Michigan State University Extension
Farm Safety Bulletins - 11940001
05/20/97
GROUNDWATER PROGRAM
A Summary of Laws, Regulations and Management Practices With Potential to Affect Michigan Pesticide Users
Robert W. Pigg, Mark Swartz, Larry Olsen, Lynnae Jess*
*Robert Pigg is a groundwater program specialist for the Michigan Department of Agriculture. Mark Swartz is the Michigan Department of Agriculture groundwater program manager. Larry Olsen is the Pesticide Education Coordinator for Michigan State University Extension. Lynnae Jess is a Pesticide Education associate for Michigan State Unversity Extension.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of tables
Introduction
Michigan Pesticide Control Act
Michigan Groundwater and Freshwater Protection A
Michigan Right-to-Farm Act
Agricultural Best Management Practices Manual for Michigan's Non-point Source Pollution Program
USDA Soil Conservation Service and Groundwater Protection in Michigan
USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and Groundwater Protection in Michigan
Pesticide Labels
FarmASyst Farmstead Assessment System
National Food Security Act of 1985 Conservation Provisions (1985 Farm Bill)
U.S. Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Amendments to the Food Security Act of 1985 (1990 Farm Bill)
Environmental Protection Agency Worker Protection Standard
SARA Title III
Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act Right-to-Know Law
Michigan Environmental Response Act
Michigan Hazardous Waste Management Act
Michigan Solid Waste Management Act
Michigan Underground Storage Tank Rules
Michigan Motor Vehicle Code
Michigan Water Resources Commission Act
Michigan Drinking Water Supplies from Groundwater Sources and Their Protection
Michigan Endangered Species Act
References
Appendix 39
LIST OF TABLES
Table I. Summary of Laws, Rules and Management Practices Directly and Indirectly Affecting Agrichemical Use and Water Quality in Michigan.
Table II. Reference Guide to P.A. 171 and Related Pesticide Management Practices
Table III. Reference Guide to Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices
Table IV. Reference Guide to CWA Agricultural Best Management Practices
Table V. Reference Guide to SCS Conservation Practices
Table VI. Reference Guide to ASCS Conservation Practices and References
Table VII. Reference Guide to Michigan FarmASyst Materials
Table VIII. Reference Guide to Food Security Act Conservation Rules
Table IX. Reference Guide to Worker Protection Standards
Table X. Reference Guide to SARA Title III Requirements
Table XI. Reference Guide to Michigan Right-to-Know Law
Table XII. Reference Guide to Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act Rules
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the following individuals
for providing information, answering questions, and
reviewing and commenting on this publication.
Mitch Adelman MDNRþEnvironmental Response Elgar Brown MDPHþWater Supply Antonio Castro-Escobar MDAþPPPM Keith Creagh MDAþPPPM Charles Cubbage MDAþExecutive Michael Decapita USFWS Kathy Fedder MDAþPPPM Dave Ford MSPþMotor Carrier Shirley Gammon USDAþSCS Roy Hall USDAþSCS Lynell Marolf MDNRþEnvironmental Response Arthur Nash MSPþFire Marshall Bob Payne USDAþASCS Gary Rinkenbarger USDAþSCS Brian Rowe MDAþPPPM Al Shapley MSUþAgricultural Economics Kurt Thelen MDAþEnvironmental Dave Wade MDAþPPPM Tom Weise MDNRþWildlife Ben Zimont MDNRþLand and Water
INTRODUCTION
This paper summarizes federal and Michigan laws, rules
and standards that affect pesticide use, fertilizer use and
groundwater quality. Its purpose is to provide a clearer
picture of the standards to be considered while developing
groundwater stewardship practices and stewardship plans
under the Groundwater and Freshwater Protection Act. This
bulletin is also intended to facilitate interagency
coordination of groundwater programs and the unification of
standards. The laws, rules and standards covered in this
paper and the areas they address are summarized in Table I.
Table Summary of Laws, Rules and Management Practices Directly and Indirectly Affecting Agrichemical Use and Water Quality in Michigan. Shading indicates general areas covered. Compiled from "References."
Farmstead & Point Source Pollutant Control
Pesticide/haz. material storage & handling
Pesticide/haz. material transportation
Pesticide/haz. material disposal
Petroleum storage
Septic systems
Integrated Farm Management
Contour cropping
Cover crops
Endangered species protection
Integrated pest management
Integrated crop management
Irrigation practices
Nutrient management
Pastures
Stripcropping
Tillage
Wetlands management
Woodlands management
Surface Water Quality Protection
Diversions & dikes
Field drainage
Filter strips & field borders
Highly erodible land
Livestock management
Riparian buffers
Runoff & wastewater management
Sediment control structures
Waterways
Windbreaks
Training & Worker Protection
Emergency planning
Notification requirements
Pesticide certification
Recordkeeping
Worker protection
Wellhead Protection
Wellhead protection in karst terrain
Location & isolation area
Manure handling & storage
Pesticide mixing & loading
Agrichemical storage & containment
Underground storage tanks
MICHIGAN PESTICIDE CONTROL ACT
The Michigan Pesticide Control Act (Act 171 of the
Public Acts of 1976, as amended) is the primary vehicle for
pesticide regulation in Michigan. The Michigan Department
of Agriculture (MDA) is responsible for administering Act
171. It regulates the distribution, labeling and
application of pesticides. It requires the registration of
pesticides, the certification of private and commercial
(for hire) pesticide applicators, and the licensing of
restricted use pesticides (RUP) dealers. Act 171 is
implemented through regulations addressing pesticide use,
restricted use pesticides, pesticide applicators and bulk
pesticide storage. The act was amended in July 1993 to
prohibit local units of government from enacting ordinances
related to pesticides unless use of the pesticide in
question would result in unreasonable adverse impacts or
would violate state or federal laws. Act 171 was further
amended in November 1993 by additional provisions governing
the registration of RUPs, the cancellation of pesticide
registrations, and the development and implementation of
groundwater protection rules and activity plans.
Regulations
Regulations relevant to groundwater protection have
been promulgated under Public Act 171. They are presented
in Table II in the Appendix and are summarized below.
Regulation 633: Restricted Use Pesticides. Regulation
633 lists Michigan RUPs. This list includes by reference
all RUPs as classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, in addition to state-specific RUPs. Pesticides
that are not RUPs are general use pesticides.
RUPs may be sold only by persons holding an RUP
dealer's license. Prospective RUP dealers must pass a
written exam before they can be issued a license. Dealers
must record all sales of RUPs and provide the sales
information to the MDA monthly.
Federal law (FIFRAþthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act) requires applicators of RUPs to be
certified or to operate under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator. Michigan certification rules
parallel the federal laws, and as a result, RUPs may be
sold only to persons who comply fully with applicator
certification and registration requirementsþthat is, to
private agricultural applicators and commercial
applicators. Commercial applicator certification also
allows them to apply general use pesticides for hire. All
certified applicators must demonstrate additional training
and knowledge to be certified in and to be able to purchase
RUPs for specific categories, subcategories and application
methods (e.g., aerial applications).
Regulation 636: Pesticide Applicators. Regulation 636
establishes two types of pesticide applicators. Private
agricultural applicators are defined as persons applying
pesticides for a private agricultural use. Commercial
applicators are those persons who are not private
agricultural applicators, and who use or supervise the use
of an RUP, or who apply general or restricted use
pesticides for hire or in the course of their regular
employment.
Persons applying general use pesticides for a private
agricultural purpose are exempt from certification and
registration requirements. Persons who do NOT work for a
licensed pesticide applicator and who use general use
ready-to-use pesticides are also exempt from the
requirements. "Ready-to-use" is defined as a pesticide
used directly from the manufacturer's original container
that does not require mixing or loading.
To be certified, commercial applicators must
demonstrate, in a written exam, a practical knowledge of
the principles and practices of pest management and the
safe use of pesticides. They must meet general standards
applicable to all categories and standards specifically
identified for each category or subcategory of
certification they desire.
Certification of private agricultural applicators
requires the applicant to demonstrate, in a written or an
oral exam, practical knowledge of the principles and
practices of pest management and the safe use of
pesticides, including federal standards set forth in
regulations pertaining to the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Certificates may
restrict an applicant to certain types of pesticides or
equipment.
The regulation also sets criteria for registered
applicator standards. Registered applicators must
demonstrate by exam a practical knowledge of the basic
principles and practices of pest management, pesticide
label comprehension and safe pesticide use. Registered
applicators may not apply RUPs unless (1) they are under
the direct supervision of a certified applicator, or (2)
they have applied a particular RUP under the direct
supervision of a certified applicator for a specific number
of hours as required by rule, unless prohibited by the
specific pesticide label. The second exemption is valid
only during a registered applicator's first registration
period (to encourage applicators to become certified).
Regulation 636 defines standards for trainers of
applicators and for recordkeeping by commercial
applicators.
Regulation 637: Pesticide Use. Regulation 637 sets
standards for pesticide use. It requires that pesticides
be used in a manner consistent with their labels, that
applications be made in a manner that prevents off-target
discharges of pesticides, and that pesticide application
equipment be properly calibrated and in sound mechanical
condition.
The regulation establishes a registry of persons who
because of a medically documented condition require
notification before pesticides are applied on property
adjacent to their residences. Commercial pesticide
applicator firms licensed in certain categories are
required to notify persons on the registry before applying
pesticides within a given distance of addresses on the
registry. A similar rule creates a list of organic farms
so that commercial applicators may take steps to avoid the
inadvertent application of pesticides on organic farms. It
sets notification and posting requirements for applications
on lawns, golf courses, rights-of-way, and commercial and
public buildings.
Commercial pesticide mixing and loading operations and
commercial pesticide washing and rinsing operations are
restricted to impervious pads built to contain spills and
rinsate. The regulation sets standards for handling excess
pesticides and pesticide-containing materials, and it
prohibits storing pesticides in underground tanks.
Regulation 637 also sets guidelines for personal
protective equipment, control of off-target pesticide
drift, the necessary content of pesticide service
agreements, standards on claims regarding pesticide safety,
the use of pesticides in schools, the establishment of
integrated pest management programs for schools and public
buildings, and the proper use and disposal of pesticide-
containing materials.
Regulation 640: Commercial Pesticide Bulk Storage.
Regulation 640 defines storage requirements for bulk
pesticides. It does not regulate pesticide storage by
agricultural producers for use on their farms. It sets
standards for siting, building and registering bulk
pesticide storage facilities; constructing primary and
secondary containment areas; and facility inspection and
maintenance. All bulk pesticide storage facilities must
prepare discharge response plans and provide current copies
to local fire and police/sheriff's departments. Facility
operators must also comply with the regulation's
recordkeeping requirements, which are in addition to those
stipulated under Regulation 633.
