analysis Program, 213 Rice Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; (607) 255-4765; envrisk@cornell.edu.
**Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection.
The Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection Web site is a searchable database of federal financial assistance sources (grants, loans, cost-sharing) available to fund a variety of watershed protection projects. To search the Catalog, visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/.
New USDA Energy Grants. USDA has announced funding is now available for grants under the first-ever Energy Title of the 2002 Farm Bill. Farmers, ranchers, and small businesses may apply for grants under the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program. Information on the program and funding available can be found at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rd/nofas/index.html, or by calling the USDA Rural Development office in your state. Information about additional energy grants provided for by the Farm Bill and about USDA's energy policy can be found at http://www.usda.gov/farmbill and http://www.usda.gov/energy/ respectively.
Senate leaders have agreed to restore full funding to the Conservation Security Program (CSP), which was slashed by nearly one-half during final negotiations for the 2003 federal budget as a strategy to offset $3.1 billion in weather-related crop and livestock losses over the last 2 years. The CSP would reward farmers and ranchers who practice land, water, and wildlife stewardship as part of their ongoing work, with "green payments." Full funding, estimated at $7.7 billion through 2012, would pay for all producers with approved conservation plans who want to participate in the program. Without additional funding from Congress, the program is currently capped at $3.8 billion. For more information on the status of the program, see, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002/products.html, or visit, http://www.sustainableagriculture.net/CSP.php.
**The 3rd National Conference on Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture, November 10-13th, 2003, Tanunda, South Australia.
"Agriculture, Business and the Environment - the role of EMS : Why bother? --- Advancing the debate." The conference will provide attendees with the opportunity to compare ideas and approaches with regard to the development and application of Environmental Management Systems (EMS), hear about latest developments in Australia and overseas and contribute to the debate on how to make EMS work for improved environmental and business outcomes in agriculture. Contact: Erica Hancock, Service Development Consultant Field Crops, Rural Solutions SA, P.O. Box 245, Nuriootpa 5355, Tel: 08 85686416, Fax: 08 85686449 M: 0401 122 091
Email: hancock.erica@saugov.sa.gov.au; or visit: http://www.solutions.pir.sa.gov.au/.
**National Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils National Conference, San Antonio, TX, July 20-23; contact NARC&D, (202) 434-4780; http://www.narcdconference.org.
**Sustainable Land Application Conference
August 1, abstract submission deadline for poster presentations on applying waste materials to soils, January 4-8, 2004, in Orlando, FL; contact University of Florida/IFAS Office of Conferences & Institutes, (352) 392-5930; http://www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/landapp
**Towards a Global Future: Linking Economics, Environments, Resources, Communities and Cultures through Science and Technology.
International Conference on Agricultural Science and Technology (ICAST) 2003, October 12-15, 2003, in Houston, TX; http://www.2003icast.org/mainframe.htm.
**You Get What You Measure, training by Yellow Wood Associates, Inc., of St. Albans, VT, to explore the connections between goals, indicators, measures, and the assumptions about how or whether specific actions will affect progress towards the goal. Community development and natural resource professionals seeking to build the capacity of their organizations or communities are good candidates for becoming Measurement Guides, according to Yellow Wood. A training will be held in St. Albans, VT, August 4-6, 2003. For more information, visit http://www.yellowwood.org/BMG.htm.
**Third National Nonpoint Source Pollution Information & Education Programs Conference.
October 20-23, 2003; Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago, Illinois. This conference will provide a unique opportunity -- at a national scale -- to learn and share ideas on nonpoint source information and education strategies. The conference will explore practical, state-of-the-art examples of successful outreach programs through multi-media sessions. The target audiences include nonpoint source, watershed, and TMDL program staff at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as environmental service groups that may work closely with local adult and youth education programs. Contact: Bob Kirschner, Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Rd., Glencoe, Illinois, 60022; E-mail: bkirschn@chicagobotanic.org.
RESOURCES from Farm And Home Environmental Management Programs