MICHIGAN GROUNDWATER AND FRESHWATER PROTECTION ACT
Recent changes in federal pesticide registration
criteria required Michigan to develop a groundwater
protection plan or face cancellation of several pesticides
that may pose a threat to groundwater quality, including
alachlor, atrazine, bromacil, carbofuran, cyanazine,
metolachlor, metribuzin and simazine. The Groundwater and
Freshwater Protection Act (Act 247 of the Public Acts of
1993) provides for the proactive protection of groundwater
from contamination by pesticides and fertilizers. Under
this act the MDA, in conjunction with appropriate agencies,
will be developing and promoting the implementation of
voluntary "groundwater stewardship practices" designed to
protect groundwater. The MDA will be promoting the use of
a farmstead assessment system based on the FarmASyst
package, that is designed to show pesticide and fertilizer
users the degree to which they are following groundwater
stewardship practices.
The Groundwater and Freshwater Protection Act was
designed to provide the MDA the ability to help the
agriculture industry develop acceptable groundwater
protection plans, as well as the resources to promote
education, technical assistance and cost-share programs for
persons interested in groundwater quality. A Groundwater
Advisory Council (GAC), which will oversee the groundwater
stewardship program, was formed under this act. The MDA
will be working with the SCS, Soil and Water Conservation
Districts and MSU Extension to provide education, technical
assistance and cost-share programs for persons wishing to
implement groundwater stewardship practices voluntarily.
Resources will be available through the stewardship
program for sprayer fill areas, pesticide storage
facilities, irrigation scheduling and other groundwater
protection practices. Support will also be available for
farmers dealing with possible sources of groundwater
contamination such as abandoned wells, pesticide spill
containment, programs to pick up unused pesticides and
pesticide container recycling programs.
The act requires that all pesticide-containing
ingredients that have been confirmed in groundwater above
20 percent of the EPA's maximum contaminant level (MCL) and
pesticide-containing ingredients for which a pesticide
state management plan (PSMP) is required be registered as
RUPs in Michigan. The director may establish additional
criteria for RUP designation due to groundwater concerns.
The MDA is responsible for tracking the application of
RUPs to their county of application and has the authority
to require more refined tracking for pesticides requiring
a PSMP. Tracking may be used to set priorities for
groundwater protection programs.
The MDA will be expanding its groundwater monitoring
program to provide for the general screening of groundwater
quality for domestic well owners; the determination of the
relative risk of groundwater contamination associated with
various pesticide and fertilizer uses; monitoring to
evaluate and assess problems and potential problems for
pesticides requiring a PSMP; and confirmation and envelope
monitoring if one or more pesticides are detected in
groundwater. Other agencies are required to notify the MDA
of pesticides detected during their monitoring programs.
If a pesticide is confirmed in groundwater the
director may then require the submission of any information
a person may have relating to the identification, nature
and quantity of pesticides and fertilizer that are or have
been used on a particular site and current or past
production practices that may have affected groundwater
quality. These data will be considered confidential
business information. The director may authorize the land
application of pesticide- and fertilizer-contaminated
materials at agronomic rates.
Programs developed under this act are to be funded by
an increase in pesticide and fertilizer registration and
tonnage fees. Because the pesticide registration fees are
based on sales the amount of revenue to be generated is
currently unknown. Though this act is intended to protect
groundwater from contamination, up to $15,000 per site can
be used to eliminate possible contamination sources.
MICHIGAN RIGHT-TO-FARM ACT
The Michigan Right-to-Farm Act (Act 93 of the Public
Acts of 1981, as amended) states that a farm or farm
operation that conforms to generally accepted agricultural
and management practices, as determined by the Michigan
Commission of Agriculture, shall not be found to be a
public or private nuisance. It also states that a farm or
farm operation shall not be found to be a nuisance if it
existed prior to a land use change within 1 mile of the
farm boundaries if the farm operation would not have been
a nuisance before the change in land use.
Producers must comply with generally accepted
agricultural and management practices, as well as all
applicable federal, state and local laws, to meet the
provisions of the Right-to-Farm Act. The principle areas
covered by the generally accepted agricultural and
management practices are listed in Table III in the
Appendix.
Compliance with generally accepted agricultural and
management practices is voluntary. Incentives to follow
the practices include protection from nuisance and
harassment suits and exemption from the permit requirements
of the Michigan Air Pollution Control Act. Applications of
fertilizer, manure and pesticides made according to label
directions and following generally accepted agricultural
management practices are not considered releases under the
Michigan Environmental Response Act (Act 307 of the Public
Acts of 1982). As a result, following generally accepted
agricultural management practices offers some relief or
protection from liability arising from releases under the
Environmental Response Act. Another incentive is that some
of the practices can help farmers cut costs and increase
net income by facilitating efficient nutrient and chemical
management.
Generally accepted agricultural and management
practices have been adopted by the Michigan Agriculture
Commission in three areas:
- Pesticide utilization and pest management. - Manure management and utilization. - Nutrient utilization.
The practices are reviewed annually and may be updated by
the Commission of Agriculture. A number of Michigan
State University Extension (MSUE) publications are
incorporated by reference in the generally accepted
agricultural and management practices, including MSUE
fertilizer and pesticide recommendations. Specific
conservation practices from Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
field office technical guides are also incorporated in the
practices.
Technical and financial assistance to farmers is
available from the SCS and the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service. They provide cost-share and
incentive payments to producers to implement conservation
practices that can also enable them to meet provisions of
the Right-to-Farm Act.
Complaints
Under a memorandum of understanding with the MDNR, all
non-emergency pollution complaints concerning agricultural
properties are referred to the MDA. In 1992, of all the
complaints received, approximately 42 percent were referred
to the MDA from the MDNR. MDA personnel make one or more
farm visits to investigate the complaint. A significant
number of complaints are not verifiedþthat is, the producer
is found to be in compliance with GAAMPs. In 1991 and
1992, over 40 percent of the complaints were not verified.
In some instances the problem had been corrected prior to
the MDA farm visit. In the vast majority of cases, non-
verifiable complaints are attributable to a general lack of
knowledge among rural non-farm residents about acceptable
farming practices.
If a complaint is verified, MDA personnel work with
the producer and with other agencies such as MSU Extension
and the SCS to develop and implement GAAMPs to solve the
problem. This resolves the complaint. If a producer
refuses to work with the MDA, the complaint is turned over
to the MDNR for further investigation. If the MDNR finds
no violation of local, state, or federal laws and
regulations the complaint is dismissed. Once a complaint
is turned over to the MDNR, any violations have to be
corrected to their satisfaction before the complaint is
closed. Between 1990 and 1992, the MDA handled more than
700 cases, but turned only three over to the MDNR.
This version includes revisions and suggestions of Kurt Thelen.
AGRICULTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL FOR MICHIGAN'S NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROGRAM
The Agricultural Best Management Practices Manual for
Michigan's Nonpoint Source Pollution Program was written to
satisfy federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements to
reduce and control non-point source pollution (NPS) of
surface and groundwaters. Best management practices (BMPs)
are a combination of conservation practices that must be
applied collectively to reduce or prevent contamination of
surface and groundwater from sediment, nutrients and other
non-point source pollutants. The conservation practices
are described and defined in the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) Field Office Technical Guide Section IV, "Standards
and Specifications". BMPs include structural and non-
structural controls, operation and maintenance procedures,
and scheduling and distribution of activities. The BMPs
are summarized in Table IV in the Appendix.
The agricultural BMP manual is intended for the
technical staffs of the SCS, the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service (ASCS), Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCD), the MDNR Surface Water
Quality Division (MDNR-SWQD), the MDA and others. It is
designed to be used with other technical references, such
as MSUE fertilizer and pesticide recommendations, SCS field
office technical guides and the SCS Engineering Field
Handbook, when developing individual water quality resource
management plans in an NPS watershed project. The BMPs are
intended to comply with all applicable state and federal
laws and regulations when properly implemented.
The agricultural BMP manual addresses institutional
considerations by coordinating its water quality objectives
with USDA program benefits and ASCS cost-share programs.
The BMPs are designed to meet USDA requirements for program
benefits in the Food Security Act and the Food, Agriculture
and Conservation Trade Act. Significant coordination has
been included in each BMP to complement the ASCS
Agricultural Conservation Program and Long-Term Agreement
cost-share program. Additional effort was made to utilize
the Acreage Conservation Reserve program in conjunction
with BMP-10 filter strips systems.
Section 319 Non-point Source Management Program Watershed
Projects
CWA Section 319 non-point source management program
watershed projects are divided into four phases. Phase 1
is a watershed assessment. Phase 2 requires the
development of a detailed watershed plan, including a
problem management appraisal. Implementation of the
watershed plan occurs during phase 3, and phase 4 is an
evaluation of the plan as implemented. The MDNR-SWQD is
responsible for the entire process and has final approval
of the completed watershed plan.
Implementation of BMPs is voluntary, but if the
decision to implement a BMP is made, certain conservation
practices are required to be eligible for cost-shares.
Farmers are eligible for CWA Section 319 funds only if
their land lies within a Section 319 watershed project
area. Ten percent of Section 319 funds are to be used for
groundwater projects. In October 1993 thirteen
agricultural watershed projects in Michigan were being
funded entirely or primarily through Section 319 funds.
Critical Areas and Priority Fields
For surface water purposes, the critical area of a
Section 319 non-point source management program watershed
project is generally defined as an area that contributes or
potentially contributes pollutants from non-point sources
that degrade water quality below desirable standards.
Surface water projects may have the critical area defined
in one of three ways: (1) a 1/2-mile corridor on each side
of the stream and its tributaries; (2) an entire sub-basin
within the watershed; or (3) an entire watershed that has
surface drains adjacent to all cropland fields. The
critical area for groundwater concerns consists of aquifers
vulnerable to non-point source contamination, such as areas
with karst terrain or unsealed aquifers overlain with
permeable soils.
Priority fields are specific fields or conservation
treatment units within critical areas. Priority fields are
those areas where non-point source pollution contributes
significantly to water quality problems; where targeted
planning, implementation and financial assistance have the
potential to prevent or reduce the pollution below
threshold levels; and where landowners are willing to work
with conservation planners to implement BMPs. ALL BMPS
RECEIVING SECTION 319 COST-SHARES MUST LIE WITHIN A
PRIORITY FIELD.
This version contains all revisions suggested by Gary Rinkenbarger.
THE USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE AND GROUNDWATER PROTECTION IN MICHIGAN
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) provides technical assistance and funding
under a variety of programs that can be used to improve
water quality. The Resource Conservation and Development
Program provides coordination and assistance to local units
of government for resolving community resource problems.
At this time seven RCD councils in Michigan cover the state
except for the southeastern portion of the Lower Peninsula.
One council has addressed local concerns about groundwater
quality by conducting a demonstration project on sealing
abandoned wells.
The SCS also funds PL-566, the Small Watershed
Program. This program provides technical and financial
assistance to treat resource problems involving surface or
groundwater. SCS provides cost-sharing for soil and water
conservation practices, such as conservation tillage,
nutrient and pesticide management practices, and others.
SCS is the lead agency for the PL-566 program.
USDA hydrologic unit areas are cooperative programs
between the SCS, Extension, and the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). Funding is
available for educational, technical and cost-sharing
assistance to control erosion, prevent pollution, and
preserve surface water, groundwater and other natural
resources.
The SCS is responsible for developing conservation
plans and practices for the highly erodible land and
wetland conservation (swamp buster) provisions in the 1985
and 1990 farm bills. Farmers must comply with these
provisions if they want to participate in any USDA
programs, such as conservation reserve, loan and commodity
programs.
SCS county soil surveys and the SCS field office
technical guides (FOTG) provide technical assistance and
guidelines for resource conservation planners. Soil
surveys are used with other information to calculate soil-
pesticide interaction ratings. This enables the
determination of soils' pesticide and fertilizer leaching
and runoff potentials.
SCS technical standards and specifications (FOTG
Section IV) are probably the most widely used guide to
specific soil conservation and non-point source pollution
control practices. In Michigan, for example, SCS is
working closely with staff members from the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Surface Water Quality
Division (MDNR-SWQD) Non-point Source Unit to draft
agricultural best management practices (BMPs) for
Michigan's non-point source pollution program. These
agricultural BMPs are designed to meet requirements of the
federal Clean Water Act (CWA) while complying with Michigan
laws. The BMP manual adopts the SCS FOTG Sec IV technical
standards and specifications for individual conservation
practices under each BMP. The BMPs consist of a
combination of individual practices that are meant to be
implemented together. SCS conservation practices that
affect groundwater quality directly or indirectly are
listed in Table V of the Appendix.
SCS funds and technical assistance can be used in
conjunction with a variety of other programs.
For example, the Sycamore Creek Water Quality Program in Ingham County has been funded under the following programs:
1. The Ingham County Soil and Water Conservation District, which received a $24,000 EPA grant to provide technical assistance to landowners in developing conservation plans for the watershed.
2. The Michigan DNR, which is conducting a modelling, monitoring and demonstration project for the Sycamore Creek. Under the Michigan 1988 Non-point Source Assessment Report, approved by the U.S. EPA, Sycamore Creek was selected as one of Michigan's demonstration watersheds under the U.S. Clean Water Act Sec. 319 phase 3 implementation activity. The Sycamore Creek project will be used as a statewide demonstration project.
3. The Michigan ASCS State Committee has approved a special water quality incentives project for Sycamore Creek. In this three-year effort $300,000 is available to fund Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) long-term agreements to help farmers plan and implement best management practices to control erosion, prevent pollution, and preserve surface-water, groundwater and other natural resources.
4. The USDA designated Sycamore Creek as one of 90 hydrologic units in the U.S. for the implementation of intensified educational, technical and cost-sharing assistance programs.
USDA AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE AND GROUNDWATER PROTECTION IN MICHIGAN
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS) contributes to groundwater protection in
several ways. Financial assistance in the form of cost-
share agreements is a key tool used to encourage
agricultural producers to adopt soil- and water-conserving
practices. The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP)
allocates funds for annual projects (ANAs), for long-term
agreements (LTAs) and for water quality special projects.
ANAs are funded for a maximum of three years; LTAs, for a
maximum of five years. The ANA and LTA cost-share programs
are available in all Michigan counties. The Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) is assigned technical
responsibility for conservation practices under the ASCS
ACP. Essentially, this means that ASCS conservation
practices are put in place using SCS technical standards
and specifications and that cost-shares are not available
until the SCS determines that the practices are implemented
according to the standards.
Because ASCS cost-share programs are so widely
available, other watershed and non-point source pollution
projects need to coordinate carefully any cost-share
arrangements with the ASCS to avoid conflicts or
duplication. The ASCS will no longer split cost-sharing on
a single practice or structure with another federal agency,
but individual agencies can each share costs on different
practices at the same time.
As an example of program coordination, the Michigan
ASCS State Committee approved an ACP water quality special
project for the Sycamore Creek watershed. It allocated
$300,000 over three years to fund LTAs to reduce erosion
and non-point source pollution of surface and groundwaters
in the project area. This support was in addition to
regular ANAs, which were also available to farmers in the
watershed. The Sycamore Creek watershed was also
designated and received funds as a USDA hydrologic unit
area and as a demonstration watershed under Clean Water Act
Section 319 implementation standards. The Ingham Soil
Conservation District received a grant from the EPA
(EPA/MDNR 205(J)(1)) to help landowners in the watershed
develop conservation plans.
The ASCS also funds water quality projects under the
Water Quality Incentives Program (WQIP). The WQIP provides
incentive payments to farmers who meet program requirements
to reimburse them for obligatory changes in land use. WQIP
funds are available to USDA hydrologic unit areas, water
quality special projects and Clean Water Act Section 319
demonstration watershed projects, and they can provide a
valuable source of supplemental financing to other non-
point source pollution reduction efforts.
The ASCS has considerable impact on agricultural land
use through farm programs such as conservation reserve and
commodity programs. The cumulative impact of these
programs on water quality can be difficult to determine
because of a lack of generally available data on the
specific locations and types of land use changes ensuing
from the programs. The Michigan SCS office is working with
MSU to develop techniques to computerize ASCS aerial
photos, which could lead to the data being much more widely
held and used. ASCS conservation practices are categorized
in Table VI in the Appendix.
PESTICIDE LABELS
Pesticide manufacturers and suppliers are required to
provide certain information on product labels to meet
requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Michigan Pesticide Control
ActþPublic Act 171 of 1976, as amended. Labels must bear
the name, brand or trademark under which the product is
sold, along with the name and address of the producer,
registrant or person for whom the pesticide is produced.
Pesticide labels are also required to list all active
ingredients, the percentage of inert ingredients in the
product, and must display the use classification of the
pesticide (i.e., restricted use or general use). Pesticide
labels are required to display the proper EPA pesticide
registration number, directions for use, any required
warning or precautionary statements, medical treatment
information and data on environmental hazards posed by the
product.
Directions for Use
Federal and state pesticide regulations make it a
federal offense to use any pesticide in a manner
inconsistent with its labeling. Labels must specify mixing
and loading standards, allowable application methods,
application rates, permissible and prohibited mixtures with
other pesticides or fertilizers, and the crops and pests
that the pesticide may be used on.
Pesticide labels typically list a variety of other
products that can be mixed with the pesticide in question
for pest problems beyond the scope of the individual
pesticide. Unless a mixture is specifically prohibited on
the label, certified applicators can mix pesticides for a
given use so long as the individual pesticides are
registered for that use. However, producers using a
mixture not specifically addressed on the label may have no
product liability recourse if the mixture causes problems.
Labels must also indicate if the pesticide may be used
in chemigation systems. Storage and disposal requirements
must be included on labels. Restricted use pesticide
labels must indicate that the product may be applied only
by certified applicators or persons under their direct
supervision.
Warning and Precautionary Statements
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations
promulgated by authority of FIFRA set worker protection
standards (WPS), and require specific information to be
stated in pesticide labelling. The following provisions
apply to all pesticides used to produce agricultural plants
and must be referenced or appear on pesticide labels:
- Requirements for training of pesticide handlers and
agricultural workers.
- Requirements for providing pesticide-specific
information to employees.
- Requirements for providing decontamination sites and
emergency assistance for pesticide handlers and
agricultural workers.
Registrants of pesticides will be required to provide the following pesticide-specific information on labels:
- Applying the pesticide so that it contacts anyone
except trained and equipped handlers is prohibited.
- Personal protective equipment for handling and early-
entry intervals.
- Restricted entry interval.
- If appropriate, that workers be notified orally, by
posting of signs at the treated areas, or both, depending
on label requirements.
Appropriate medical treatment must be listed on pesticide
labels in case of accidents and contamination.
Labels are required to identify any environmental
hazards associated with the pesticide use. Labels must
specify any setback or isolation areas, such as riparian
buffer zones or drinking water well isolation areas, within
which pesticides may not be handled or applied. Labels
must also indicate special requirements for pesticide
applications in counties with populations of certain
endangered species.
FARM-A-SYST FARMSTEAD ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
The Farmstead Assessment System in Michigan (Farm-A-
Syst) is a cooperative effort between multiple agencies to
increase awareness and encourage correction and prevention
of potential surface and groundwater quality problems
around farmsteads. The Farm-A-Syst package was developed
in Wisconsin and Minnesota with the help of U.S. EPA Region
V. It was adapted and modified for use in Michigan by
personnel from MSU, Extension and the SCS.
Farmers can use Farm-A-Syst materials to identify
water contamination risks from farmstead activities, to
learn more about possible alternatives to current practices
and to set priorities for minimizing those risks. The
materials include fact sheets that explain a particular
topic, such as drinking water well condition, and
characterize relationships between groundwater quality and
the topic. The fact sheets identify local resource persons
who can help conduct the assessment and make necessary
changes. General and technical publications dealing with
particular topics are listed as well. Farm-A-Syst
worksheets guide the user through a step-by-step evaluation
of the relative risks posed by the particular topic.
A farmstead assessment would typically include an
evaluation of soil, geologic and hydrologic factors
affecting the potential for groundwater pollution from the
farmstead. This step would be followed by an evaluation of
farmstead structures and activities with potential to
affect groundwater quality. These would usually include
pesticide and fertilizer storage and handling, livestock
and manure handling facilities, petroleum products storage
and handling, septic and other wastewater systems, and well
location and maintenance. Topics currently covered in the
Michigan Farm-A-Syst materials are shown in Table VII in
the Appendix.
NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1985 CONSERVATION PROVISIONS (THE 1985 FARM BILL)
Regulations promulgated under the National Food
Security Act of 1985 (the 1985 Farm Bill) set forth terms
and conditions for compliance with rules designed to deter
farmers from converting wetlands to land suitable for
agricultural production and from agricultural production on
highly erodible land (HEL) and converted wetlands. The
rules define HEL, wetlands and conversion. Table VIII in
the Appendix summarizes the HEL and wetland rules.
Barring certain exceptions, the rules state that a
person who produces agricultural commodities on HEL or
designates HEL as conservation use shall be ineligible for
virtually all USDA programs and benefits, including price
supports and benefits under the Federal Crop Insurance Act.
Similarly, any person who produces an agricultural
commodity on a wetland that was converted after December
23, 1985, or a person who converts a wetland after November
28, 1990, for the purpose of or having the effect of making
the production of an agricultural commodity possible, shall
also be ineligible for USDA program benefits. Virtually
all technical requirements are based on U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) standards and specifications.
The SCS is responsible for determining if land is HEL,
a wetland or a converted wetland; whether conservation
plans are based on local SCS technical guides; if a person
qualifies for a variance; or if conversion of a wetland was
for the purpose of or has the effect of making the
production of an agricultural commodity possible. SCS is
responsible for consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) on minimal effect determinations (see below),
wetland and converted wetland identification, restoration
and mitigation plans, and conservation easements.
The ASCS is responsible for determining whether a
person is eligible for USDA program benefits. To do so,
the ASCS must determine whether a person produced an
agricultural commodity on a particular field, whether the
conversion of a particular wetland was begun before
December 23, 1985, and whether the conversion of a wetland
was caused by a third party. The ASCS is required to
inspect a representative number of farms to determine
compliance with the requirements of the rules.
Conservation districts are responsible for reviewing
conservation plans, including the economic practicability
and social acceptability of conservation systems in the
plan, as well as any unusual situations related to land
use, treatment or operations of the conservation system.
Conservation districts are also responsible for overall
program direction and establishment of general servicing
priorities.
At present, approximately 700,000 acres of land in
Michigan are classified as HEL and covered under
conservation plans to prevent erosion. The SCS uses its
own manual, based on definitions in the Food Security Act
regulations, for wetlands identification and regulation,
along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 manual.
The corps has delegated responsibility for wetlands
regulation in Michigan to the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources.
Exemptions
Persons do not lose their eligibility for USDA program
benefits for producing agricultural commodities on HEL if
they meet one or more of the following exemptions:
- If production is in compliance with an approved
conservation plan.
- If a person is actively applying an approved
conservation plan, he/she has until January 1, 1995 to
comply fully with the plan without becoming ineligible for
benefits.
- If the production is noncommercial commodity
production on an area of 2 acres or less, and the ASCS
determines that the production is not intended to
circumvent conservation requirements.
- If the failure to apply a conservation plan actively
is:
* Technical and minor in nature, with little effect
on the erosion control purposes of the conservation plan
(determination of minimal effect).
* Due to circumstances beyond the control of the
person.
- If the SCS grants a temporary variance for the purpose
of handling a specific problem that cannot otherwise be
addressed.
Conservation plans must be based upon and conform to
SCS field office technical guides.
Wetlands
The Food Security Act rules state that a person shall
not be found to be ineligible for program benefits for
production of an agricultural commodity on converted
wetland or for the conversion of wetland if:
- The conversion of the wetland was begun or completed
before December 23, 1985.
- A wetland conversion is for a purpose that does not
make agricultural production possible.
- The conversion of the wetland or production of an
agricultural product on the converted wetland, individually
and in conjunction with all other similar actions
authorized by SCS in the area, would have only a minimal
impact on the hydrological and biological aspect of area
wetlands (determination of minimal effect).
- The area is an artificial lake, pond or wetland
created from non-wetland to collect and retain water.
- A wetland was converted by persons other than the
person applying for USDA program benefits.
Persons may retain their eligibility for benefits
despite producing commodities on a converted wetland by
mitigating the wetland processes through the restoration of
a converted wetland that was converted before December 23,
1985. The regulations set standards for the conversion.
U.S. FOOD, AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND TRADE AMENDMENTS TO THE FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1985 (THE 1990 FARM BILL)
The 1990 Farm Bill amended the Food Security Act (the
1985 Farm Bill) in a number of ways. The name of the
Conservation Reserve Program was changed to the
Agricultural Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ACARP),
and the program acreage was expanded from 40 million to 45
million acres. The two main components of the ACARP are
the Conservation Reserve and the Wetlands Reserve programs.
Land enrolled in either counts towards the acreage target.
Though Congress set a goal of enrolling at least 1
million acres per year in the Conservation Reserve between
1991 and 1995, no acres were added in 1993. Eligible lands
are highly erodible land, marginal pasture-land, land
subject to water quality problems and other lands at the
discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. Some acreage
was available in 1994 for farmers with highly erodible land
who were not in compliance with conservation requirements.
The 1990 Farm Bill also established the Wetlands Reserve
Program, with a goal of enrolling 1 million acres between
1991 and 1995. Farmed or converted wetlands are eligible
under the program.
Congress created the Agricultural Water Quality
Protection Program to provide incentives and cost-share
assistance for farmers to change their pesticide and
nutrient use practices. The program has an enrollment goal
of 10 million acres between 1991 and 1995.
The Environmental Easements Program provides
guidelines for the USDA to enter into easements on lands
containing riparian corridors, critical wildlife habitat,
and environmentally sensitive land. The bill also granted
the authority to enter into permanent easements to take
wetlands out of production.
The 1990 Farm Bill established the Integrated Farm
Management Program Option, a voluntary program designed to
help growers adopt resource-conserving crops, crop
rotations, integrated pest management, and other methods to
reduce fertilizer and pesticide use. The program provides
payments for a number of cover crops, forage legumes and
non-program small grains planted on base acres. The
program is administered by the SCS and ASCS.
Record-keeping Requirements
The bill established record-keeping requirements for
pesticide applications. It affects farmers and commercial
applicators who use pesticides classified as restricted use
pesticides (RUPs) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Applicators must maintain
records containing:
- The applicator's name and certification number.
- The product name and EPA registration number.
- The amount of product applied.
- The date of application.
- The location of application and the size of the
treated area.
- The crop or product treated.
Applicators must provide copies of records to persons for
whom the pesticides were applied and must make records
available to any federal or state agency that deals with
pesticide use as well as to health care professionals in
the case of an emergency. The MDA is the lead agency for
the record-keeping provisions.
Congress also used the bill to create national
standards governing the marketing of organically produced
products.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD
The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rules were
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) by authority granted under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The WPS is
intended to eliminate or reduce workers' exposure to
pesticides, to mitigate exposures that occur and to inform
employees about the hazards of pesticides. The rules are
directed toward the working conditions of those who handle
agricultural pesticides and perform tasks related to
cultivating and harvesting agricultural commodities. The
WPS applies to anyone who employs workers and applies
pesticides for production of agricultural plants on farms,
forests, nurseries or greenhouses. A brief summary of the
items covered in the bill is presented below in Table IX in
the Appendix.
Exposures are limited by establishing restricted entry
intervals (REIs) for all pesticides used in producing
agricultural plants for which REIs have not been set
according to current standards.
- A 48-hour REI is set for any product deemed highly
toxic because of dermal toxicity or skin or eye irritation.
- A 24-hour REI is established for any product that is
moderately toxic because of dermal toxicity or skin or eye
irritation.
- A 12-hour REI is established for all other products.
Implementation and enforcement of the WPS will use the
misuse provision of FIFRA, which states it is unlawful "to
use any registered product in a manner inconsistent with
its labeling." This means that WPS provisions or
references to them must be included on pesticide labels.
All products covered by the WPS and produced after April
21, 1994, must have labeling presenting this information.
The following provisions apply to all pesticides used
to produce agricultural plants, and must be referenced or
appear on pesticide labels:
- Training of pesticide handlers and agricultural
workers.
- Providing pesticide-specific information to employees.
- Providing decontamination sites and emergency
assistance for pesticide handlers and agricultural workers.
Registrants of pesticides subject to the WPS will be
required to provide the following pesticide-specific
information on labels:
- Applying the pesticide so that it contacts anyone
except trained and equipped handlers is prohibited.
- Personal protective equipment for handling and early-
entry intervals.
- Restricted entry interval.
- If appropriate, that workers be notified orally, by
posting signs at the treated areas or both, depending on
label requirements.
The President signed legislation in April 1994 that
will delay certain provisions of the WPS until January 1,
1995. The legislation does not delay the date for
manufacturers to make WPS-required changes to pesticide
labels. Consequently, label-specific requirements are not
delayed. It is the generic provisions that are referenced
but not specified on labels that were delayed. These
include safety training for agricultural workers and
pesticide handlers, notice of pesticide applications,
maintaining an application log and displaying a safety
poster. The legislation also removed crop advisors from
the WPS rules until January 1, 1995. Refer to "The Worker
Protection Standard for Agricultural PesticidesþHow to
Comply: What Employers Need to Know," EPA 735-B-93-001,
July 1993, for details on requirements.
SARA TITLE III
Known as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986, SARA Title III is intended to protect
communities from chemical accidents by requiring the
development of emergency response plans. It allows
citizens access to information on specific hazardous and
toxic chemicals stored and released in their community.
Title III is divided into four sections:
- Emergency Planning and Facility Notification (Sections
301-303).
- Emergency Notification (Section 304).
- Community Right-to-Know Reporting Requirements
(Sections 311-312).
- Toxic Release Inventory Reporting (Section 313).
Farmers are EXEMPT from Sections 311, 312 and 313,
unless they resell chemicals as part of their business or
use chemicals for non-agricultural purposes. Table X in
the Appendix gives references for some of the requirements
of SARA Title III.
Section 302
Any facility, including farms, that at any time has
any extremely hazardous substance (EHS) stored in amounts
at or above the threshold planning quantity amount, MUST
notify the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and
the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) immediately,
or within 60 days after the amount of the EHS first exceeds
the threshold planning quantity. The name, address and
telephone number of a facility representative must be given
to the LEPC to assist in the emergency response planning
process. LEPCs are responsible for preparing local
emergency response plans for all facilities in their
district that contain one or more EHSs at or above
threshold planning quantities. Farmers are required to
provide information for plan preparation at the request of
the LEPC, but the LEPCs must prepare the plans.
Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) bulletins
E-2173, "SARA Title III: The Farmer's Responsibilities
Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know
Law," and E-2174, "SARA Title III: Agricultural Businesses'
Responsibilities Under The Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Law," identify some pesticides and
fertilizers on the EPA EHS list that were commonly used in
Michigan as of August 1991. The bulletins also list
additional EPA EHS chemicals.
Section 304
This section requires immediate and follow-up
reporting of any accidental spills or releases when the
following are true:
- The spilled substance is an extremely hazardous
substance, and
- the amount of EHS spilled is at or above the
reportable quantity, and
- the potential exists for off-site exposure.
Off-site exposure can be interpreted very broadly, so
essentially any spill of an EHS exceeding the reportable
quantity should be reported.
These spills must be reported immediately to the LEPC
emergency coordinator, the Pollution Emergency Alerting
System (PEAS: 1-800-292-4706) and the National Response
Center (1-800-424-8802). Written follow-up reports must
also be submitted to the LEPC and the SERC.
Farmers must comply with all provisions of SARA Title
III, including sections 311 and 312, if they have any EHSs
on their property that do not meet standards for use in
routine agricultural operations.
Extension bulletins E-2173 and E-2174 provide the
names of many pesticides and other chemicals on the EHS
list, along with their threshold planning quantities,
reportable quantities, and sample forms for facility
notifications (Section 302) and emergency release
notifications (Section 304).
MICHIGAN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW
The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act
(MIOSHA; Public Act 154 of 1974, as amended) was further
amended by Public Act 80 of 1986, the Michigan Right-to-
Know Law. The law requires employers to provide
information to employees on the safe handling of hazardous
chemicals and sets standards for a written hazard
communication program. One or more people must be employed
for right-to-know requirements to apply.
The law requires employers to make material safety
data sheets (MSDS) available and mandates training of
employees who work with hazardous chemicals. Chemical
manufacturers and importers are required to evaluate
chemicals to determine if they are hazardous. They must
also ensure that MSDS are available for all chemicals they
manufacture or import, and that all chemicals leaving the
workplace are properly labeled or tagged.
Employers engaged in agricultural operations are not
required to comply with the act for any hazardous chemicals
regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) or the Michigan Pesticide Control
Act (Public Act 171 of 1976, as amended). In essence, this
means pesticides are not covered under the Right-to-Know
law.
The law covers other hazardous chemicals used on
farms, such as some petroleum products, some fertilizers
and other non-pesticide chemicals. Farmers who must comply
with the Michigan Right-to-Know Law have to develop written
hazard communication programs and employee information and
training programs, and display and store material safety
data sheets. Table XI in the Appendix presents references
to right-to-know topics.
MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE ACT
The Michigan Environmental Response Act, Public Act
307 of 1982, as amended, established a process for
assessing risks and providing for response activity at
sites of environmental contamination. Act 307 deals with
contamination caused by the release of hazardous
substances. The act defines a release as any direct or
indirect discharge, spill, leak or dumping of a hazardous
substance into the environment, including containers
holding any hazardous substance.
The MDNR is responsible for identifying and evaluating
contamination sites and for ranking sites with a priority
score based on criteria and methods set forth in Act 307
rules. Act 307 sets standards for the duties of owners or
operators of facilities when they learn that there may be
a release at the facility, including mitigation and
notification requirements.
The MDNR is responsible for directing cleanup
operations when contamination is found in violation of
adopted rules. The MDNR is required to notify the MDA upon
confirmation of a release of a substance regulated by the
MDA (e.g., pesticides). The two departments are then
directed to consult to develop response activities. Act
307 and the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly known as
Superfund) both provide a means for public financing of
remedial actions at sites where hazardous substances have
polluted the environment. The Michigan law, however, ranks
sites according to their present conditions and places more
emphasis on existing human exposure to pollutants than the
federal ranking system. Top-ranking sites receive funding
for interim response activities (leaky barrel removal,
bottled water provision, etc.), cleanup evaluations and
feasibility studies, and response actions.
Standards. Under Act 307, the MDNR promulgates
cleanup standards for contaminated sites. Several levels
of required cleanup have been defined in the Act 307
administrative rules. The rules also describe standards
for determining when the different levels of cleanup
criteria have been met. The cleanup levels have been
described as follows:
Type A - Contamination must be cleaned to background or non-detectable levels, whichever applies.
Type B - Contaminants must be removed to a health-based standard derived using standardized exposure assumptions and acceptable risk levels. Under this scheme, cleanup levels may be above non-detectable levels but in many cases below maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
Type C - A level of cleanup that provides for hazardous substance concentrations that do not pose an unacceptable level of risk, using site-specific risk assessments. This level allows for on-site containment of hazardous substances and for land use restrictions to substitute for cleanup at sites where environmental quality cannot be effectively restored.
Type B standards are risk-based. For carcinogens,
they are set equal to a level that is estimated to cause
one additional cancer above the baseline level per million
persons continuously exposed over a 70-year lifespan. For
non-carcinogens, the Type B standards are set for no
observable adverse effects to persons continuously exposed
over a 70-year lifespan.
Type C standards are most likely to be used when
dealing with widespread non-point sources of contamination
such as the field application of pesticides. This standard
is applied when concentrations are low and the exposed
population is small enough to allow the passive remediation
of site contamination.
Exclusions. Sites associated with pesticide use are
excluded from the definition of release (and therefore
excluded from consideration for remedial action) if
pesticide applications were made according to the
pesticide's label directions and generally accepted
agricultural and management practices (GAAMPs). It is
difficult to determine if an application was made in
accordance with GAAMPs, so sites associated with pesticide
users have been excluded from Act 307 remedial actions
activities. If it is shown that the GAAMP exemption is not
applicable, persons potentially responsible for the
contamination would be subject to the provisions of Act
307. Act 307 does, however, provide a remedial action
process for bulk storage facilities, leaking underground
tanks and other identified sources of contamination with a
definable point of release.
Penalties. Penalties that can be imposed under Act
307 include both criminal penalties and liability for
cleanup costs. Section 12 sets forth liability standards
under this act. Liability may include all costs of
response activity lawfully incurred by the state, plus
interest; any other necessary response costs incurred by
any other person, if they were consistent with the
administrative rules; natural resources damages; and costs
incurred by the state prior to promulgation of rules.
Sec. 16b provides for criminal penalties for a person
who knowingly causes a release and knew or should have
known that the release could cause personal injury or
property damage; or a person who intentionally makes a
false statement or representation in any document filed
under this act and rules; or a person who intentionally
renders inaccurate any monitoring device or record required
under this act or rules. Penalties under this section are
consistent with those described under Act 245, the Water
Resources Commission Act.
Under Act 307, the MDPH works cooperatively with the
MDNR when sites are identified that threaten private or
public water supplies. The MDPH evaluates sites and
recommends alternative water supply systems and sources,
including hookups to municipal systems, construction of new
wells or provision of bottled water. A recommendation for
well replacement or alternate water provision from the MDPH
to the MDNR is required for the use of state funds for
these purposes. State funds cannot be used to provide an
alternative water supply for a site included on the site
list for nitrate contamination from non-point sources or
from a private septic system.
MICHIGAN'S HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
The Michigan Hazardous Waste Management Act (Public
Act 64 of 1979, as amended) and its regulations require
farmers to dispose of pesticides and pesticide containers
properly.(Pesticide storage and handling are goverrned by
the Pesticide Control Act, Act 171 of the Publid Acts of
1976, as amended, and its regulations.) Rule 204 states
that waste pesticides and pesticide containers generated by
a farmer are subject to regulation as hazardous wastes
unless they are disposed of properly. Rule 204 also states
that wastes generated by crop and animal production,
including animal manures, are not hazardous wastes for the
purposes of the act.
There are two ways that Michigan farmers can dispose
of waste or excess pesticides without having to treat the
excess pesticides as hazardous waste. The first way is to
use the total volume of pesticides during approved
applications, according to label directions. If a
pesticide is no longer approved for any uses, this method
is not an option (e.g., DDT). The second method to dispose
of excess and unwanted pesticides properly is to turn them
in during an approved pesticide collection program, such as
the Michigan Department of Agriculture's Michigan Clean
Sweep program. Otherwise, the pesticides must be disposed
of in accordance with all state and federal hazardous waste
laws and regulations. To minimize the amount of excess
pesticides and avoid disposal problems, farmers are
encouraged to purchase and/or mix only those pesticides and
those quantities they are certain to need.
Empty pesticide containers can be disposed of in a
regular (Type II) sanitary landfill if the containers are
empty, have been triple-rinsed or power-rinsed, and have
been punctured. Rinsate must be disposed of properly.
This is most commonly done by applying the rinsate at or
below label rates for an application permitted by the
pesticide label. Farmers can also turn in properly rinsed
pesticide containers during an MDA pesticide container
recycling program.
MICHIGAN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
The Michigan Solid Waste Management Act, Public Act
641 of 1978, as amended, regulates household, commercial
and industrial wastes in the state. The act and its rules
define waste types and set standards for waste disposal and
disposal facilities.
The act states that a person may not apply sludges,
ashes or other solid waste to land unless they have an
approved plan for managing nondetrimental materials for
agricultural or silvicultural purposes. Analysis of the
material is necessary and must include data on hazardous
compounds or compounds of concern in groundwater in the
waste. This is necessary to demonstrate the requirement
that the waste be non-detrimental.
Nutrient and other analyses are necessary to show that
the waste is appropriate for agricultural or silvicultural
use. The act does not specifically address the use or
disposal of animal manure.
The most recent rules of the act include sections
bearing on the agricultural sector and concern the use of
yard clippings and other solid waste to create compost.
Yard clippings must be separated from other solid waste at
the point of generation and maintained separately until
used for compost. They must be managed in a way that does
not create a nuisance.
The use of a solid waste other than yard clippings to
make compost must be approved by the director of the DNR
(or his or her designee). The use of other solid wastes
shall be approved if it can be shown that the material has
or will be converted to compost under controlled conditions
at a composting facility, the material will not be a source
of environmental contamination or cause a nuisance, and the
composted material will be used at agronomic rates.
Applications of manure to farmland are not covered
specifically under the act. They are addressed under the
provisions of the "Generally Accepted Agricultural and
Management Practices for Manure Management and Utilization"
of the Michigan Right-to-Farm Act, Public Act 93 of 1981,
as amended.
Though the practice is discouraged, the act states
that solid waste from an individual's own household or
farm, or from the planting of privately owned farmland, may
be disposed of in an open dump on the person's land UNLESS
it contains any of the following, in which case it is
considered a health hazard and dumping is prohibited:
- Asbestos waste.
- A hazardous commercial chemical product.
- A used battery.
- A pesticide container.
Open burning of solid waste from an individual's
household on the individual's land is not recommended.
Most local units of government prohibit any open burning of
household waste. In addition, civil suits can be filed by
persons to prevent an individual from burning his or her
household waste. However, the state act does not prohibit
people from burning their household waste on their land as
long as they:
- Comply with Act 348 (the Michigan Air Pollution Act)
and its rules.
- Comply with Act 329 (the Prevention of Forest Fires
Act).
- Comply with local ordinances.
A person may burn trees, logs, brush and stumps in
accordance with the Air Pollution Act and the Prevention of
Forest Fires Act.
MICHIGAN UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK RULES
Two sets of rules apply to on-farm storage tanks. The
Michigan underground storage tank rules were promulgated by
authority granted to the State Fire Safety Board by the
Fire Prevention Code (Public Act 207 of 1941, as amended)
and the Underground Storage Tank Regulatory Act (Public Act
423 of 1984, as amended). The rules focus on gasoline
stations, commercial storage sites and large residential
and farm tanksþthose that exceed 1100 gallons capacity.
Tanks smaller than 1100 gallons are regulated by the rules
on the storage and handling of flammable and combustible
liquids. They incorporate by reference the National Fire
Prevention Association (NFPA) pamphlet 395, "Standard for
the Storage of Flammable and Combustible Liquids on Farms,
Isolated Construction Projects, and in Rural Areas." Both
sets of rules are administered by the Fire Marshall
Division of the Michigan State Police and the State Fire
Safety Board.
The rules for storage tanks under 1,100 gallons in
size (Part 5) set standards for tank construction and state
that aboveground tanks must be at least 40 feet from any
building or combustible material and at least 25 feet from
property lines. Standards for the construction and
installation of underground storage tanks are detailed in
Part 2 of the rules. All areas where flammable and
combustible liquids are dispensed must be protected to
prevent spills from entering the groundwater, surface water
and subsurface soils.
Rules for tanks greater than 1,100 gallons are more
stringent. They establish general installation and
operating requirements, including tank inspection,
monitoring and testing. The rules provide standards for
release detection and reporting requirements, release
response activities, procedures for out-of-service USTs and
UST closures. Financial responsibility requirements are
also detailed. Following are highlights of some UST
requirements and exclusions that are particularly relevant
to the agricultural community.
Exclusions
By definition, an underground storage tank (UST)
system does not include:
- Farm or residential tanks under 1,100 gallons in size
used to store motor fuel for non-commercial uses.
- Tanks for storing heating oil for consumptive use on
the premises.
- Septic tanks.
- Surface impoundments, pits, ponds or lagoons.
- Storm or wastewater collection systems.
- Flow-through process tanks.
- Any underground storage tank system under 110 gallons
in size.
- An underground tank containing a "de minimis"
concentration of a regulated substance.
- An emergency spill or overflow containment underground
storage tank system that is emptied within 10 days
after use.
However, rules on the storage and handling of flammable and
combustible liquids would still apply to some of the above
exclusionsþnamely, tanks for storing heating oil for
consumptive use on the premises; surface impoundments,
pits, ponds or lagoons of flammable and combustible
liquids; USTs of flammable or combustible liquids that are
excluded from Michigan UST regulations for not being a
petroleum or hazardous material (e.g., alcohols); and USTs
that contain less than 1,100 gallons of flammable and
combustible liquids.
UST Setbacks from Drinking Water Wells
The regulations establish setback distances for USTs
from drinking water wells.
Active UST locations installed before January 3, 1991
For active UST locations installed before January 3,
1991, USTs with secondary containment MAY be installed
within the following distances from drinking water wells:
- 50 feet from a single-family drinking water well.
- 75 feet from a type IIb or III non-community public
water well.
- 200 feet from a type I community or type IIa non
-community public water well.
Existing USTs active before January 3, 1991, may be
replaced by USTs without secondary containment on a one-to-
one basis so long as they are more than:
- 50 feet from a single-family drinking water well.
- 75 feet from a type IIb or III non-community public
water well.
- 200 feet from a type I community or type IIa non
-community public water well.
UST systems installed after January 3, 1991
For UST systems installed after January 3, 1991, a UST
system with secondary containment may not be installed
unless it is at least the following distance from drinking
water wells:
- 50 feet from a single-family drinking water well.
- 75 feet from a type IIb or III non-community public
water well.
- 200 feet from a type I community or type IIa non
-community public water well.
UST systems WITHOUT secondary containment must be
installed no closer than the following distances from
drinking water wells (excluding replacement USTs):
- 300 feet from a single-family drinking water well.
- 800 feet from type IIb or III non-community drinking
water wells.
- 2,000 feet from type I community or type IIa non
-community drinking water wells.
MICHIGAN MOTOR VEHICLE CODE
The Michigan Motor Vehicle Code (Public Act 300 of
1949, as amended) sets licensing and operating requirements
for farmers and vehicles operated as part of a farm
enterprise. Farmers are not required to have a commercial
driver's license if they meet the definitions of a farm
vehicle driver. Farmers who do not meet the farm vehicle
driver conditions must meet all commercial driver's license
requirements, including hazardous materials endorsements.
The conditions are:
- Vehicle must have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
less than 26,001 pounds.
- Vehicle must be controlled and operated by a farmer
(includes employee or family member),
AND
- Vehicle must be used to transport agricultural or farm
supplies or products to or from a farm,
AND
- Vehicle can not be used for hire (in the operation of
a common or motor carrier),
AND
- Vehicle must be operated within 150 miles of the farm,
AND
- Vehicle must not be carrying hazardous materials of a
type or quantity requiring the vehicle to be
placarded.
Farmers driving vehicles with a GVWR greater than
26,001 pounds but meeting all the other requirements above
do not need a commercial driver's license, but they are
required to obtain an "F" endorsement on their normal
driver's license.
Farmers hauling hazardous agricultural materials
(e.g., most pesticides, anhydrous ammonia) in amounts
requiring placarding but meeting all the other conditions
above need an "F" endorsement and a hazardous materials
endorsement from the Michigan State Police only if the
vehicle size is over 26,001 lbs. If the vehicle size is
under 26,001 pounds, they do not need a hazardous materials
endorsement on their license.
Farmers must still meet all applicable hazardous
materials laws, such as displaying placards on their
vehicles, when hauling hazardous materials in amounts
requiring placards. Farmers need to display hazardous
material placards only when carrying more than 1,000 pounds
of most hazardous materials, including pesticides and
anhydrous ammonia. Certain materialsþsuch as some
explosives, poisonous gases, dangerous when wet materials
(e.g., sodium metal) and radioactive materialsþmust be
placarded at much lower levels. When transporting
hazardous materials, farmers must ensure they have proper
shipping papers and that the vehicle displays the proper
placards. Farmers must have emergency response information
available, and they are responsible for reporting any
hazardous material transportation incidents (i.e.,
accidents) properly. These and other issues are covered in
a publication of the Michigan State Police, "Farmers In
Transportation."
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION ACT
The Michigan Water Resources Commission Act, Act 245
of the Public Acts of 1929, as amended, also known as the
Michigan Clean Water Act, establishes water quality
standards and permit requirements that are administered and
enforced by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR). The MDNR Surface Water Quality Division
administers surface water discharge standards and permits;
the MDNR Waste Management Division administers groundwater
discharge standards and permits. The act states: "It shall
be unlawful for any persons directly or indirectly to
discharge into the waters of the state any substance which
is or may become injurious to the public health, safety or
welfare; or which is or may become injurious to domestic,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or
other uses which are being or may be made of such
waters...."
The Part 4 rules promulgated under the act regulate
point source discharges of waste, including large,
concentrated animal feedlots. Permits are required before
wastes may be discharged, including agricultural wastes,
into the surface or groundwaters of Michigan. The National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements
are adopted in the Part 21 rules, and permit applicants
must meet NPDES guidelines for providing information in the
application. The controlled application of chemicals for
agricultural and silvicultural use by normally accepted or
regulated practices is exempt from requirements for
hydrogeological reports, groundwater monitoring and
discharge permits.
In 1972 amendments to the act directed the MDNR to
develop the Michigan Critical Materials Register of toxic
chemicals and required businesses to report annually the
use, discharge and disposal of certain of those chemicals.
The register is also used as the basis for regulating
the storage, handling, and emergency containment of
critical materials near state waters. A business that
uses, manufactures or discharges any substance appearing on
the state's Critical Materials Register must complete and
submit a critical materials report for each substance
annually.
Businesses using pesticides are exempt from the
reporting requirements of the Michigan CWA Critical
Materials Register regulations as long as they follow
generally accepted management practices and label
requirements (i.e., they don't "discharge" pesticides into
surface waters).
The act grants the MDNR broad powers to halt unlawful
pollution of Michigan's waters. The MDNR may enter an
order to abate any activity it deems to be unlawful
pollution of Michigan waters. The waters of the state
include "usable aquifers," defined in the Part 22 rules of
the Act as "an aquifer, or that portion of an aquifer or
aquifer system, that is capable of providing water in
sufficient quantity and of satisfactory quality, as
determined from the hydrogeological study required by rule
2207, to serve 1 or more protected uses."
Protected uses include individual, public, industrial,
and agricultural water supplies. The Part 22 rules go on
to state that "The quality of ground waters in all usable
aquifers shall not be degraded from local background ground
water quality as the result of a discharge, except as
provided in rule 2210 (variances)."
Discharges into groundwater are allowed by permit.
Before any permit to discharge into groundwaters can be
issued, the person seeking to discharge must provide at
least one hydrogeological study. The study must determine
the impact the discharge may have on groundwater, existing
background groundwater quality and existing groundwater
quality; and define a proposed monitoring program, define
usable aquifers and other factors.
Groundwater discharges must be monitored. No waste or
discharge containing materials at concentrations exceeding
any maximum contaminant level (MCL) are allowed into a
usable aquifer, even if local background groundwater levels
for the material already exceed the MCL.
Certain activities are exempted from the groundwater
discharge permit requirements:
- Disposal of sanitary wastes in volumes less than
10,000 gallons per day through approved septic or ground
disposal systems.
- Controlled application of chemicals following
generally accepted and regulated practices for deicing,
dust suppression and domestic purposes.
- Controlled application of chemicals for agricultural
or silvicultural purposes, following generally accepted
management practices.
- Controlled chemical applications for natural resources
and right-of-way programs used with generally accepted and
regulated practices.
- Disposal of non-contact, untreated cooling water.
- Retention of storm water runoff in surface
impoundments or waterways.
MICHIGAN DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES FROM GROUNDWATER SOURCES AND THEIR PROTECTION
Public water supply wells in Michigan are regulated
under federal and state programs. Private drinking water
wells in Michigan are subject to the Michigan Public Health
Code.
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 was
designed to create a comprehensive national framework to
ensure the safety and quality of drinking water supplies.
The Environmental Protection Agency has developed national
primary and secondary drinking water regulations. Primary
drinking water regulations cover contaminants that can have
adverse health effects, according to the EPA. Secondary
drinking water regulations cover contaminants that do not
endanger health but that adversely affect the aesthetic
quality of water, such as odor or appearance. The EPA does
not enforce these secondary regulations, although states
may do so. Michigan has been delegated primary enforcement
authority in the state for the federal SDWA by the EPA.
Under the federal SDWA, Michigan must comply with the
following requirements:
- Adopt drinking water regulations at least as strict as
the national primary drinking water standards.
- Adopt and implement adequate procedures for enforcing
state regulations,
- maintain records and prepare reports as required by
the EPA.
- Adopt and implement an adequate plan for providing
drinking water under emergency circumstances.
Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act (Public Act 399 of 1976)
The Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act regulates public
drinking water supplies. The Water Supply Division of the
Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) is the lead
agency for water supply issues. The act classifies public
water supplies into three categories:
- Community supplies are classified as type I public
water supplies.
- Non-community public supplies are classified as type
II public water supplies.
- Public water supplies that are not type I or type II
public water supplies are classified as type III public
water supplies.
The administrative regulations for the act incorporate
the national primary drinking water standards and federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and establish additional
state MCLs. Michigan does not enforce secondary drinking
water standards. The regulations also set standards for
monitoring and testing public water supplies.
The rules specify standard isolation areas for public
water supply wells. For any existing or potential sources
of contaminationþincluding storm and sanitary sewers,
pipelines, septic tanks, drain fields, dry wells,
cesspools, seepage pits, leeching beds, barnyards, or any
surface water, other area or facility from which
contamination of the groundwater may occurþisolation areas
are:
- A 200-foot radius in all directions from the well for
type I and IIa public water supplies.
- For type IIb and type III public water supplies the
isolation area has a radius of 75 feet.
For known major sources of contamination, such as
large-scale waste disposal sites, sanitary landfills, land
applications of sanitary wastewater or sludges, and
chemical or waste chemical storage or disposal facilities,
isolation areas are:
- A 2,000-foot radius for type I public water supplies
and type IIa public water supplies.
- For type IIb and type III public wells, an 800-foot
setback from known major sources of contamination.
Chemical storage isn't specified clearly in terms of
types and quantities in the act or its regulationsþit
appears to be a matter for interpretation. Discussions are
underway between Michigan State University Extension and
the MDPH Water Supply Division to decide if the use of
proper chemical storage facilities allows isolation areas
from these facilities to be changed to standard isolation
requirements. The regulations set additional standards for
well location, as well as requirements for construction and
operation. Table XII in the Appendix references rules of
the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act.
Michigan Wellhead Protection Program
The purpose of Michigan's Wellhead Protection Program
(WHPP) is to protect public water supply systems (PWSS)
from potential sources of groundwater contamination.
Michigan's WHPP was prepared to meet the requirements of
the 1986 amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
and is under review by the U.S. EPA.
The WHPP is a voluntary program in which communities
delineate wellhead protection areas (based on geological
and geochemical considerations, such as aquifer
sensitivity) and potential impacts on the protected area.
Because it is a voluntary program, incentives for local
participation are important. Some of the proposed
incentives are:
- Reduction in Michigan Department of Public Health
requirements for water quality monitoring from PWSS with
wellhead protection programs.
- State support for remediation at sites of
environmental contamination within a wellhead protection
area.
- State agency regulatory inspections targeted to
wellhead protection areas.
Michigan's WHPP contains the following elements meant
to satisfy federal requirements:
- Roles and duties of state and local governments and
public water supply agencies.
- Delineation of the wellhead protection area for each
wellhead, based on reasonably available hydrogeologic and
other information.
- Identification of potential contaminant sources within
each wellhead protection area.
- Management approaches for wellhead protection,
including but not limited to education and regulatory
approaches.
- Contingency plans for public water supply systems,
indicating the location of alternate drinking water
supplies.
- Proper siting of new wells to minimize potential
contamination.
- Public participation.
Part 127 of Public Health Code
Private wells are covered under Part 127 of the
Michigan Public Health Code. Approximately two-thirds of
Michigan counties require a private well permit before a
private well can be drilled. The other one-third have no
permit requirements.
In March 1994, a number of changes to the Part 127
rules of the Public Health Code were adopted. Standards
and specifications on pipe, grout, cement, water treatment
chemicals and pumps were adopted from national
organizations and associations such as the American Society
for Testing and Materials. The rules allow local boards of
health to establish requirements more stringent than the
state rules for the installation of wells and pumps.
Setback requirements for private wells from
contamination sources are:
- 800 feet from the active work area of a landfill or
the land surface application of septic waste.
- 300 feet from: þLand application or subsurface
injection of effluent or digested sludge from a municipal
wastewater treatment facility.
þOil and gas wells.
þPetroleum product processing or storage
facilities.
þUnderground or aboveground storage tanks over
1100 gallons in capacity lacking secondary containment.
- 150 feet from a storage or preparation area for fertilizers, agricultural chemicals or other chemicals that might contaminate soil or groundwater.
- 50 feet from:
þA buried sewer.
þA septic tank or a subsurface disposal field.
þA dry well.
þAn animal or poultry yard.
þA seepage pit, cesspool, outhouse or any other
wastewater handling or disposal unit or site of liquid
wastes draining into soil.
þUnderground or aboveground storage tank
systems of 1,100 gallons or larger that have secondary
containment.
þUnderground or aboveground storage tank
systems less than 1,100 gallons in size.
- 10 feet from: þSurface water bodies.
þA sump, pit or unfilled space below the ground
surface, excluding crawl spaces.
The revised rules also set standards for closing
abandoned wells. Well owners are responsible for closing
abandoned wells.
The only water quality standard for private well water
is for coliform bacteria. There are no requirements for
monitoring chemicals in private wells.
MICHIGAN ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The Michigan Endangered Species Act (Public Act 203 of
1974) provides for the conservation and protection of
animal and plant species endangered or threatened with
extinction. The act authorizes and mandates the
promulgation of rules listing endangered and threatened
species in the state. The act adopts the federal
endangered and threatened species lists, which are enforced
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) administers the
state act, and maintains the federal and state endangered
species lists in the state.
The primary impact of the act stems from the "taking"
provision. It states that no one may take an endangered or
threatened species. "Taking", defined in Sec. 2,
paragraphs (j) and (k) of the act, includes harassment and
the destruction or impairment of endangered species'
habitat. Section 6 states that no person may possess,
take, buy, sell, or transport any species on the U.S. or
state endangered species lists. Pesticide applications are
a potential problem, particularly affecting birds,
butterflies and moths. Alteration of the farm landscape
can also negatively affect resident endangered species.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
determined threshold pesticide application rates that may
affect listed species. This information is or will be
included on pesticide labels. Counties with vulnerable
endangered or threatened species will be identified on
pesticide labels, and the EPA will initiate a formal
consultation with the FWS for application rates at or above
the threshold rate. This was a voluntary program until
1994, at which time it became enforceable.
Michigan farmers who want to be sure they are
complying with the act
must take the initiative and consult with the MDNR and the
FWS to be sure there are no endangered species in their
area. The Nature Conservancy, a private land and habitat
conservation organization, is working with the MDNR and the
FWS and is conducting a landowner contact program to notify
and work with landowners who own property important for
endangered species protection.
REFERENCES
50 Ways Farmers Can Protect Their Groundwater.
July 1993. Michael C. Hirschi, F. William Simmmons, Doug
Peterson and Ed Giles. University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension
Service C1324, Urbana, Ill.
AAtrex 4L (Atrazine) 2.5 gallons, CIBA-GEIGY, July
93.
Act 641 Rules, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources Waste Management Division, 164 pp.
Agricultural Best Management Practices Manual for
Michigan's Non-point Source Pollution Program (DRAFT 2)
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality
Division, Non-point Source Unit.
Michigan Groundwater and Freshwater Protection Act
and amendments to the Michigan Pesticide Control Act. MDA,
Pesticide and Plant Pest Management Division, November
1993.
Best Management Practices to Reduce Runoff of
Pesticides into Surface Water: A Review and Analysis of
Supporting Research. September 1993. Brian Christensen,
J.M. Montgomery, Richard S. Fawcett and Dennis Tierney.
Conservation Technology Information Center, West Lafayette,
Indiana.
Conservation Provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985, 527.5 7 CFR, Part 12 Final Rule, August 1993, Office
of the Secretary, USDA (180-V-NFSAM, 3rd ed., August 12,
1993).
Farmers in Transportation. March 1993. Michigan
State Police, Motor Carrier Division.
Federal Pesticide Recordkeeping Requirements:
Questions and Answers, U.S. Govt. Printing Office:
1993-341-337:80102/AMS (Ag. Marketing Serv).
Field Office Technical Guide Section IV, statewide:
Conservation Practice Standards and Specifications,
alphabetical listing, U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management
Practices for Manure Management and Utilization, June 1994,
Michigan Commission of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan.
Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management
Practices for Nutrient Utilization, May 1994, Michigan
Commission of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan.
Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management
Practices for Pesticide Utilization and Pest Control, June
1993, Michigan Commission of Agriculture, Lansing,
Michigan.
Michigan Agricultural Conservation Program, State
Program Handbook, Short Reference, 7 June 1993, 1-MI(ACP)
(Rev.4), USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, Michigan State ASCS Office, East Lansing,
Michigan.
Michigan Environmental Response Act, 1982 Public
Act 307 as amended and Administrative Rules; November 1991,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Environmental
Response Division.
Michigan Endangered Species Act of 1974, Act 203 of
1974.
Michigan Farmstead Assessment System, developed
from similar materials for Wisconsin and Minnesota, with
help from EPA Region V.
Michigan Right-to-Know Law Amendments, P.A. 80 of
1986, April 1986, Michigan departments of Labor and
Public Health.
Pesticide Control Act of 1976; Act No. 171, Public
Acts of 1976, as amended; December 1988, Regulation 633,
Pesticide Control Act; January 1985, Regulation 636,
Pesticide Control Act; August 1991, Regulation 637,
Pesticide Control Act; October 1992, Michigan Department of
Agriculture, Pesticides and Plant Pest Management Division,
P.O. Box 30017, Lansing, MI 48909.
SARA Title III: The Farmer's Responsibilities Under
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Law.
Larry G. Olsen, David J. Warner, Margo R. Machen, Andrea
Rother. Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E-
2173. (See also Extension bulletins E-2174 and E-2234.)
TEMIK brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticide, July 1993,
Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company.
Toxics Program Commentary: Michigan. December
1992. Touchstone Environmental, Inc., Oakland, California.
STP Specialty Technical Publishers Inc., North Vancouver,
B.C., Canada V7M 1A5.
Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural
Pesticides, summary of provisions (cites pages and sections
from 40 CFR Part 170).
The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural
PesticidesþHow to Comply: What Employers Need to Know.
July 1993, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (H7506C), EPA
735-B-93-001.
APPENDIX
Table II. Reference Guide to P.A. 171 and Related
Pesticide Management Practices
Standard P.A. 171 Reg. Rule No.
(Section)
Integrated pest mgnt
App. methods Sec. 12,13b,13c,15 Reg. 637 4, 10
Environmental
protection Sec. 12, 23 Reg. 637 4
Notification requirements Prior notification of pesticide applications Reg. 637 5, 16
Pesticide certification Certification Sec. 12, 13 Reg. 636 3,4,5,6 Labelling Sec. 23 Registered applicators Sec. 13b Reg. 636 8,9,10 Restricted use pesticides Reg. 633
Pesticide mixing
& loading Sec. 23 Reg. 637 6
Pesticide/fertilizer storage & containment Storage & containment methods Sec. 23 Washing and rinsing operations Reg. 637 7
Pesticide/hazardous material disposal Disposal of pesticide containers Reg. 637 8
Pesticide/hazardous material transportation Sec. 23
Recordkeeping Recordkeeping and reporting Reg. 636 15
Worker protection Personal protective equipment Reg. 637 9
Pesticide Control Act of 1976; Act No. 171, Public Acts of 1976, as amended; December 1988, Regulation 633, Pesticide Control Act; January 1985, Regulation 636, Pesticide Control Act; August 1991, Regulation 637, Pesticide Control Act; October 1992, Michigan Department of Agriculture.
Table III. Reference Guide to Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices
Generally accepted agricultural and management practices (GAAMP) Category Page No. Location and isolation area Infiltration areas Manure 3 Pastures Manure 3
Runoff control & wastewater mgnt Manure 2 Runoff storage ponds Manure 2 Irrigation practices Nutrient 12
Nutrient management Fertilizer recommendations Nutrient 5 Nitrogen management Nutrient 7 Nutrient and waste mgnt Nutrient 2 Phosphorus management Nutrient 9 Soil and tissue testing Nutrient 4
Integrated pest management Application methods Pesticide 5 Environmental protection Pesticide 10 Formulations Pesticide 5, 7
Pesticide certification Certification Pesticide 5 Labelling Pesticide 3
Pesticide/fertilizer storage and containment Storage & containment methods Pesticide 13
Pesticide/hazardous material disposal Disposal of pest. containers Pesticide 12
Pesticide mixing and loading Pesticide 11 Record keeping and reporting Pesticide 12 Worker protection Pesticide 9
Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices for Pesticides, Nutrients, and Manure Management and Utilization, January-June 1993, Michigan Commission of Agriculture, Michigan Department of Agriculture.
Table IV. Reference Guide to CWA agricultural best management practices.
BMP PAGE NO. Diversions & dikes Diversions 122 Filter strips & field borders Filter strips 97 Groundwater protection in karst terrain 60 Highly erodible land Severely eroded areas 47 Integrated crop management 65 Agricultural waste storage systems 113 Crop residue management 53 Hay-land 27 Integrated pest management Application methods 75 Environmental protection 68 Formulations 74 Irrigation practices Irrigation management 106 Livestock management Livestock in farm woodlots 146 Location & isolation area Abandoned wells 150 Pastures Pastures 32 Pesticide/fertilizer storage & containment Storage and containment facilities 78 Storage and containment methods 81 Recordkeeping and reporting 67 Sediment control structures Water and sediment control structures 130 Stripcropping 40 Wetlands management Wetlands 86 Woodlands management Farm woodlands 135 Streamside woodlands 140
Agricultural Best Management Practices Manual for Michigan's Nonpoint Source Pollution Program (DRAFT 2) Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division, Non-point Source Unit.
Table V. Reference Guide to SCS Conservation Practices.
SCS CONSERVATION PRACTICES CONSERVATION PRACTICE
NUMBER
Aquaculture
Commercial fish ponds 397
Fish raceways 398
Fish stream improvement 395
Fish pond management 399
Contour cropping
Contour farming 330
Contour orchard and other fruit area 331
Cover crops
Conservation cropping sequence 328
Conservation cover 327
Cover and green manure crop 340
Diversions & dikes
Dikes 356
Diversions 362
Field drainage
Bedding 310
Regulating water in drainage systems 554
Subsurface drain 606
Surface drainage, field 607
Surface drainage, main or lateral 608
Toxic salt reduction 610
Underground outlet 620
Filter strips & field borders
Field border 386
Filter strips 393
Vegetative barriers (no number)
Highly erodible land
Critical area planting 342
Land clearing 460
Spoil spreading 572
Integrated crop management
Crop residue management 344
Grasses & legumes in rotation 411
Hay-land 510,512
Mulching 484
Integrated pest management
Pest management 595
Irrigation practices
Irrigation pipelines 430-DD & EE
Irrigation pit 552-A
Irrigation storage reservoir 436
Irrigation system- sprinkler 442
Irrigation system-trickle 441
Irrigation water management 449
Pumping plant for water control 533
Livestock management
Livestock exclusion 472
Planned grazing system 556
Trough or tank 614
Manure handling & storage
Ag. Waste storage systems 425, 313
Manure application methods 633
Manure storage 425, 313
Manure treatment systems 359
Nutrient management
Nutrient and waste management 590, 312
Pastures
Pastures 510,512
Pesticide/fertilizer storage & containment
Pesticide containment facility 998
Pesticide/hazardous material storage & handling
Waste management system 312
Waste storage pond 425
Waste storage structure 313
Waste treatment lagoon 359
Runoff control & wastewater management
Roof runoff management 558
Runoff control and wastewater management
356,362,558
Sediment control structures
Grade stabilization structure 410
Sediment basin 350
Water and sediment control structures 638
Stripcropping
Stripcropping 585,586,589
Tillage
Chiseling and subsoiling 324
Conservation tillage 329
Obstruction removal 500
Terrace 600
Waterways
Grassed waterway or outlet 412
Lined waterway 468
Open channel 582
Pond 378
Pond sealing 521 A-E
Spring development 574
Streambank and shoreline protection 580
Structure for water control 587
Wellhead protection
Wellhead protection in karst terrain
Wells 642
Wetlands management
Wetland improvement & restoration 657
Wildlife wetland habitat management 644
Windbreaks
Farmstead & feedlot windbreak 380
Field windbreak 392
Hedgerow planting 422
Windbreak renovation 650
Woodlands management
Tree planting 612
Woodland improved harvesting 654
Woodland improvement 666
Woodland site preparation 490
SCS Field Office Technical Guide Section IV, statewide: Conservation Practice Standards and Specifications.
Table VI. Reference Guide to ASCS Conservation
Practices and References.
ASCS PRACTICES ASCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE
REFERENCE
Cover crops
Conservation cover SL1 & SL2, pp. 9, 13
Cropland protection cover SL8, P. 33
Diversions & dikes
Diversions SL5, P. 23
Highly erodible land
Critical area planting SL11, P. 39
Integrated crop management
Integrated crop management SP53, P. 85
Source reduction of agricultural pollutants
WQP1, P. 99 (demo)
Irrigation practices See specific practices
Livestock management
Grazing land protection SL6, P. 25
Manure handling & storage
Agricultural waste storage systems
WP4, P. 57
Pastures
Permanent vegetative cover establishment
SL1, p. 9
Permanent vegetative cover improvement
SL2, p. 13
Pesticide/fertilizer storage & containment
Storage and containment facilities
SP55, P. 95
Riparian buffers WP7, P. 61
Stripcropping SL3, P. 17
Tillage
No-till systems SL15, p. 47
Reduced-tillage systems SL14, P. 43
Terrace SL4, P. 21
Water and sediment control structures
WP1, P. 51
Water control structure WP1, P. 51
Waterways
Streambank and shoreline protection
WP2, P. 53
Wetlands management
Shallow water area for wildlife WL2, P. 81
Windbreaks
Farmstead & feedlot windbreak SL9, P. 35
Field windbreak SL7, P. 29
Vegetative barriers SL12, P. 41
Woodlands management
Permanent wildlife habitat WL1, P. 79
Site preparation for natural regeneration
FR3, P. 75
Tree planting FR1, P. 67
Woodland improvement FR2, P. 71
Michigan Agricultural Conservation Program, State Program Handbook, Short Reference, 7 June 1993, 1-MI(ACP) (Rev.4), USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Michigan state ASCS office, East Lansing, Michigan.
Table VII. Reference Guide to Michigan Farm-A-Syst Materials.
FARM-A-SYST PRACTICES FACT SHEET/WORKSHEET NO. Manure handling and storage Manure storage 7 Pesticide/fertilizer storage and containment Fertilizer storage 3 Mixing and loading 2 Storage and containment methods 2 Pesticide/hazardous materials storage and handling Hazardous waste management 5 Petroleum storage Petroleum product storage 4 Runoff control and wastewater management Household wastewater treatment 6 Livestock yards management 8 Milkhouse wastewater treatment 10 Wellhead location and isolation areas Drinking water well condition 1 Silage storage 9
Michigan Farmstead Assessment System, developed from similar materials for Wisconsin and Minnesota, with help from EPA Region V; MSU Extension, SCS.
Table VIII. Reference Guide to Food Security Act Conservation Rules MANAGEMENT PRACTICES & DEFINITIONS SECTION NO. Highly erodible land Conservation plans and systems Sec. 12.5(a) Definition of HEL Sec. 12.21, 12.22 Exemptions Sec. 12.23 Penalties for non-compliance Sec. 12.4 Wetlands management Conversion or drainage Sec. 12.32 Definition of wetlands Sec. 12.31 Exemptions and exclusions Sec. 12.5(b) Mitigation, by restoring other Sec. 12.5(b)(6) Penalties for non-compliance Sec. 12.4 Wetlands improvement & restoration Sec. 12.5(b)(6)
Conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, 527.5 7 CFR, Part 12, Final Rule, August 1993, Office of the Secretary, USDA (180-V-NFSAM, 3rd ed., August 12, 1993).
Table IX. Reference Guide to Worker Protection Standards. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PAGE NO. Worker protection Application and entry restrictions 3,4 Decontamination 2 Exemptions 1 Information and notice displays 2, 4 Personal protective equipment 4-6 Worker training 3, 5
Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides, summary of provisions (cites pages and sections from 40 CFR Part 170). "See also" The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural PesticidesþHow to Comply: What Employers Need to Know, July 1993, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (H7506C), EPA 735-B-93-001.
Table X. Reference Guide to SARA Title III
Requirements.
SARA TITLE III REQUIREMENTS PAGE No.
Notification requirements
Partial list, common Michigan agricultural extremely
hazardous substances 11-13
Facility notification 5
Emergency notification 5
SARA Title III: The Farmer's Responsibilities Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Law. Michigan State University Extension bulletin E-2173.
Table XI. Reference Guide to Michigan Right-to-Know Law. MIOSHA Right-to-Know Standards PAGE NO. and SECTION Emergency planning Emergency notification p. 2; Sec. 11, Sec. 14a, 14f Notification requirements Right-to-Know p. 4; Sec. 14f Worker protection p. 2; Sec. 11, 14a, 14f
Michigan Right-to-Know Law Amendments, April 1986, Michigan departments of Labor and Public Health.
Table XII. Reference Guide to Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act Rules.
SUBJECT RULE NO.
Location and isolation area Rules 807-812
Pesticide/fertilizer storage and containment facilities
Rules 808, 812
Runoff control and wastewater management
Rules 808, 812
Rules of the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act (Public Act 399 of 1976).
Rule 204 states that waste pesticides and pesticide containers generated by a farmer are subject to regulation as hazardous wastes unless they are disposed of properly.
Note: Pesticide storage and handling are governed by the Pesticide Control Act, Act 171 of the Public Acts of 1976, as amended, and its regulations.